<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Oct 16 2004, 07:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Oct 16 2004, 07:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No, Legionnaired, I meant it quite the other way around: If a foetus has legal rights, then every living being should have the same rights. If I show a layperson a picture of a just-fertilized egg and a picture of an amoeba, then ask him to tell which is which, chances are he can only guess. And the amoeba has the POTENTIAL to develop into a sentient being too, it'll just take it several billion years instead of nine months, and the potential is substantially smaller. But the potential is there. But a society where every living being has the same rights is impossible to live in. Imagine if killing an ant was murder, punishable by years of inprisonment. It'd be absurd. You can't avoid stepping on ants. Or spiders. Or accidentally swallowing a fly with your drink (which is in the process of drowning, yet not dead). You can't give every living being the same concern. If I can place my desire for a tasty steak over the life of a young cow, it'd be hypocritical of me to place the well-being of a grown-up human over the life of a small foetus. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not really.
It's not hypocritical at all. In fact, it makes no sense why you are trying to compare human to animal. I don't believe in animal right at all beside those of endangered species.
I have a pet dog because he's cute, entertain me, keeps me companion, not because he's another living being. I don't have any hesitation in killing animals.
Killing another human being, on another hand, just go beyond my value. I'm not a religious man, but I have a background in Budhism, Taoism, Christianity. I find it hard to justify the killing of another innocent individual with a complete set of human DNA.
lolfighter, you're trying to carry your argument ad asburdum. Meaning, you will take our belief that a fetus is not worth killing to mean that other animal life forms also are not worth killing since animals are greater in importance than fetuses.
That's where the flaw is. A young human being would not be slaughtered in the place of say.. a cow or a chimp.
And also, an amoeba has a zero percent chance of turning into a human baby. If we're talking about evolution, then perhaps millions of generations later, we could develop sentient life resembling human beings. And even then, I don't think I would pick a sentient life baby over a human being baby.
I'll admit my argumentation was flawed. I should have taken more time to concoct a somewhat more coherent argumentation. What it boils down to is this: I do not believe that humans are sacred beings, incomparable to other animals. Yes, OTHER animals. I do not see any evidence as to why we should not be animals. The only things we do not have in common with animals are opposable thumbs and a higher level of intelligence. That our laws do not extend to other animals only makes sense: Advanced lifeforms can only survive at the expense of less advanced lifeforms, be those animals or plants. We place ourselves before those weaker than us. This is normal, this is natural. But the logical conclusion, then, is that the mother is more important than the foetus: After all, she is far more advanced. And if I can sacrifice the life of a cow for something as mundane as eating a tasty dish instead of just bread, how can't I sacrifice a foetus to significantly enhance (or rather avoid deterioration of) the life of a young mother who is not prepared for getting a child yet?
I believe I've said everything I can. I'm not bringing up new points anymore, just clarifying my stance. I believe that I've done what I can to explain my point of view. If you understand, but do not agree with my point of view, then we quite simply don't agree. If you do not understand my point of view, I feel that there is nothing I can do to explain it anymore. Any further posts by me would just be the same content in a different wrapper. So I'll withdraw from the discussion for now, and watch from the sidelines. If I feel I can contribute with something new, I will. Thank you all for taking the time to read and reply.
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Oct 16 2004, 11:35 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Oct 16 2004, 11:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'll admit my argumentation was flawed. I should have taken more time to concoct a somewhat more coherent argumentation. What it boils down to is this: I do not believe that humans are sacred beings, incomparable to other animals. Yes, OTHER animals. I do not see any evidence as to why we should not be animals. The only things we do not have in common with animals are opposable thumbs and a higher level of intelligence. That our laws do not extend to other animals only makes sense: Advanced lifeforms can only survive at the expense of less advanced lifeforms, be those animals or plants. We place ourselves before those weaker than us. This is normal, this is natural. But the logical conclusion, then, is that the mother is more important than the foetus: After all, she is far more advanced. And if I can sacrifice the life of a cow for something as mundane as eating a tasty dish instead of just bread, how can't I sacrifice a foetus to significantly enhance (or rather avoid deterioration of) the life of a young mother who is not prepared for getting a child yet?
I believe I've said everything I can. I'm not bringing up new points anymore, just clarifying my stance. I believe that I've done what I can to explain my point of view. If you understand, but do not agree with my point of view, then we quite simply don't agree. If you do not understand my point of view, I feel that there is nothing I can do to explain it anymore. Any further posts by me would just be the same content in a different wrapper. So I'll withdraw from the discussion for now, and watch from the sidelines. If I feel I can contribute with something new, I will. Thank you all for taking the time to read and reply. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I disagree. Your argument doesn't follow - though I can understand your reasoning - because the fetus <i>is</i> just as advanced as the mother because they are of the same species. I would certainly agree that the fetus is not nearly as developed, but it is just as advanced. Less advanced is different from less developed; your argument is illogical. Following along the species-oriented line you've developed, the logical conclusion is that the fetus is <b>more</b> important than the mother: the point of the mother is to have young and continue the species. If the mother instead kills her baby, that is a detriment to the species.
There is also the question of motivation to consider. We kill a cow to feed ourselves, its death serves a purpose. An abortion serves (extreme cases aside for the moment) no purpose other than convenience. We don't abort babies to eat the fetuses, (though they are tasty <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) rather, we get rid of them because we simply don't want them, for whatever reason.
Lolfighter, make no mistake, I appreciate your responses. If everybody had the same opinion as me, I firmly believe this world would be going to hell, because I don't have all the answers for everything. I'll openly admit I am wrong about many things, and even more ignorant to the workings of the universe as much as I try to understand it. I encourage you not to withdraw from the discussion, but just further understand why you believe what you do in order to explain it to us better.
As your argument stands now, I would have to say I disagree, however. You wrote:<!--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-->We place ourselves before those weaker than us. This is normal, this is natural. But the logical conclusion, then, is that the mother is more important than the foetus: After all, she is far more advanced. And if I can sacrifice the life of a cow for something as mundane as eating a tasty dish instead of just bread, how can't I sacrifice a foetus to significantly enhance (or rather avoid deterioration of) the life of a young mother who is not prepared for getting a child yet?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you interpretted it to mean that way, however what at least I meant was to say that we feel this way regarding species. The human species is superior to other species. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say a person with a heart murmur should be put lower than a man without a heart murmur or in your particular example the mother over the fetus.
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Oct 16 2004, 01:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Oct 16 2004, 01:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Marine01, check the content of my post and you might view my statement in a much different light.
(sarcasm is easily lost on the internet) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Dont try and back out now yah dirty left wing hippy!!!! /shakes fist
Fair enough didnt read that one all the way through <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--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-->We don't abort babies to eat the fetuses, (though they are tasty wink-fix.gif )<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortedBabiesSoldAsHealthFood.htm' target='_blank'>Dont go to Hong Kong</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-->No one could accuse The Chinese of being squeamish about the things they eat - monkeys' brains, owls' eyes, bears' paws and deep fried scorpions are all items on The menu. But most dishes revered as national favorites sound as harmless as boiled rice when compared to the latest pint de jour allegedly gaining favor in Shenzhen - human fetus.
Rumors that dead embryos were being used as dietary supplements started to spread early last year with reports that some doctors in Shenzhen hospitals were eating dead fetuses after carrying out abortions. The doctors allegedly defended their actions by saying the embryos were good for their skin and general health.
