|
On July 06 2013 03:26 ghost_403 wrote:
@Cat: Your argument is bad. By your definition, no one has any inherent rights. By arguing away rights for the unborn, you've forsaken rights for everyone else. Maybe you should answer a different question: who does deserve rights? Might be easier to work your way back from there.
e: grammmmar
Nobody 'deserves' rights in my view. They get them because they have the power to seize them with force. It is the collective force of the people which erects governments which uphold laws, which happen to include rights. This is why we have rights and animals don't (largely, beyond some gifts). We seized power, they didn't. Deserving stuff doesn't exist as an objective reality, it merely does so within your mind. At the end of the day, even if you think some people deserve rights and others don't, and whatever you think those rights should be, unless you have the power to make it so, reality certainly won't agree with you. The world isn't very nice to things without power. I think rights are a good thing for our society, but I don't think it's because we 'deserve' them.
For the record, I'm only arguing about humans because I don't think embryos classify as a human, but I don't think it's at all important whether they are or are not humans in determining whether it should be allowed to have abortions. It seems to matter to others though, so here I am discussing it.
|
On July 05 2013 22:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 22:10 Catocalipse wrote:
Now, I could be wrong about this, but most people would agree humans don't have a right to food. So, even if an embryo is considered human, by the above logic it would still have no right to food. Children and infants most certainly do have a right to food, at least in the USA. More accurately (and relevantly), the parent/guardians have a legal responsibility to provide food.
But in no country I am aware of do you have a legal obligation to sacrifice your bodily integrity to save the life of your child. If your child is afflicted by leuchemia you do not have a legal obligation to undergo a bone marrow transplant. Even if you happen to be the only viable donor in the entire world.
You don't even have to donate a kidney or a piece of your liver should your child need it, even though (as far as I am aware) those particular operations are statistically safer than child birth.
The embryo needs to parasite on the mother to survive, and no in other context is this ever mandated. Peoples bodies are in general considered their own even if their work or their property is not. Thus you can be legally forced to provide your children with food, but not with bone marrow or kidneys. From this perspective I see no reason why the mother should be forced to let the embryo parasite on her or undergo a statistically significant risk to her own person by giving birth to it if she doesn't want to.
|
On July 05 2013 06:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 06:17 Jormundr wrote:On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally. Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor. I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people.
I don't know, man. I was created this way, 26 years ago, and I don't really feel like I was toyed with back then. It was my creation. I'm not sure what there is to be against. Maybe if I didn't want to live I'd be against it by default instead.
Also don't call my life a waste. thx 
|
On July 06 2013 03:39 Catocalipse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 03:26 ghost_403 wrote:
@Cat: Your argument is bad. By your definition, no one has any inherent rights. By arguing away rights for the unborn, you've forsaken rights for everyone else. Maybe you should answer a different question: who does deserve rights? Might be easier to work your way back from there.
e: grammmmar Nobody 'deserves' rights in my view. They get them because they have the power to seize them with force. It is the collective force of the people which erects governments which uphold laws, which happen to include rights. This is why we have rights and animals don't (largely, beyond some gifts). We seized power, they didn't. Deserving stuff doesn't exist as an objective reality, it merely does so within your mind. At the end of the day, even if you think some people deserve rights and others don't, and whatever you think those rights should be, unless you have the power to make it so, reality certainly won't agree with you. The world isn't very nice to things without power. I think rights are a good thing for our society, but I don't think it's because we 'deserve' them. For the record, I'm only arguing about humans because I don't think embryos classify as a human, but I don't think it's at all important whether they are or are not humans in determining whether it should be allowed to have abortions. It seems to matter to others though, so here I am discussing it.
I give you credit for your consistency. That's a terrifying position to hold. It's a shame that with all your years of education, you can't identify the fact that there is something unique about the human race.
In my opinion, there is something unique about mankind, and that grants them certain rights. Once you hold that position, you're kind of stuck granting those rights to everyone, regardless of age or whether they happen to be inside or outside the womb. Because of that, I'm against IVF. Fertilized eggs, and by extension embryos, have the possibility of becoming people, and therefore inherit their rights.
I hold the same position on abortion. The best summation of my views comes from AAPLOG
Abortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of a pregnancy. AAPLOG opposes abortion. When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive.
|
On July 06 2013 02:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 02:17 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 02:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 01:51 Catocalipse wrote:
No I'm not saying we should change the law to make starving your children legal. I'm arguing that we should make laws such that embryos would not have rights. If this means that they should not qualify as 'children' under the legal definition then so be it. The law is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. It is what we want it to be, what it currently is does not matter.
Also, ok, so it seems we're on the same page, it just sounded the other way around from the way you phrased it.