A trend was set and soon reports circulated that doctors in the city were promoting fetuses as a human tonic. Hospital cleaning women were seen fighting each other to take the treasured human remains home. Last month, reporters from EastWeek - a sister publication of Eastern Express - went to Shenzhen to see if the rumors could be substantiated. On March 7, a reporter entered the state-run Shenzhen Heath Center for Women and Children feigning illness and asked a female doctor for a fetus. The doctor said the department was out of stock but to come again.
The next day the reporter returned at lunch time. The doctor eventually emerged from the operating theatre holding a fist size glass bottle stuffed with thumbsized fetuses.
She said: "There are 10 fetuses here, all aborted this morning. You can take them. We are a state hospital and don't charge anything.
"Normally, we doctors take them home to eat - all free. Since you don't look well, you can take them."
Not every state hospital is as generous with its dead embryos as the Health Center for Women and Children. At the Shenzhen People's Hospital, for example, the reporter was in for a surprise.
When a Ms. Yang, the head nurse, was asked for fetuses, she looked anxious and asked other staff to leave. After closing the door, she asked the undercover buyer in a low voice: "Where did you (get to) know that we sell fetuses?"
The reporter answered: "A doctor friend in Hong Kong told me."
"Who? What is his/her name?" The reporter was not prepared for this line of questioning and could not come up with a name. Yang told him that fetuses were only for sale within the hospital, and were not for public purchase. She added that some staff would, however, sell the fetuses on to Hong Kong buyers.
The reporter learned that the going rate for a fetus was $10 but when the merchandise was in short supply, the price could go up to $20. But these prices are pin money compared to those set by private clinics, which are said to make a fortune selling fetuses. One chap on Bong Men Lao Street charges $300 for one fetus. The person in charge of the clinic is a man in his 60's. When he saw the ailing reporter, he offered to take an order for fetuses that had reached full-term and which, it is claimed, contain the best healing properties. When a female doctor named Yang - no relation - of Sin Hua clinic was asked whether fetuses were edible, she said emphatically: "Of course they are. They are even better than placentas.
"They can make your skin smoother, your body stronger and are good for kidneys. When I was in an army hospital in Jiangti province, I often brought fetuses home. They were pink, like little mice, with hands and feet. Normally, I buy some pork to make soup (with the fetuses added). I know they are human beings, and (eating them) feels disgusting. But at that time, it was already very popular."
A Mr. Cheng from Hong Kong claims he has been eating fetus soup for more than six months. To begin, the man, in his 40's, would make the trip to Shenzhen frequently for business and was introduced to fetuses by friends. He says he met a number of professors and doctors in government hospitals who helped him buy the fetuses. "At first, I felt uncomfortable, but doctors said the substances in fetuses could help cure my asthma. I started taking them and gradually, the asthma disappeared," Cheng said.
Now, Cheng only eats fetuses occasionally to top up his treatment, but there was a time when he made regular cross border trips with the gruesome merchandise. "Everytime [I made the trip], I carried a Thermos flask to Shenzhen and brought the fetuses back to Hong Kong to make soup. If they gave me 20 or 30 at a time, I put them in the refrigerator. I didn't have the soup every day - it depended on the supply.
"Usually, I washed the fetuses clean, and added ginger, orange peel and pork to make soup. After taking it for a while, I felt a lot better and my asthma disappeared. I used to take placenta, but it was not so helpful." When asked if he was concerned about the fetuses containing diseases, Cheng was dismissive. "I bought them from government hospitals. They would check the pregnant women before doing the operations and only sell them to me if there was no problem. Also, I always boil them over high heat which kills any bacteria." Although Cheng has overcome any squeamishness over eating fetus soup, he says he draw the line at consuming whole dead embryos. He also refrains from telling people of his grisly dietary habits.
Zou Qin, 32, a woman from Hubei with the fine skin of a someone several years younger, attributes her well preserved looks to a diet of fetuses. As a doctor at the Lun Hu Clinic, Zou has carried out abortions on several hundred patients. She believes fetuses are highly nutritious and claims to have eaten more than 100 in the past six months. She pulls out a fetus specimen before a reporter and explains the selection criteria. "People normally prefer (fetuses of) young women, and even better, the first baby and a male." She adds: "They are wasted if we don't eat them. The women who receive abortions here don't want the fetuses. Also, the fetuses are already dead [when we eat them]. We don't carry out abortions just to eat the fetuses.
"Before, my sister's children were very weak. I heard that fetuses were good for your health and started taking some to my nephews," Zou says, without remorse. "I wash them with clear water until they look transparent white and then stew them. Making soup is best." But she admits there are drawbacks to this dubious delicacy. "Fetuses are very smelly and not everybody can take the stink," she said. "You can also make meat cakes by mixing fetuses with minced meat but you have to add more ginger and chives to get rid of the smell."
Hong Kong legislator Dr. Tan Siu-tong is surprised that it could be within anyone's capability to overcome the stench of a dead fetus, even if their stomachs are lined with lead. "When all the placental tissue is dead, the smell is awful and is enough to make you feel sick. It is like having a dead mouse in the house," he said.
The fetuses allegedly eaten by the Chinese are all provided by China's extensive abortion services. Last year, doctors in the People's Hospital - the biggest hospital in Shenzhen - carried out more than 7,000 terminations, 509 on Hong Kong women. The Hong Kong Family Planning Association (FPA) estimates that 24 per cent of all abortions on Hong Kong women are performed in the dubious surroundings of a Chinese hospital. A Ms. Li from Hong Kong has had two abortions in Shenzhen but has never heard of people eating fetuses. "But I didn't want the babies, so after the abortions, I just left them with the hospital," she says. "I didn't want to look at them, and I certainly didn't want to keep them. Fetuses of two or three months are just water and blood when they come out. They are so small, how can you eat them?"
Doctors in the territory have responded with disgust and incredulity to stories of people supplementing their diets with fetuses. Many have read articles of fetal cannibalism but none has been able to verify the reports. They are treating the issue with skepticism. Dr. Margaret Kwan, a gynecologist who until two weeks ago held the post of chief executive at the FPA, says: "This is the strangest thing I have ever heard coming out of China. I just hope it is not true."
Dr. Warren Lee, president of the Hong Kong Nutrition Association, is aware of the unsavory rumors. "Eating fetuses is a kind of traditional Chinese medicine and is deeply founded in Chinese folklore. In terms of nutrition, a fetus would be a good source of protein and fats, and there are minerals in bone. But I don't know if eating fetuses is just folklore or more than that," he says. According to Lee, it is conceivable that fetuses are rich in certain hormones that are beneficial to the adult human body, but should this be the case, the fetal matter would have to be converted into an indictable form for best results, as most hormones including the hormone for diabetes, insulin - are broken down in the digestive system before they have a chance to be absorbed by the body.
But Lee suggests that anyone who eats a fetus would be seeking a remedy that is far more elusive than a hormone or mineral. "Some people may think there is also an unidentified substance or chemical that has healing powers, but there is no evidence that this is true." Lee urges people to be wary - "There are people out there who just want to make money and they will come up with all sorts of formulas or substances, which, they say will cure diseases."
As a child, Patrick Yau was fed on human placentas by his mother who worked at a local hospital, but in his current position as a psychologist with the Social Welfare Department he is both repulsed and shocked by the notion of eating fetuses. "As a Catholic, I object to abortions because I believe the fetus is a human life, and I certainly object to eating a dead baby after it has been aborted," he says. Yau concedes that in China, where the one child policy has turned abortions into an acceptable remedy to an unfortunate human blunder, people may have adopted a new outlook on life before birth, such that embryos are stripped of their status as human beings.
But Tang fails to understand how anyone anywhere can convince themselves "that they are just eating an organism when they are actually eating a dead body". "It may not be a formed human being, but when they think about it most people would think: 'Ugh! No, I can't eat that.' I don't think civilized people with an education could do that sort of thing."
Dr. Wong, a Hong Kong doctor who practices Western medicine, thinks only the ignorant would eat human fetuses. He explains that fetuses contain mucoploysaccharide, which is beneficial to the metabolism, but states that it can be found in a lot of other food - Chinese doctor Chu Ho-Ting agrees that there is no place for fetuses in medicine, and suggests that it might even be unhealthy if the pregnant woman was infected by disease.
"Most bacteria can be killed under 100 degree heat but some require 400 degrees. Some people believe eating fetuses can strengthen the immunity of the human body against diseases, but this is wrong. Although fetuses contain protein, they are not as nutritious as placenta, which contains different kinds of nutrients. But even placenta has to be taken with other Chinese herbs."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-(e)kent+Oct 17 2004, 09:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ((e)kent @ Oct 17 2004, 09:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Worst. Hearsay. Evar. <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They dont pretend its anything more - I'm trying to see if there is anything that denies it on google.
Well well well, snopes to the rescue - guess that's not a true story after all:
<!--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-->The rumor about the Chinese eating dead babies did not begin with this "work of art," however. In 1995, U.S. Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia raised a short-lived media ruckus by asserting he'd encountered credible reports of Chinese hospitals' selling human fetuses to be used as health food. Citing a 12 April 1995 article from Eastern Express, an English-language daily in Hong Kong, he demanded the Clinton administration and international human rights groups investigate these allegations.
Nothing apparently came of this call to arms, leading us to believe those "credible" reports turned out to be not so reliable after all. Just like this latest scare, in fact. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Deus Ex Machina+Oct 17 2004, 10:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Deus Ex Machina @ Oct 17 2004, 10:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What was the point of posting that article? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> When someone mentioned eating fetus's, I thought "never underestimate human depravity", so I googled it. That's what I got back - but snopes doesnt think its credible. Sorry Wheeee <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Apparently they do eat the afterbirth/placenta - but dont go so far as fetus eating.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Oct 16 2004, 05:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Oct 16 2004, 05:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Deus Ex Machina+Oct 17 2004, 10:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Deus Ex Machina @ Oct 17 2004, 10:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What was the point of posting that article? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> When someone mentioned eating fetus's, I thought "never underestimate human depravity", so I googled it. That's what I got back - but snopes doesnt think its credible. Sorry Wheeee <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I wasn't being sarcastic <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I've read most of this discusion and found most of it very interesting, but I'm still going to stick to what I've always thought, not that it matters as its not my choice to decide what is right and wrong in a society. Its the society's as a whole's decision and when the whole society can't agree, you have to go on the majority.
I also think alot of you are mis-using words
<!--QuoteBegin-dictionary.com+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dictionary.com)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr) n. The <i>unlawful</i> killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note unlawful, that means where it is against the law, therefore anywhere where abortion is legal, where pro-life campainer do all there campaining, it isn't, as such, illegal therefore isn't unlawful.
Also on another issue raised here, as far as I am aware, humans (aswell as dolphins IIRC) have sex for more than one reason. Obviously one is to reproduce but the other is for recreational purposes. Sex doesn't feel good so we will enjoy making babies. Sex is well known to reduce stress and increase an individuals happiness. Furthermore sex is a way of expressing love for another.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Oct 16 2004, 05:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Oct 16 2004, 05:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Deus Ex Machina+Oct 17 2004, 10:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Deus Ex Machina @ Oct 17 2004, 10:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What was the point of posting that article? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> When someone mentioned eating fetus's, I thought "never underestimate human depravity", so I googled it. That's what I got back - but snopes doesnt think its credible. Sorry Wheeee <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Apparently they do eat the afterbirth/placenta - but dont go so far as fetus eating. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> the thought still makes me retch. thanks a ton marine.
For the people saying that other, somewhat intelligent animals, such as gorillas and dolphins are somewhat justifyable to kill but fetii/fetuses(whoever you're supposed to spell it) are never justifyable to kill as they are potential lives and would as grown up humans be much more intelligent than any other species, and that it would therefore be murder to kill them now(before they are sentient).
Where do you draw the line here? Sperms and egg cells are potential human beings, wouldn't that make not having as many babies as possible equivalent with murder? By not having them you are killing them, sperms don't live for long, an unfertilized egg is flushed out on a monthly basis. And if we had as many babies as we possibly could, where does that lead? Famine, food shortages(much <3 @ Norman Borlaug BTW. You know that guy who has saved(allthough estimates vary) around a billion people from starvation and is the only agronomist who has ever won the nobel peace price?), crampt living, less enjoyment all round for everyone and more work to sustain everyone on an ever smaller area and deforestation. What you would be advocating if you wanted to see people to have as many babies as possible is death and missery. Somewhere you have to draw the line, where you do so is allmost arbitrary. It's not a black and white issue and no amount of pretending will make it a black and white issue.
If you haven't guessed my stance it's pro-sentient-life and anti-human-missery.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kester+Oct 16 2004, 09:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kester @ Oct 16 2004, 09:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I've read most of this discusion and found most of it very interesting, but I'm still going to stick to what I've always thought, not that it matters as its not my choice to decide what is right and wrong in a society. Its the society's as a whole's decision and when the whole society can't agree, you have to go on the majority.
I also think alot of you are mis-using words
<!--QuoteBegin-dictionary.com+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dictionary.com)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr) n. The <i>unlawful</i> killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note unlawful, that means where it is against the law, therefore anywhere where abortion is legal, where pro-life campainer do all there campaining, it isn't, as such, illegal therefore isn't unlawful.
Also on another issue raised here, as far as I am aware, humans (aswell as dolphins IIRC) have sex for more than one reason. Obviously one is to reproduce but the other is for recreational purposes. Sex doesn't feel good so we will enjoy making babies. Sex is well known to reduce stress and increase an individuals happiness. Furthermore sex is a way of expressing love for another. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Whether killing fetuses should be <i><b>lawful</b></i> or not is the issue entirely. We cannot assume you to be correct just so that you can point out it is murder.
It's like saying "let me assume for a second that angels and heaven and hell all exist. If that's true, then god exists, therefore I've proven he exists." You can't assume anything about your argument that is part of the solution. Called circular logic. We don't know if it is "murder" or not. The outcome of the argument is dependent upon it being murder or not and vice versa.
As for the other statement, well I won't even consider that as a valid argument. Having abortions for the sake of being able to have sex and not have children is quite terribble and selfish. Doesn't merit a good enough reason to me. You might as well say it is okay to abort fetuses because the delicious taste they have when fried on the grill.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Oct 17 2004, 03:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 17 2004, 03:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> We don't know if it is "murder" or not. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh yes we do. As he said , when abortion is legal it's not a murder , when it's not illegal then it is.
Muder is a matter of perspective. In certain countries , killing your agressor in self defense is still murder. In any dictatorship , you can be lawfully executed for disagreeing with the enforced ideology - therefore not murdered. That definition of murder has nothing to do with morals. Sorry to be nitpicky...