A human is a "living human organism", is not a valid definition because it's cyclical. It's like saying a cat is a living cat. It doesn't mean anything. You can't use the word human to define itself.
Oocyte -> embryo -> human. How is oocyte not a stage of development, it clearly is a predecursor of the embryonic stage. If I don't let the oocyte get fertilized, it degenerates. If I don't let the blastocyst implant into the endometrium, it degerates. You seem to be very hung up on DNA and that somehow once all the DNA is there it's suddenly human but actually the proteins and various epigenetic modifications (which are not only on the DNA itself) are just as vital. Just having 'human DNA' will not result in a human.
Anyway, as I said, we need a definition of 'human', or this isn't going anywhere. Okay. So you want the law to remain as it is then. Because as of now, the embryo is not considered to be a "child" (I understand that "child" is not a legal term, bear with me) and therefore is not considered to hold those human rights. I am simply saying that the law we have now, which prevents the deprivation of food from a minor, should apply to the embryo. And the definition is fine. Human was shorthand for "human being". Human being is another way of saying: person. Basically, I am saying: "A person is a living human organism." It is undeniably human, it is undeniably an organism. It is therefore, according to my definition, a person. The oocyte is not a separate organism. That's like saying: all the components of an orange make up an orange, therefore one component of an orange makes up an orange. No. The orange peels, by themselves, are not equal to an orange. The oocyte is not equal to the embryo. The embryo is an organism, the oocyte is a byproduct of an organism. human: an organism that has human DNA. Component? The embryo is a component of a human then, because obviously you won't get a human from just an embryo -- you need other stuff too. Other stuff, huh? So, you need other stuff added to a human to make it a human? Just wondering, what definition of "human" are you using? Show nested quote +So now we're working with "organism that has human DNA". Well, by my definition of 'organism' this is false, so you're going to have to define 'organism' now. What is your definition of organism? An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism
You are just moving the controversial and arbitrary place to draw the line in what I noted earlier is a classic Sorites paradox. There's no difference between saying "human life begins at conception" and saying "I am defining humans as organisms with human DNA" except that you've changed the language. Language isn't a reason; it's a tool, an abstraction. The only thing you've changed is instead of people asking you "why does human life begin at conception?" they are just going to ask "why does a human being mean an 'organism' with human DNA?" The fogginess of our language (specifically "organism") isn't an argument one way or another.
There is still a line to draw when you use your definition of "human being" in one context to include an embryo or zygote, and the rest of society which when they use the term "human rights" have a narrower definition that more people agree with. Like the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was written before we knew DNA was a double helix. If we are to use your definition of human, either that declaration needs updating, or you have to connect the dots and demonstrate why it still makes sense with a new definition.
The way you've structured your logic actually deconstructs itself. I will start with the idea of an organism, which as I said is a foggy concept that you are presenting as a cut and dry concept. Life basically has no analogs, nothing more fundamental or familiar that we can use as a reference to understand it better. The fact that you (and biology-online) think a virus is an organism, for instance, is not a unanimous view (I won't even bring up plasmids). It is still widely maintained that all life on Earth is cellular. Viruses have no response to stimuli. They copy themselves, but they do so chemically, not in an emergent way like cellular life (mitosis, sexual reproduction). It's more like they accumulate molecules until there's a duplicate. Viruses depend totally on host cells for their life cycle.
(Yes, I said life cycle, even though I don't consider viruses to be life. This is because I know the difference between using convenient language to describe nature and macheting my way through with invented definitions.)
You say a human is an "organism that has human DNA." If you're willing to accept that viruses, which totally depend on host cells, are organisms, then your umbrella is wide enough that sperm are humans. They're organisms, albeit single-celled, and they have human DNA. They respond to stimuli, which is even more than we can say of viruses. They grow and reproduce and die. (Eggs qualify also, but as I mentioned earlier in my beautifully crafted post, a fertile male can make half a trillion sperm in his life, and with the estimate that more than 100 billion humans[1] have ever lived I wanted you to internalize that with your definition there have been approximately 10^22 humans in history. That number is on the same order as the number of stars in the universe.)
On July 06 2013 03:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:
So you don't have a definition of human... you don't understand the definition of organism... but you're positive that an embryo doesn't qualify...
I don't know the definition of a heap of sand, but I'm sure one grain doesn't count. The fact that you don't have a strict definition of something doesn't mean you can't decide obvious cases. If I asked you to define the line between brightness and darkness and you didn't know anything about lumens or magnitude or wavelength or intensity or power, you could still tell me that it was bright, not dark, when I shone a maglite in your face.