The question of abortion is : is it morally wrong to kill an unborn baby on the mother's behalf. <!--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--> Having abortions for the sake of being able to have sex and not have children is quite terribble and selfish.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Does "empathy" mean anything to you ? It's easy to say that when you can have sex with any number of women with no consequences whatsoever (except maybe temporary guilt after you dump them) , while women are directly affected by contraception failures. It is very important for the mother-child relationship that the child is actually desired. Though I'm an illegitimate child , the fact that I was desired by the both of my parents made my childhood enjoyable. If that weren't the case... I'm not sure I would be alive to post here. Abortion is in many ways similar to euthanasy. It's a mother's right to prevent her child's suffering. Our children's quality of life should not be determined by petty debates.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Oct 17 2004, 03:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 17 2004, 03:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Kester+Oct 16 2004, 09:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kester @ Oct 16 2004, 09:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I've read most of this discusion and found most of it very interesting, but I'm still going to stick to what I've always thought, not that it matters as its not my choice to decide what is right and wrong in a society. Its the society's as a whole's decision and when the whole society can't agree, you have to go on the majority.
I also think alot of you are mis-using words
<!--QuoteBegin-dictionary.com+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dictionary.com)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr) n. The <i>unlawful</i> killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note unlawful, that means where it is against the law, therefore anywhere where abortion is legal, where pro-life campainer do all there campaining, it isn't, as such, illegal therefore isn't unlawful.
Also on another issue raised here, as far as I am aware, humans (aswell as dolphins IIRC) have sex for more than one reason. Obviously one is to reproduce but the other is for recreational purposes. Sex doesn't feel good so we will enjoy making babies. Sex is well known to reduce stress and increase an individuals happiness. Furthermore sex is a way of expressing love for another. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Whether killing fetuses should be <i><b>lawful</b></i> or not is the issue entirely. We cannot assume you to be correct just so that you can point out it is murder.
It's like saying "let me assume for a second that angels and heaven and hell all exist. If that's true, then god exists, therefore I've proven he exists." You can't assume anything about your argument that is part of the solution. Called circular logic. We don't know if it is "murder" or not. The outcome of the argument is dependent upon it being murder or not and vice versa.
As for the other statement, well I won't even consider that as a valid argument. Having abortions for the sake of being able to have sex and not have children is quite terribble and selfish. Doesn't merit a good enough reason to me. You might as well say it is okay to abort fetuses because the delicious taste they have when fried on the grill.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you've read what i've said wrong. I haven't once said my stance on the situation, but mearly said that i think the use of the word murder is wrong, as abortion is legal therefore isn't unlawful. The fact if its morally right is a total different arguement i agree, but currently abortion is legal.
I also said that humans have sex for more than one purpose, as i'm pretty sure someone said the only reason for sex is to reproduce, where as, i've stated its not.
I'd like you not to jump to conclusions as what my stance is on this situation, if i haven't said anything about it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Soylent green+Oct 17 2004, 06:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Soylent green @ Oct 17 2004, 06:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> For the people saying that other, somewhat intelligent animals, such as gorillas and dolphins are somewhat justifyable to kill but fetii/fetuses(whoever you're supposed to spell it) are never justifyable to kill as they are potential lives and would as grown up humans be much more intelligent than any other species, and that it would therefore be murder to kill them now(before they are sentient).
Where do you draw the line here? Sperms and egg cells are potential human beings, wouldn't that make not having as many babies as possible equivalent with murder? By not having them you are killing them, sperms don't live for long, an unfertilized egg is flushed out on a monthly basis. And if we had as many babies as we possibly could, where does that lead? Famine, food shortages(much <3 @ Norman Borlaug BTW. You know that guy who has saved(allthough estimates vary) around a billion people from starvation and is the only agronomist who has ever won the nobel peace price?), crampt living, less enjoyment all round for everyone and more work to sustain everyone on an ever smaller area and deforestation. What you would be advocating if you wanted to see people to have as many babies as possible is death and missery. Somewhere you have to draw the line, where you do so is allmost arbitrary. It's not a black and white issue and no amount of pretending will make it a black and white issue.
If you haven't guessed my stance it's pro-sentient-life and anti-human-missery. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I thought my line is drawn pretty damn clear.
Same species, that's my line. When an egg and a sperm join to form a biologically unique single-cell organism with a complete set of human DNA. That's my other line.
<!--QuoteBegin-Stakhanov+Oct 17 2004, 09:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Oct 17 2004, 09:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Oct 17 2004, 03:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 17 2004, 03:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> We don't know if it is "murder" or not. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh yes we do. As he said , when abortion is legal it's not a murder , when it's not illegal then it is.
Muder is a matter of perspective. In certain countries , killing your agressor in self defense is still murder. In any dictatorship , you can be lawfully executed for disagreeing with the enforced ideology - therefore not murdered. That definition of murder has nothing to do with morals. Sorry to be nitpicky...
The question of abortion is : is it morally wrong to kill an unborn baby on the mother's behalf. <!--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--> Having abortions for the sake of being able to have sex and not have children is quite terribble and selfish.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Does "empathy" mean anything to you ? It's easy to say that when you can have sex with any number of women with no consequences whatsoever (except maybe temporary guilt after you dump them) , while women are directly affected by contraception failures. It is very important for the mother-child relationship that the child is actually desired. Though I'm an illegitimate child , the fact that I was desired by the both of my parents made my childhood enjoyable. If that weren't the case... I'm not sure I would be alive to post here. Abortion is in many ways similar to euthanasy. It's a mother's right to prevent her child's suffering. Our children's quality of life should not be determined by petty debates. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> um, not quite. a murder is a murder even if it's legal. a better definition of murder would be to kill someone without justification. That could mean legal, or moral, justification. We're not arguing whether it passes the legal justification route, because of course it does (and with the blessing of the state's dollars, no less). We're arguing whether it passes the second, and if it does not, whether the first should be changed to follow suit. After all, by your definition every single genocide ever would not be classified as murder, since they were sanctioned by the state they were committed by.
It's sad to see that people would turn a blind eye to what is equivalent to wiping out entire generations of people, all in the name of convenience.
<!--QuoteBegin-Stakhanov+Oct 17 2004, 03:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Oct 17 2004, 03:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Our children's quality of life should not be determined by petty debates. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I fully agree.
On another note raised. Many of you have said adoption is a plausalbe way to get around it. Are any of you adopted? Do any of you know the long term emotional damage that can be given to a child that has been adopted? Emotional damage that can lead to depression or even suicide.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Oct 17 2004, 05:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Oct 17 2004, 05:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's sad to see that people would turn a blind eye to what is equivalent to wiping out entire generations of people, all in the name of convenience. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Whats more sad is that you think that its the equivilent of wiping out "entire generations".
<!--QuoteBegin-Kester+Oct 17 2004, 12:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kester @ Oct 17 2004, 12:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Stakhanov+Oct 17 2004, 03:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Oct 17 2004, 03:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Our children's quality of life should not be determined by petty debates. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I fully agree.
On another note raised. Many of you have said adoption is a plausalbe way to get around it. Are any of you adopted? Do any of you know the long term emotional damage that can be given to a child that has been adopted? Emotional damage that can lead to depression or even suicide. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I totally agree. In fact, I propose a solution that would solve the world's hunger problems.
These fetuses... we let them be birthed. Now wait just a moment Hawkeye, you just said you agreed. I do agree in fact. Let me finish.
We let them be birthed, and instead of costing the mother resources to raise these children, we take them to a farm as a new form of food production. The cost would be minimal. We could pin them up and feed them hay. The parents of course get a percentage of the profits in order to not discourage this type of behavior.
The females could be hooked to pumps for breast milk for legitimate non-abortion babies that could be bought at the supermarket. When they get too old, they can be slaughtered and sold for meat.