[1] Actually the hidden point here is that deciding how many humans have ever lived is a Sorites paradox much the same as deciding at what stage of development a fetus becomes a human. Because in order to count how many humans have ever lived, you have to be able to point to exactly where the species began, which is contrary to evolution and indeed reality works.
|
On July 06 2013 03:53 ghost_403 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 03:39 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 03:26 ghost_403 wrote:
@Cat: Your argument is bad. By your definition, no one has any inherent rights. By arguing away rights for the unborn, you've forsaken rights for everyone else. Maybe you should answer a different question: who does deserve rights? Might be easier to work your way back from there.
e: grammmmar Nobody 'deserves' rights in my view. They get them because they have the power to seize them with force. It is the collective force of the people which erects governments which uphold laws, which happen to include rights. This is why we have rights and animals don't (largely, beyond some gifts). We seized power, they didn't. Deserving stuff doesn't exist as an objective reality, it merely does so within your mind. At the end of the day, even if you think some people deserve rights and others don't, and whatever you think those rights should be, unless you have the power to make it so, reality certainly won't agree with you. The world isn't very nice to things without power. I think rights are a good thing for our society, but I don't think it's because we 'deserve' them. For the record, I'm only arguing about humans because I don't think embryos classify as a human, but I don't think it's at all important whether they are or are not humans in determining whether it should be allowed to have abortions. It seems to matter to others though, so here I am discussing it. I give you credit for your consistency. That's a terrifying position to hold. It's a shame that with all your years of education, you can't identify the fact that there is something unique about the human race. In my opinion, there is something unique about mankind, and that grants them certain rights. Once you hold that position, you're kind of stuck granting those rights to everyone, regardless of age or whether they happen to be inside or outside the womb. Because of that, I'm against IVF. Fertilized eggs, and by extension embryos, have the possibility of becoming people, and therefore inherit their rights. I hold the same position on abortion. The best summation of my views comes from AAPLOGShow nested quote +Abortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of a pregnancy. AAPLOG opposes abortion. When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive.
So the conferment of rights is predicated on the potential to be human? That sounds rather specious, particularly as molecular biological manipulation becomes more and more advanced.
|
On July 06 2013 03:55 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 03:53 ghost_403 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:39 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 03:26 ghost_403 wrote:
@Cat: Your argument is bad. By your definition, no one has any inherent rights. By arguing away rights for the unborn, you've forsaken rights for everyone else. Maybe you should answer a different question: who does deserve rights? Might be easier to work your way back from there.
e: grammmmar Nobody 'deserves' rights in my view. They get them because they have the power to seize them with force. It is the collective force of the people which erects governments which uphold laws, which happen to include rights. This is why we have rights and animals don't (largely, beyond some gifts). We seized power, they didn't. Deserving stuff doesn't exist as an objective reality, it merely does so within your mind. At the end of the day, even if you think some people deserve rights and others don't, and whatever you think those rights should be, unless you have the power to make it so, reality certainly won't agree with you. The world isn't very nice to things without power. I think rights are a good thing for our society, but I don't think it's because we 'deserve' them. For the record, I'm only arguing about humans because I don't think embryos classify as a human, but I don't think it's at all important whether they are or are not humans in determining whether it should be allowed to have abortions. It seems to matter to others though, so here I am discussing it. I give you credit for your consistency. That's a terrifying position to hold. It's a shame that with all your years of education, you can't identify the fact that there is something unique about the human race. In my opinion, there is something unique about mankind, and that grants them certain rights. Once you hold that position, you're kind of stuck granting those rights to everyone, regardless of age or whether they happen to be inside or outside the womb. Because of that, I'm against IVF. Fertilized eggs, and by extension embryos, have the possibility of becoming people, and therefore inherit their rights. I hold the same position on abortion. The best summation of my views comes from AAPLOGAbortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of a pregnancy. AAPLOG opposes abortion. When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive. So the conferment of rights is predicated on the potential to be human? That sounds rather specious, particularly as molecular biological manipulation becomes more and more advanced.
You think that somehow being altered at the genetic/molecular level makes you somehow less (or more) deserving of rights?
|
On July 06 2013 03:59 ghost_403 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 03:55 farvacola wrote:On July 06 2013 03:53 ghost_403 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:39 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 03:26 ghost_403 wrote:
@Cat: Your argument is bad. By your definition, no one has any inherent rights. By arguing away rights for the unborn, you've forsaken rights for everyone else. Maybe you should answer a different question: who does deserve rights? Might be easier to work your way back from there.