The men would have to be castrated though, because otherwise they would reproduce in an uncontrolled fashion. Their meat would also be too hard to consume.
Since these "abortions" happen all the time, we're talking about millions of unaborted men, women, and children growing on farms providing millions of others with food.
There's the minor issue of "murder," but you don't have to worry about that seeing how they come from fetuses that were meant to be aborted anyway.
<!--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 thought my line is drawn pretty damn clear.
Same species, that's my line. When an egg and a sperm join to form a biologically unique single-cell organism with a complete set of human DNA. That's my other line.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes you did, what I'm fishing for is, why <i>there</i>, a reason, good, bad or otherwise. It's a subjective question and it's not going to be resolved, ever, all I hope to get out of arguing is why people feel the way they do.
I feel capabillity of pain and sentience should be far more important factors than the fact that it would become a baby if you just left it alone long enough.
To me it's just a clump of cells like any other until a few months have passed and I have trouble seeing why anyone would care about it more than they care about sperm or egg cells. It has a complete, unique DNA, so? It's an allmost random combination of it's parents's DNA, why is it so vital to keep this combination when we can get another pseudo random one at a later date when a child is actually wanted?
It's a human embryo, but it isn't somehow smarter or better than any other embryo until it is actually starting to become a baby.
It's a potential lifeform, but so are sperm and egg cells you just need to combine them under the right circumstances and there you go. Why is this step closer to an actual baby the vital step that makes it something inexuseable to get rid of, while some sperm or some eggcells aren't?
I have trouble seeing why the killing of an embryo that's a few months old outweighs the problems associated with an unwanted child. Having an abortion is not a nice experience, it is never going to be a replacement for birth controll, it's used as a back-up for people who make poor choices, and I can't see anything wrong with this.
Once again, Hawkeye, you've read what you wanted to read and not what it actually says. I said adoption isn't a plausable option, the same way I haven't agreed abortion is a plausable option.
Again, I'd like you not to jump to conclusions as what my stance is on this situation, just on the issues I am raising.
<!--QuoteBegin-Soylent green+Oct 17 2004, 02:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Soylent green @ Oct 17 2004, 02:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes you did, what I'm fishing for is, why <i>there</i>, a reason, good, bad or otherwise. It's a subjective question and it's not going to be resolved, ever, all I hope to get out of arguing is why people feel the way they do. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not going to argue with you why 1 + 1 = 2.
A human embryo is a human. I failed to see the basis for any debate.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dr.Suredeath+Oct 17 2004, 08:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dr.Suredeath @ Oct 17 2004, 08:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not going to argue with you why 1 + 1 = 2.
A human embryo is a human. I failed to see the basis for any debate. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You take it as obvious. But some of us see a human embryo as <i>potentially</i> human.
@Kester: I fail to see the sadness in my statement. I would like to see your reasons for disapproval. You would probably have condemned a lot of the baby massacres that happened before "civilized" humanitarianism, but you can't condemn killing the same babies before they are out of the womb?
@Stakhanov: That's a ridiculous argument, that's equivalent to saying that since cocaine is only "potentially" addictive, we can let whoever wants to take it totally screw themselves over.
The line is blurred because of the use of phrase "potential" humans. Surely all the eggs a woman carries are "potential" humans and all the sperm in a male are "potential" humans. The thing needed to be cleared up is when a "potential" human turns into a human.
And like, Stakhanov's comment shows, this is a very uncertain area, with some saying it is at the point of conception and others saying when <i>it</i> changes from an embryo into a fetus.
Comments
If I show a layperson a picture of a just-fertilized egg and a picture of an amoeba, then ask him to tell which is which, chances are he can only guess. And the amoeba has the POTENTIAL to develop into a sentient being too, it'll just take it several billion years instead of nine months, and the potential is substantially smaller. But the potential is there. But a society where every living being has the same rights is impossible to live in. Imagine if killing an ant was murder, punishable by years of inprisonment. It'd be absurd. You can't avoid stepping on ants. Or spiders. Or accidentally swallowing a fly with your drink (which is in the process of drowning, yet not dead). You can't give every living being the same concern. If I can place my desire for a tasty steak over the life of a young cow, it'd be hypocritical of me to place the well-being of a grown-up human over the life of a small foetus. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really.
It's not hypocritical at all.
In fact, it makes no sense why you are trying to compare human to animal.
I don't believe in animal right at all beside those of endangered species.
I have a pet dog because he's cute, entertain me, keeps me companion, not because he's another living being. I don't have any hesitation in killing animals.
Killing another human being, on another hand, just go beyond my value.
I'm not a religious man, but I have a background in Budhism, Taoism, Christianity. I find it hard to justify the killing of another innocent individual with a complete set of human DNA.
That's where the flaw is. A young human being would not be slaughtered in the place of say.. a cow or a chimp.
And also, an amoeba has a zero percent chance of turning into a human baby. If we're talking about evolution, then perhaps millions of generations later, we could develop sentient life resembling human beings. And even then, I don't think I would pick a sentient life baby over a human being baby.
I believe I've said everything I can. I'm not bringing up new points anymore, just clarifying my stance. I believe that I've done what I can to explain my point of view. If you understand, but do not agree with my point of view, then we quite simply don't agree. If you do not understand my point of view, I feel that there is nothing I can do to explain it anymore. Any further posts by me would just be the same content in a different wrapper. So I'll withdraw from the discussion for now, and watch from the sidelines. If I feel I can contribute with something new, I will.
Thank you all for taking the time to read and reply.
I believe I've said everything I can. I'm not bringing up new points anymore, just clarifying my stance. I believe that I've done what I can to explain my point of view. If you understand, but do not agree with my point of view, then we quite simply don't agree. If you do not understand my point of view, I feel that there is nothing I can do to explain it anymore. Any further posts by me would just be the same content in a different wrapper. So I'll withdraw from the discussion for now, and watch from the sidelines. If I feel I can contribute with something new, I will.
Thank you all for taking the time to read and reply. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree. Your argument doesn't follow - though I can understand your reasoning - because the fetus <i>is</i> just as advanced as the mother because they are of the same species. I would certainly agree that the fetus is not nearly as developed, but it is just as advanced. Less advanced is different from less developed; your argument is illogical. Following along the species-oriented line you've developed, the logical conclusion is that the fetus is <b>more</b> important than the mother: the point of the mother is to have young and continue the species. If the mother instead kills her baby, that is a detriment to the species.
There is also the question of motivation to consider. We kill a cow to feed ourselves, its death serves a purpose. An abortion serves (extreme cases aside for the moment) no purpose other than convenience. We don't abort babies to eat the fetuses, (though they are tasty <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) rather, we get rid of them because we simply don't want them, for whatever reason.
As your argument stands now, I would have to say I disagree, however. You wrote:<!--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-->We place ourselves before those weaker than us. This is normal, this is natural. But the logical conclusion, then, is that the mother is more important than the foetus: After all, she is far more advanced. And if I can sacrifice the life of a cow for something as mundane as eating a tasty dish instead of just bread, how can't I sacrifice a foetus to significantly enhance (or rather avoid deterioration of) the life of a young mother who is not prepared for getting a child yet?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you interpretted it to mean that way, however what at least I meant was to say that we feel this way regarding species. The human species is superior to other species. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say a person with a heart murmur should be put lower than a man without a heart murmur or in your particular example the mother over the fetus.
(sarcasm is easily lost on the internet) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dont try and back out now yah dirty left wing hippy!!!! /shakes fist
Fair enough didnt read that one all the way through <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--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-->We don't abort babies to eat the fetuses, (though they are tasty wink-fix.gif )<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortedBabiesSoldAsHealthFood.htm' target='_blank'>Dont go to Hong Kong</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-->No one could accuse The Chinese of being squeamish about the things they eat - monkeys' brains, owls' eyes, bears' paws and deep fried scorpions are all items on The menu. But most dishes revered as national favorites sound as harmless as boiled rice when compared to the latest pint de jour allegedly gaining favor in Shenzhen - human fetus.
Rumors that dead embryos were being used as dietary supplements started to spread early last year with reports that some doctors in Shenzhen hospitals were eating dead fetuses after carrying out abortions. The doctors allegedly defended their actions by saying the embryos were good for their skin and general health.
A trend was set and soon reports circulated that doctors in the city were promoting fetuses as a human tonic. Hospital cleaning women were seen fighting each other to take the treasured human remains home. Last month, reporters from EastWeek - a sister publication of Eastern Express - went to Shenzhen to see if the rumors could be substantiated. On March 7, a reporter entered the state-run Shenzhen Heath Center for Women and Children feigning illness and asked a female doctor for a fetus. The doctor said the department was out of stock but to come again.
The next day the reporter returned at lunch time. The doctor eventually emerged from the operating theatre holding a fist size glass bottle stuffed with thumbsized fetuses.
She said: "There are 10 fetuses here, all aborted this morning. You can take them. We are a state hospital and don't charge anything.
"Normally, we doctors take them home to eat - all free. Since you don't look well, you can take them."
Not every state hospital is as generous with its dead embryos as the Health Center for Women and Children. At the Shenzhen People's Hospital, for example, the reporter was in for a surprise.
When a Ms. Yang, the head nurse, was asked for fetuses, she looked anxious and asked other staff to leave. After closing the door, she asked the undercover buyer in a low voice: "Where did you (get to) know that we sell fetuses?"
The reporter answered: "A doctor friend in Hong Kong told me."
"Who? What is his/her name?"
The reporter was not prepared for this line of questioning and could not come up with a name. Yang told him that fetuses were only for sale within the hospital, and were not for public purchase. She added that some staff would, however, sell the fetuses on to Hong Kong buyers.
The reporter learned that the going rate for a fetus was $10 but when the merchandise was in short supply, the price could go up to $20. But these prices are pin money compared to those set by private clinics, which are said to make a fortune selling fetuses. One chap on Bong Men Lao Street charges $300 for one fetus. The person in charge of the clinic is a man in his 60's. When he saw the ailing reporter, he offered to take an order for fetuses that had reached full-term and which, it is claimed, contain the best healing properties. When a female doctor named Yang - no relation - of Sin Hua clinic was asked whether fetuses were edible, she said emphatically: "Of course they are. They are even better than placentas.
"They can make your skin smoother, your body stronger and are good for kidneys. When I was in an army hospital in Jiangti province, I often brought fetuses home. They were pink, like little mice, with hands and feet. Normally, I buy some pork to make soup (with the fetuses added). I know they are human beings, and (eating them) feels disgusting. But at that time, it was already very popular."
A Mr. Cheng from Hong Kong claims he has been eating fetus soup for more than six months. To begin, the man, in his 40's, would make the trip to Shenzhen frequently for business and was introduced to fetuses by friends. He says he met a number of professors and doctors in government hospitals who helped him buy the fetuses. "At first, I felt uncomfortable, but doctors said the substances in fetuses could help cure my asthma. I started taking them and gradually, the asthma disappeared," Cheng said.
Now, Cheng only eats fetuses occasionally to top up his treatment, but there was a time when he made regular cross border trips with the gruesome merchandise. "Everytime [I made the trip], I carried a Thermos flask to Shenzhen and brought the fetuses back to Hong Kong to make soup. If they gave me 20 or 30 at a time, I put them in the refrigerator. I didn't have the soup every day - it depended on the supply.
"Usually, I washed the fetuses clean, and added ginger, orange peel and pork to make soup. After taking it for a while, I felt a lot better and my asthma disappeared. I used to take placenta, but it was not so helpful." When asked if he was concerned about the fetuses containing diseases, Cheng was dismissive. "I bought them from government hospitals. They would check the pregnant women before doing the operations and only sell them to me if there was no problem. Also, I always boil them over high heat which kills any bacteria." Although Cheng has overcome any squeamishness over eating fetus soup, he says he draw the line at consuming whole dead embryos. He also refrains from telling people of his grisly dietary habits.
Zou Qin, 32, a woman from Hubei with the fine skin of a someone several years younger, attributes her well preserved looks to a diet of fetuses. As a doctor at the Lun Hu Clinic, Zou has carried out abortions on several hundred patients. She believes fetuses are highly nutritious and claims to have eaten more than 100 in the past six months. She pulls out a fetus specimen before a reporter and explains the selection criteria. "People normally prefer (fetuses of) young women, and even better, the first baby and a male." She adds: "They are wasted if we don't eat them. The women who receive abortions here don't want the fetuses. Also, the fetuses are already dead [when we eat them]. We don't carry out abortions just to eat the fetuses.
"Before, my sister's children were very weak. I heard that fetuses were good for your health and started taking some to my nephews," Zou says, without remorse. "I wash them with clear water until they look transparent white and then stew them. Making soup is best." But she admits there are drawbacks to this dubious delicacy. "Fetuses are very smelly and not everybody can take the stink," she said. "You can also make meat cakes by mixing fetuses with minced meat but you have to add more ginger and chives to get rid of the smell."
Hong Kong legislator Dr. Tan Siu-tong is surprised that it could be within anyone's capability to overcome the stench of a dead fetus, even if their stomachs are lined with lead. "When all the placental tissue is dead, the smell is awful and is enough to make you feel sick. It is like having a dead mouse in the house," he said.
The fetuses allegedly eaten by the Chinese are all provided by China's extensive abortion services. Last year, doctors in the People's Hospital - the biggest hospital in Shenzhen - carried out more than 7,000 terminations, 509 on Hong Kong women. The Hong Kong Family Planning Association (FPA) estimates that 24 per cent of all abortions on Hong Kong women are performed in the dubious surroundings of a Chinese hospital. A Ms. Li from Hong Kong has had two abortions in Shenzhen but has never heard of people eating fetuses. "But I didn't want the babies, so after the abortions, I just left them with the hospital," she says. "I didn't want to look at them, and I certainly didn't want to keep them. Fetuses of two or three months are just water and blood when they come out. They are so small, how can you eat them?"
Doctors in the territory have responded with disgust and incredulity to stories of people supplementing their diets with fetuses. Many have read articles of fetal cannibalism but none has been able to verify the reports. They are treating the issue with skepticism. Dr. Margaret Kwan, a gynecologist who until two weeks ago held the post of chief executive at the FPA, says: "This is the strangest thing I have ever heard coming out of China. I just hope it is not true."
Dr. Warren Lee, president of the Hong Kong Nutrition Association, is aware of the unsavory rumors. "Eating fetuses is a kind of traditional Chinese medicine and is deeply founded in Chinese folklore. In terms of nutrition, a fetus would be a good source of protein and fats, and there are minerals in bone. But I don't know if eating fetuses is just folklore or more than that," he says. According to Lee, it is conceivable that fetuses are rich in certain hormones that are beneficial to the adult human body, but should this be the case, the fetal matter would have to be converted into an indictable form for best results, as most hormones including the hormone for diabetes, insulin - are broken down in the digestive system before they have a chance to be absorbed by the body.