e: grammmmar Nobody 'deserves' rights in my view. They get them because they have the power to seize them with force. It is the collective force of the people which erects governments which uphold laws, which happen to include rights. This is why we have rights and animals don't (largely, beyond some gifts). We seized power, they didn't. Deserving stuff doesn't exist as an objective reality, it merely does so within your mind. At the end of the day, even if you think some people deserve rights and others don't, and whatever you think those rights should be, unless you have the power to make it so, reality certainly won't agree with you. The world isn't very nice to things without power. I think rights are a good thing for our society, but I don't think it's because we 'deserve' them. For the record, I'm only arguing about humans because I don't think embryos classify as a human, but I don't think it's at all important whether they are or are not humans in determining whether it should be allowed to have abortions. It seems to matter to others though, so here I am discussing it. I give you credit for your consistency. That's a terrifying position to hold. It's a shame that with all your years of education, you can't identify the fact that there is something unique about the human race. In my opinion, there is something unique about mankind, and that grants them certain rights. Once you hold that position, you're kind of stuck granting those rights to everyone, regardless of age or whether they happen to be inside or outside the womb. Because of that, I'm against IVF. Fertilized eggs, and by extension embryos, have the possibility of becoming people, and therefore inherit their rights. I hold the same position on abortion. The best summation of my views comes from AAPLOGAbortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of a pregnancy. AAPLOG opposes abortion. When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive. So the conferment of rights is predicated on the potential to be human? That sounds rather specious, particularly as molecular biological manipulation becomes more and more advanced. You think that somehow being altered at the genetic/molecular level makes you somehow less (or more) deserving of rights?
No, I'm referring to extended manipulations of human reproductive material that might someday have the potential to grow a human.
|
What's interesting, or rather sad, is that I mostly see this debate on two fronts.
Humans are special (and as such so are potential humans) as deemed by Religion
vs.
Rational thought and deduction, accompanied by the opinion that Humans aren't special
From what I understand, in America and most progressed countries (and least more and more) the idea is that everyone has the freedom to practice their religions in private, but that religion should have no bearing (and especially not one more so than another) on law and public policy, such as this topic.
|
On July 06 2013 03:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 03:22 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 03:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:05 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 02:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:17 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 02:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 01:51 Catocalipse wrote:
No I'm not saying we should change the law to make starving your children legal. I'm arguing that we should make laws such that embryos would not have rights. If this means that they should not qualify as 'children' under the legal definition then so be it. The law is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. It is what we want it to be, what it currently is does not matter.
Also, ok, so it seems we're on the same page, it just sounded the other way around from the way you phrased it.
A human is a "living human organism", is not a valid definition because it's cyclical. It's like saying a cat is a living cat. It doesn't mean anything. You can't use the word human to define itself.
Oocyte -> embryo -> human. How is oocyte not a stage of development, it clearly is a predecursor of the embryonic stage. If I don't let the oocyte get fertilized, it degenerates. If I don't let the blastocyst implant into the endometrium, it degerates. You seem to be very hung up on DNA and that somehow once all the DNA is there it's suddenly human but actually the proteins and various epigenetic modifications (which are not only on the DNA itself) are just as vital. Just having 'human DNA' will not result in a human.
Anyway, as I said, we need a definition of 'human', or this isn't going anywhere. Okay. So you want the law to remain as it is then. Because as of now, the embryo is not considered to be a "child" (I understand that "child" is not a legal term, bear with me) and therefore is not considered to hold those human rights. I am simply saying that the law we have now, which prevents the deprivation of food from a minor, should apply to the embryo. And the definition is fine. Human was shorthand for "human being". Human being is another way of saying: person. Basically, I am saying: "A person is a living human organism." It is undeniably human, it is undeniably an organism. It is therefore, according to my definition, a person. The oocyte is not a separate organism. That's like saying: all the components of an orange make up an orange, therefore one component of an orange makes up an orange. No. The orange peels, by themselves, are not equal to an orange. The oocyte is not equal to the embryo. The embryo is an organism, the oocyte is a byproduct of an organism. human: an organism that has human DNA. Component? The embryo is a component of a human then, because obviously you won't get a human from just an embryo -- you need other stuff too. Other stuff, huh? So, you need other stuff added to a human to make it a human? Just wondering, what definition of "human" are you using? So now we're working with "organism that has human DNA". Well, by my definition of 'organism' this is false, so you're going to have to define 'organism' now. What is your definition of organism? An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism Well, you can take a single human cell, and put in a culture and it'll survive, reproduce, etc. so by that definition it's obviously an organism. No, it's not an organism. An organism has to have all of those qualities, not just one or two. Lest you want to call some random human cell a human, I suggest you reconsider that definition. You should give that recommendation to biologists everywhere. Also, this definition seems acceptable for organism to me, so I suppose you could call it this, though I don't see why it needs to be in one of those six categories.
I honestly don't think you can get a good definition of 'human'. In fact, I don't think there is a satisfactory one at all. So you don't have a definition of human... you don't understand the definition of organism... but you're positive that an embryo doesn't qualify... I meant it has all of the qualities. It will react to stimuli, e.g. hormones; it will reproduce; grow is the same as reproduce for small organisms; maintain homeostasis, all cells, and even organelles within them, do this, otherwise life would be impossible because enzymes wouldn't work. And it has all the characteristics of an animal. Cells are not organisms though... at least, they are not considered as such. Otherwise humans would not be single organisms, but rather millions of organisms. Show nested quote +Sorry but most biologists would agree with me that a single human cell is an organism, at least those I know. Certainly wouldn't consider a human cell, or bunch of human cells, a 'human'. So most biologists would agree that a skin cell is an organism, but that a embryo is not human? Really... have proof of that? Show nested quote +And I don't have a good definition of a human, because I don't think there is one. I can certainly tell what isn't a suitable definition for 'human', though, because it doesn't fit. You can't qualify an embryo, or anything, for that matter, as a human, so long as you can't define it. So you can't qualify anything as a human (because you've admitted that you can't define it)? Are you a human? Show nested quote +The onus of defining 'human' is on you, if you want to put an embryo under its banner, not on me. I don't need a definition, you do. Otherwise it's like saying that there's these things called X, you're not quite sure what qualifies as an X, but you're certain an embryo is an X, despite not knowing what an X is. Not very convincing, is it? I've given a definition of human, I'm just wondering where your objections come into play (like if you have other definitions). Of course, getting anything out of you is like pulling teeth.
Obviously I can't speak for the majority of ALL biologists, but of those I do know (mostly medical microbiologists), I'd say probably every last one would agree with me. Well, depends which skin cell, some epidermal skin cells could be considered close to dead, so not those.
Humans are a large organism, composed of organ systems and various tissues working symbiotically. Technically we have a huge symbiotic reliance with bacteria, too. You could say humans would have a rather tough time staying alive without their symbiotic bacteria, too. That doesn't mean that a single human cell isn't an organism. Hell, mitochondria within our own cells, are basically a different organism too (they have their own DNA) and current theory suggests they are derived from ancient bacteria whom eukaryotes have had a long running symbiotic relationship with since. A single cell is certainly not a human, though, but is an organism nonetheless.
I've already pointed out why your definition is obviously not good. And I've already explained why I don't need a definition, and you do. As for my definition of human, I don't have one, I just work on my intuition of what is or isn't human. It generally works well enough for my purposes. For yours it's obviously not good enough, because you need a definition others can agree with, and then use it to show them that an embryo is, indeed, a human, by that definition (which they agree with, hence convincing them). AI researchers spent a good couple decades trying to define 'chair' with a symbolic approach (i.e. a definition) and then realized it was a waste of time because they couldn't do it and started using statistical methods, neural networks, etc. to try and achieve their goals istead. So if you want to try defining 'human' satisfactorily, good luck.
|
On July 06 2013 03:53 ghost_403 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 03:39 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 03:26 ghost_403 wrote:
@Cat: Your argument is bad. By your definition, no one has any inherent rights. By arguing away rights for the unborn, you've forsaken rights for everyone else. Maybe you should answer a different question: who does deserve rights? Might be easier to work your way back from there.
e: grammmmar Nobody 'deserves' rights in my view. They get them because they have the power to seize them with force. It is the collective force of the people which erects governments which uphold laws, which happen to include rights. This is why we have rights and animals don't (largely, beyond some gifts). We seized power, they didn't. Deserving stuff doesn't exist as an objective reality, it merely does so within your mind. At the end of the day, even if you think some people deserve rights and others don't, and whatever you think those rights should be, unless you have the power to make it so, reality certainly won't agree with you. The world isn't very nice to things without power. I think rights are a good thing for our society, but I don't think it's because we 'deserve' them. For the record, I'm only arguing about humans because I don't think embryos classify as a human, but I don't think it's at all important whether they are or are not humans in determining whether it should be allowed to have abortions. It seems to matter to others though, so here I am discussing it. I give you credit for your consistency. That's a terrifying position to hold. It's a shame that with all your years of education, you can't identify the fact that there is something unique about the human race. In my opinion, there is something unique about mankind, and that grants them certain rights. Once you hold that position, you're kind of stuck granting those rights to everyone, regardless of age or whether they happen to be inside or outside the womb. Because of that, I'm against IVF. Fertilized eggs, and by extension embryos, have the possibility of becoming people, and therefore inherit their rights. I hold the same position on abortion. The best summation of my views comes from AAPLOGShow nested quote +Abortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of a pregnancy. AAPLOG opposes abortion. When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive.