But Lee suggests that anyone who eats a fetus would be seeking a remedy that is far more elusive than a hormone or mineral. "Some people may think there is also an unidentified substance or chemical that has healing powers, but there is no evidence that this is true." Lee urges people to be wary - "There are people out there who just want to make money and they will come up with all sorts of formulas or substances, which, they say will cure diseases."
As a child, Patrick Yau was fed on human placentas by his mother who worked at a local hospital, but in his current position as a psychologist with the Social Welfare Department he is both repulsed and shocked by the notion of eating fetuses. "As a Catholic, I object to abortions because I believe the fetus is a human life, and I certainly object to eating a dead baby after it has been aborted," he says. Yau concedes that in China, where the one child policy has turned abortions into an acceptable remedy to an unfortunate human blunder, people may have adopted a new outlook on life before birth, such that embryos are stripped of their status as human beings.
But Tang fails to understand how anyone anywhere can convince themselves "that they are just eating an organism when they are actually eating a dead body". "It may not be a formed human being, but when they think about it most people would think: 'Ugh! No, I can't eat that.' I don't think civilized people with an education could do that sort of thing."
Dr. Wong, a Hong Kong doctor who practices Western medicine, thinks only the ignorant would eat human fetuses. He explains that fetuses contain mucoploysaccharide, which is beneficial to the metabolism, but states that it can be found in a lot of other food - Chinese doctor Chu Ho-Ting agrees that there is no place for fetuses in medicine, and suggests that it might even be unhealthy if the pregnant woman was infected by disease.
"Most bacteria can be killed under 100 degree heat but some require 400 degrees. Some people believe eating fetuses can strengthen the immunity of the human body against diseases, but this is wrong. Although fetuses contain protein, they are not as nutritious as placenta, which contains different kinds of nutrients. But even placenta has to be taken with other Chinese herbs."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They dont pretend its anything more - I'm trying to see if there is anything that denies it on google.
EDIT
<a href='http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.htm</a>
Well well well, snopes to the rescue - guess that's not a true story after all:
<!--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-->The rumor about the Chinese eating dead babies did not begin with this "work of art," however. In 1995, U.S. Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia raised a short-lived media ruckus by asserting he'd encountered credible reports of Chinese hospitals' selling human fetuses to be used as health food. Citing a 12 April 1995 article from Eastern Express, an English-language daily in Hong Kong, he demanded the Clinton administration and international human rights groups investigate these allegations.
Nothing apparently came of this call to arms, leading us to believe those "credible" reports turned out to be not so reliable after all. Just like this latest scare, in fact. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When someone mentioned eating fetus's, I thought "never underestimate human depravity", so I googled it. That's what I got back - but snopes doesnt think its credible. Sorry Wheeee <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Apparently they do eat the afterbirth/placenta - but dont go so far as fetus eating.
When someone mentioned eating fetus's, I thought "never underestimate human depravity", so I googled it. That's what I got back - but snopes doesnt think its credible. Sorry Wheeee <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wasn't being sarcastic <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I also think alot of you are mis-using words
<!--QuoteBegin-dictionary.com+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dictionary.com)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The <i>unlawful</i> killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note unlawful, that means where it is against the law, therefore anywhere where abortion is legal, where pro-life campainer do all there campaining, it isn't, as such, illegal therefore isn't unlawful.
Also on another issue raised here, as far as I am aware, humans (aswell as dolphins IIRC) have sex for more than one reason. Obviously one is to reproduce but the other is for recreational purposes. Sex doesn't feel good so we will enjoy making babies. Sex is well known to reduce stress and increase an individuals happiness. Furthermore sex is a way of expressing love for another.
When someone mentioned eating fetus's, I thought "never underestimate human depravity", so I googled it. That's what I got back - but snopes doesnt think its credible. Sorry Wheeee <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Apparently they do eat the afterbirth/placenta - but dont go so far as fetus eating. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
the thought still makes me retch. thanks a ton marine.
<!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Where do you draw the line here? Sperms and egg cells are potential human beings, wouldn't that make not having as many babies as possible equivalent with murder? By not having them you are killing them, sperms don't live for long, an unfertilized egg is flushed out on a monthly basis. And if we had as many babies as we possibly could, where does that lead? Famine, food shortages(much <3 @ Norman Borlaug BTW. You know that guy who has saved(allthough estimates vary) around a billion people from starvation and is the only agronomist who has ever won the nobel peace price?), crampt living, less enjoyment all round for everyone and more work to sustain everyone on an ever smaller area and deforestation. What you would be advocating if you wanted to see people to have as many babies as possible is death and missery. Somewhere you have to draw the line, where you do so is allmost arbitrary. It's not a black and white issue and no amount of pretending will make it a black and white issue.
If you haven't guessed my stance it's pro-sentient-life and anti-human-missery.
I also think alot of you are mis-using words
<!--QuoteBegin-dictionary.com+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dictionary.com)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The <i>unlawful</i> killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note unlawful, that means where it is against the law, therefore anywhere where abortion is legal, where pro-life campainer do all there campaining, it isn't, as such, illegal therefore isn't unlawful.
Also on another issue raised here, as far as I am aware, humans (aswell as dolphins IIRC) have sex for more than one reason. Obviously one is to reproduce but the other is for recreational purposes. Sex doesn't feel good so we will enjoy making babies. Sex is well known to reduce stress and increase an individuals happiness. Furthermore sex is a way of expressing love for another. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whether killing fetuses should be <i><b>lawful</b></i> or not is the issue entirely. We cannot assume you to be correct just so that you can point out it is murder.
It's like saying "let me assume for a second that angels and heaven and hell all exist. If that's true, then god exists, therefore I've proven he exists." You can't assume anything about your argument that is part of the solution. Called circular logic. We don't know if it is "murder" or not. The outcome of the argument is dependent upon it being murder or not and vice versa.
As for the other statement, well I won't even consider that as a valid argument. Having abortions for the sake of being able to have sex and not have children is quite terribble and selfish. Doesn't merit a good enough reason to me. You might as well say it is okay to abort fetuses because the delicious taste they have when fried on the grill.
Oh yes we do. As he said , when abortion is legal it's not a murder , when it's not illegal then it is.
Muder is a matter of perspective. In certain countries , killing your agressor in self defense is still murder. In any dictatorship , you can be lawfully executed for disagreeing with the enforced ideology - therefore not murdered. That definition of murder has nothing to do with morals. Sorry to be nitpicky...
The question of abortion is : is it morally wrong to kill an unborn baby on the mother's behalf.
<!--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--> Having abortions for the sake of being able to have sex and not have children is quite terribble and selfish.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does "empathy" mean anything to you ? It's easy to say that when you can have sex with any number of women with no consequences whatsoever (except maybe temporary guilt after you dump them) , while women are directly affected by contraception failures.
It is very important for the mother-child relationship that the child is actually desired. Though I'm an illegitimate child , the fact that I was desired by the both of my parents made my childhood enjoyable. If that weren't the case... I'm not sure I would be alive to post here.
Abortion is in many ways similar to euthanasy. It's a mother's right to prevent her child's suffering. Our children's quality of life should not be determined by petty debates.
I also think alot of you are mis-using words
<!--QuoteBegin-dictionary.com+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dictionary.com)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The <i>unlawful</i> killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note unlawful, that means where it is against the law, therefore anywhere where abortion is legal, where pro-life campainer do all there campaining, it isn't, as such, illegal therefore isn't unlawful.