Well, there is obviously something unique about humans. We built cities, and have forum discussions, etc. Most organisms don't do this. I don't see why that should grant them any rights, though. Do you have a reason for why you think all humans should have rights, or is it just something you feel should be granted to them?
|
On July 06 2013 04:16 Catocalipse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 03:53 ghost_403 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:39 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 03:26 ghost_403 wrote:
@Cat: Your argument is bad. By your definition, no one has any inherent rights. By arguing away rights for the unborn, you've forsaken rights for everyone else. Maybe you should answer a different question: who does deserve rights? Might be easier to work your way back from there.
e: grammmmar Nobody 'deserves' rights in my view. They get them because they have the power to seize them with force. It is the collective force of the people which erects governments which uphold laws, which happen to include rights. This is why we have rights and animals don't (largely, beyond some gifts). We seized power, they didn't. Deserving stuff doesn't exist as an objective reality, it merely does so within your mind. At the end of the day, even if you think some people deserve rights and others don't, and whatever you think those rights should be, unless you have the power to make it so, reality certainly won't agree with you. The world isn't very nice to things without power. I think rights are a good thing for our society, but I don't think it's because we 'deserve' them. For the record, I'm only arguing about humans because I don't think embryos classify as a human, but I don't think it's at all important whether they are or are not humans in determining whether it should be allowed to have abortions. It seems to matter to others though, so here I am discussing it. I give you credit for your consistency. That's a terrifying position to hold. It's a shame that with all your years of education, you can't identify the fact that there is something unique about the human race. In my opinion, there is something unique about mankind, and that grants them certain rights. Once you hold that position, you're kind of stuck granting those rights to everyone, regardless of age or whether they happen to be inside or outside the womb. Because of that, I'm against IVF. Fertilized eggs, and by extension embryos, have the possibility of becoming people, and therefore inherit their rights. I hold the same position on abortion. The best summation of my views comes from AAPLOGAbortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of a pregnancy. AAPLOG opposes abortion. When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive. Well, there is obviously something unique about humans. We built cities, and have forum discussions, etc. Most organisms don't do this. I don't see why that should grant them any rights, though. Do you have a reason for why you think all humans should have rights, or is it just something you feel should be granted to them?
He feels that because humans have done all that, it somehow grants them rights for things that are completely uncorrelated. More precisely, he feels that way because he believes in a magic being that said it was so. Literally, the reason is "because he said so".
|
On July 06 2013 04:09 Catocalipse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 03:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:22 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 03:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:05 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 02:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:17 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 02:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 01:51 Catocalipse wrote:
No I'm not saying we should change the law to make starving your children legal. I'm arguing that we should make laws such that embryos would not have rights. If this means that they should not qualify as 'children' under the legal definition then so be it. The law is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. It is what we want it to be, what it currently is does not matter.
Also, ok, so it seems we're on the same page, it just sounded the other way around from the way you phrased it.
A human is a "living human organism", is not a valid definition because it's cyclical. It's like saying a cat is a living cat. It doesn't mean anything. You can't use the word human to define itself.
Oocyte -> embryo -> human. How is oocyte not a stage of development, it clearly is a predecursor of the embryonic stage. If I don't let the oocyte get fertilized, it degenerates. If I don't let the blastocyst implant into the endometrium, it degerates. You seem to be very hung up on DNA and that somehow once all the DNA is there it's suddenly human but actually the proteins and various epigenetic modifications (which are not only on the DNA itself) are just as vital. Just having 'human DNA' will not result in a human.
Anyway, as I said, we need a definition of 'human', or this isn't going anywhere. Okay. So you want the law to remain as it is then. Because as of now, the embryo is not considered to be a "child" (I understand that "child" is not a legal term, bear with me) and therefore is not considered to hold those human rights. I am simply saying that the law we have now, which prevents the deprivation of food from a minor, should apply to the embryo. And the definition is fine. Human was shorthand for "human being". Human being is another way of saying: person. Basically, I am saying: "A person is a living human organism." It is undeniably human, it is undeniably an organism. It is therefore, according to my definition, a person. The oocyte is not a separate organism. That's like saying: all the components of an orange make up an orange, therefore one component of an orange makes up an orange. No. The orange peels, by themselves, are not equal to an orange. The oocyte is not equal to the embryo. The embryo is an organism, the oocyte is a byproduct of an organism. human: an organism that has human DNA. Component? The embryo is a component of a human then, because obviously you won't get a human from just an embryo -- you need other stuff too. Other stuff, huh? So, you need other stuff added to a human to make it a human? Just wondering, what definition of "human" are you using? So now we're working with "organism that has human DNA". Well, by my definition of 'organism' this is false, so you're going to have to define 'organism' now. What is your definition of organism? An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism Well, you can take a single human cell, and put in a culture and it'll survive, reproduce, etc. so by that definition it's obviously an organism. No, it's not an organism. An organism has to have all of those qualities, not just one or two. Lest you want to call some random human cell a human, I suggest you reconsider that definition. You should give that recommendation to biologists everywhere. Also, this definition seems acceptable for organism to me, so I suppose you could call it this, though I don't see why it needs to be in one of those six categories.