Also on another issue raised here, as far as I am aware, humans (aswell as dolphins IIRC) have sex for more than one reason. Obviously one is to reproduce but the other is for recreational purposes. Sex doesn't feel good so we will enjoy making babies. Sex is well known to reduce stress and increase an individuals happiness. Furthermore sex is a way of expressing love for another. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whether killing fetuses should be <i><b>lawful</b></i> or not is the issue entirely. We cannot assume you to be correct just so that you can point out it is murder.
It's like saying "let me assume for a second that angels and heaven and hell all exist. If that's true, then god exists, therefore I've proven he exists." You can't assume anything about your argument that is part of the solution. Called circular logic. We don't know if it is "murder" or not. The outcome of the argument is dependent upon it being murder or not and vice versa.
As for the other statement, well I won't even consider that as a valid argument. Having abortions for the sake of being able to have sex and not have children is quite terribble and selfish. Doesn't merit a good enough reason to me. You might as well say it is okay to abort fetuses because the delicious taste they have when fried on the grill.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you've read what i've said wrong. I haven't once said my stance on the situation, but mearly said that i think the use of the word murder is wrong, as abortion is legal therefore isn't unlawful. The fact if its morally right is a total different arguement i agree, but currently abortion is legal.
I also said that humans have sex for more than one purpose, as i'm pretty sure someone said the only reason for sex is to reproduce, where as, i've stated its not.
I'd like you not to jump to conclusions as what my stance is on this situation, if i haven't said anything about it.
Where do you draw the line here? Sperms and egg cells are potential human beings, wouldn't that make not having as many babies as possible equivalent with murder? By not having them you are killing them, sperms don't live for long, an unfertilized egg is flushed out on a monthly basis. And if we had as many babies as we possibly could, where does that lead? Famine, food shortages(much <3 @ Norman Borlaug BTW. You know that guy who has saved(allthough estimates vary) around a billion people from starvation and is the only agronomist who has ever won the nobel peace price?), crampt living, less enjoyment all round for everyone and more work to sustain everyone on an ever smaller area and deforestation. What you would be advocating if you wanted to see people to have as many babies as possible is death and missery. Somewhere you have to draw the line, where you do so is allmost arbitrary. It's not a black and white issue and no amount of pretending will make it a black and white issue.
If you haven't guessed my stance it's pro-sentient-life and anti-human-missery. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought my line is drawn pretty damn clear.
Same species, that's my line.
When an egg and a sperm join to form a biologically unique single-cell organism with a complete set of human DNA. That's my other line.
Oh yes we do. As he said , when abortion is legal it's not a murder , when it's not illegal then it is.
Muder is a matter of perspective. In certain countries , killing your agressor in self defense is still murder. In any dictatorship , you can be lawfully executed for disagreeing with the enforced ideology - therefore not murdered. That definition of murder has nothing to do with morals. Sorry to be nitpicky...
The question of abortion is : is it morally wrong to kill an unborn baby on the mother's behalf.
<!--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--> Having abortions for the sake of being able to have sex and not have children is quite terribble and selfish.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does "empathy" mean anything to you ? It's easy to say that when you can have sex with any number of women with no consequences whatsoever (except maybe temporary guilt after you dump them) , while women are directly affected by contraception failures.
It is very important for the mother-child relationship that the child is actually desired. Though I'm an illegitimate child , the fact that I was desired by the both of my parents made my childhood enjoyable. If that weren't the case... I'm not sure I would be alive to post here.
Abortion is in many ways similar to euthanasy. It's a mother's right to prevent her child's suffering. Our children's quality of life should not be determined by petty debates. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
um, not quite. a murder is a murder even if it's legal. a better definition of murder would be to kill someone without justification. That could mean legal, or moral, justification. We're not arguing whether it passes the legal justification route, because of course it does (and with the blessing of the state's dollars, no less). We're arguing whether it passes the second, and if it does not, whether the first should be changed to follow suit. After all, by your definition every single genocide ever would not be classified as murder, since they were sanctioned by the state they were committed by.
It's sad to see that people would turn a blind eye to what is equivalent to wiping out entire generations of people, all in the name of convenience.
I fully agree.
On another note raised. Many of you have said adoption is a plausalbe way to get around it. Are any of you adopted? Do any of you know the long term emotional damage that can be given to a child that has been adopted? Emotional damage that can lead to depression or even suicide.
Whats more sad is that you think that its the equivilent of wiping out "entire generations".
I fully agree.
On another note raised. Many of you have said adoption is a plausalbe way to get around it. Are any of you adopted? Do any of you know the long term emotional damage that can be given to a child that has been adopted? Emotional damage that can lead to depression or even suicide. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I totally agree. In fact, I propose a solution that would solve the world's hunger problems.
These fetuses... we let them be birthed. Now wait just a moment Hawkeye, you just said you agreed. I do agree in fact. Let me finish.
We let them be birthed, and instead of costing the mother resources to raise these children, we take them to a farm as a new form of food production. The cost would be minimal. We could pin them up and feed them hay. The parents of course get a percentage of the profits in order to not discourage this type of behavior.
The females could be hooked to pumps for breast milk for legitimate non-abortion babies that could be bought at the supermarket. When they get too old, they can be slaughtered and sold for meat.
The men would have to be castrated though, because otherwise they would reproduce in an uncontrolled fashion. Their meat would also be too hard to consume.
Since these "abortions" happen all the time, we're talking about millions of unaborted men, women, and children growing on farms providing millions of others with food.
There's the minor issue of "murder," but you don't have to worry about that seeing how they come from fetuses that were meant to be aborted anyway.
Same species, that's my line.
When an egg and a sperm join to form a biologically unique single-cell organism with a complete set of human DNA. That's my other line.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes you did, what I'm fishing for is, why <i>there</i>, a reason, good, bad or otherwise. It's a subjective question and it's not going to be resolved, ever, all I hope to get out of arguing is why people feel the way they do.
I feel capabillity of pain and sentience should be far more important factors than the fact that it would become a baby if you just left it alone long enough.
To me it's just a clump of cells like any other until a few months have passed and I have trouble seeing why anyone would care about it more than they care about sperm or egg cells. It has a complete, unique DNA, so? It's an allmost random combination of it's parents's DNA, why is it so vital to keep this combination when we can get another pseudo random one at a later date when a child is actually wanted?
It's a human embryo, but it isn't somehow smarter or better than any other embryo until it is actually starting to become a baby.
It's a potential lifeform, but so are sperm and egg cells you just need to combine them under the right circumstances and there you go. Why is this step closer to an actual baby the vital step that makes it something inexuseable to get rid of, while some sperm or some eggcells aren't?
I have trouble seeing why the killing of an embryo that's a few months old outweighs the problems associated with an unwanted child. Having an abortion is not a nice experience, it is never going to be a replacement for birth controll, it's used as a back-up for people who make poor choices, and I can't see anything wrong with this.
Again, I'd like you not to jump to conclusions as what my stance is on this situation, just on the issues I am raising.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not going to argue with you why 1 + 1 = 2.
A human embryo is a human. I failed to see the basis for any debate.
A human embryo is a human. I failed to see the basis for any debate. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You take it as obvious. But some of us see a human embryo as <i>potentially</i> human.
@Stakhanov: That's a ridiculous argument, that's equivalent to saying that since cocaine is only "potentially" addictive, we can let whoever wants to take it totally screw themselves over.
And like, Stakhanov's comment shows, this is a very uncertain area, with some saying it is at the point of conception and others saying when <i>it</i> changes from an embryo into a fetus.