I honestly don't think you can get a good definition of 'human'. In fact, I don't think there is a satisfactory one at all. So you don't have a definition of human... you don't understand the definition of organism... but you're positive that an embryo doesn't qualify... I meant it has all of the qualities. It will react to stimuli, e.g. hormones; it will reproduce; grow is the same as reproduce for small organisms; maintain homeostasis, all cells, and even organelles within them, do this, otherwise life would be impossible because enzymes wouldn't work. And it has all the characteristics of an animal. Cells are not organisms though... at least, they are not considered as such. Otherwise humans would not be single organisms, but rather millions of organisms. Sorry but most biologists would agree with me that a single human cell is an organism, at least those I know. Certainly wouldn't consider a human cell, or bunch of human cells, a 'human'. So most biologists would agree that a skin cell is an organism, but that a embryo is not human? Really... have proof of that? And I don't have a good definition of a human, because I don't think there is one. I can certainly tell what isn't a suitable definition for 'human', though, because it doesn't fit. You can't qualify an embryo, or anything, for that matter, as a human, so long as you can't define it. So you can't qualify anything as a human (because you've admitted that you can't define it)? Are you a human? The onus of defining 'human' is on you, if you want to put an embryo under its banner, not on me. I don't need a definition, you do. Otherwise it's like saying that there's these things called X, you're not quite sure what qualifies as an X, but you're certain an embryo is an X, despite not knowing what an X is. Not very convincing, is it? I've given a definition of human, I'm just wondering where your objections come into play (like if you have other definitions). Of course, getting anything out of you is like pulling teeth. Obviously I can't speak for the majority of ALL biologists, but of those I do know (mostly medical microbiologists), I'd say probably every last one would agree with me. Well, depends which skin cell, some epidermal skin cells could be considered close to dead, so not those.
Okay, and they would all agree with you that an embryo is definitely not a human? What definition of human would they use, btw?
Humans are a large organism
I thought they were millions of symbiotic organisms?
A single cell is certainly not a human, though, but is an organism nonetheless.
Of course not. But you can't say what human is (or are unwilling to). I ask once again, are you a human?
I've already pointed out why your definition is obviously not good.
Indeed. But you've not established the alleged facts that you used to support said position.
And I've already explained why I don't need a definition, and you do.
I presume your statement on burden of proof was this. I reject it, but I'll let you believe that if you'd like. Once again, are you a human?
As for my definition of human, I don't have one, I just work on my intuition of what is or isn't human. It generally works well enough for my purposes.
You don't know what it is, but you're sure that your intuition is correct? What is your "intuition"?
|
On July 06 2013 05:20 Sephiren wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 04:16 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 03:53 ghost_403 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:39 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 03:26 ghost_403 wrote:
@Cat: Your argument is bad. By your definition, no one has any inherent rights. By arguing away rights for the unborn, you've forsaken rights for everyone else. Maybe you should answer a different question: who does deserve rights? Might be easier to work your way back from there.
e: grammmmar Nobody 'deserves' rights in my view. They get them because they have the power to seize them with force. It is the collective force of the people which erects governments which uphold laws, which happen to include rights. This is why we have rights and animals don't (largely, beyond some gifts). We seized power, they didn't. Deserving stuff doesn't exist as an objective reality, it merely does so within your mind. At the end of the day, even if you think some people deserve rights and others don't, and whatever you think those rights should be, unless you have the power to make it so, reality certainly won't agree with you. The world isn't very nice to things without power. I think rights are a good thing for our society, but I don't think it's because we 'deserve' them. For the record, I'm only arguing about humans because I don't think embryos classify as a human, but I don't think it's at all important whether they are or are not humans in determining whether it should be allowed to have abortions. It seems to matter to others though, so here I am discussing it. I give you credit for your consistency. That's a terrifying position to hold. It's a shame that with all your years of education, you can't identify the fact that there is something unique about the human race. In my opinion, there is something unique about mankind, and that grants them certain rights. Once you hold that position, you're kind of stuck granting those rights to everyone, regardless of age or whether they happen to be inside or outside the womb. Because of that, I'm against IVF. Fertilized eggs, and by extension embryos, have the possibility of becoming people, and therefore inherit their rights. I hold the same position on abortion. The best summation of my views comes from AAPLOGAbortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of a pregnancy. AAPLOG opposes abortion. When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive. Well, there is obviously something unique about humans. We built cities, and have forum discussions, etc. Most organisms don't do this. I don't see why that should grant them any rights, though. Do you have a reason for why you think all humans should have rights, or is it just something you feel should be granted to them? He feels that because humans have done all that, it somehow grants them rights for things that are completely uncorrelated. More precisely, he feels that way because he believes in a magic being that said it was so. Literally, the reason is "because he said so".
That's a good way to have a conversation.
Shouldn't we treasure those things that are unique and beautiful? A rose and a dandelion are both flowers and have nearly nothing to offer to us. But still, we believe that one of those is more valuable than the other. Roses are much more difficult to grow and are more pleasing to the eye and have a smell that cannot compare to it's yellow coated counterpart. Doesn't that create a difference in value between the two? If you came to my yard and killed dandelions, I wouldn't think anything of it. My roses, on the other hand, and I would be crushed. My perception of the rose imparts value upon it, and, to me, that gives it certain rights. In this case, namely protection.
Much in the same way, our experiences in the natural world have taught us that people are unique and beautiful and special. We've peeked into every corner of this planet, and we haven't found anything remotely like us. Like it or not, we are different from the rest of the animals. If not in some inherent value given to us by some higher being, then in our capacity to forego temporary pleasures for our meaningless endeavors. We are the first animal we've found to step foot on another planet; we have yet to find anything like us.
We can even take a step back and apply this to all life on our planet. Earth is unique, in our solar system, maybe even the galaxy or entire universe. We've sought to find something else out there, but as of yet, our search has been fruitless. If there is something out there, we have yet to find it, and it us. Our experience is that we are frighteningly alone in a vast, empty universe.
Doesn't that impart on us some inherent value? Are we not more valuable than the rocks and the dust and space that makes everything else? If we are, then why would we seek to destroy something so precious?
|
I was worried we were about to go one whole week without a new abortion thread. All is right in the world.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 06 2013 06:21 ghost_403 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 05:20 Sephiren wrote:On July 06 2013 04:16 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 03:53 ghost_403 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:39 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 03:26 ghost_403 wrote:
@Cat: Your argument is bad. By your definition, no one has any inherent rights. By arguing away rights for the unborn, you've forsaken rights for everyone else. Maybe you should answer a different question: who does deserve rights? Might be easier to work your way back from there.
e: grammmmar Nobody 'deserves' rights in my view. They get them because they have the power to seize them with force. It is the collective force of the people which erects governments which uphold laws, which happen to include rights. This is why we have rights and animals don't (largely, beyond some gifts). We seized power, they didn't. Deserving stuff doesn't exist as an objective reality, it merely does so within your mind. At the end of the day, even if you think some people deserve rights and others don't, and whatever you think those rights should be, unless you have the power to make it so, reality certainly won't agree with you. The world isn't very nice to things without power. I think rights are a good thing for our society, but I don't think it's because we 'deserve' them. For the record, I'm only arguing about humans because I don't think embryos classify as a human, but I don't think it's at all important whether they are or are not humans in determining whether it should be allowed to have abortions. It seems to matter to others though, so here I am discussing it. I give you credit for your consistency. That's a terrifying position to hold. It's a shame that with all your years of education, you can't identify the fact that there is something unique about the human race. In my opinion, there is something unique about mankind, and that grants them certain rights. Once you hold that position, you're kind of stuck granting those rights to everyone, regardless of age or whether they happen to be inside or outside the womb. Because of that, I'm against IVF. Fertilized eggs, and by extension embryos, have the possibility of becoming people, and therefore inherit their rights. I hold the same position on abortion. The best summation of my views comes from AAPLOGAbortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of a pregnancy. AAPLOG opposes abortion. When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive. Well, there is obviously something unique about humans. We built cities, and have forum discussions, etc. Most organisms don't do this. I don't see why that should grant them any rights, though. Do you have a reason for why you think all humans should have rights, or is it just something you feel should be granted to them? He feels that because humans have done all that, it somehow grants them rights for things that are completely uncorrelated. More precisely, he feels that way because he believes in a magic being that said it was so. Literally, the reason is "because he said so". That's a good way to have a conversation. Shouldn't we treasure those things that are unique and beautiful? A rose and a dandelion are both flowers and have nearly nothing to offer to us. But still, we believe that one of those is more valuable than the other. Roses are much more difficult to grow and are more pleasing to the eye and have a smell that cannot compare to it's yellow coated counterpart. Doesn't that create a difference in value between the two? If you came to my yard and killed dandelions, I wouldn't think anything of it. My roses, on the other hand, and I would be crushed. My perception of the rose imparts value upon it, and, to me, that gives it certain rights. In this case, namely protection. Much in the same way, our experiences in the natural world have taught us that people are unique and beautiful and special. We've peeked into every corner of this planet, and we haven't found anything remotely like us. Like it or not, we are different from the rest of the animals. If not in some inherent value given to us by some higher being, then in our capacity to forego temporary pleasures for our meaningless endeavors. We are the first animal we've found to step foot on another planet; we have yet to find anything like us. We can even take a step back and apply this to all life on our planet. Earth is unique, in our solar system, maybe even the galaxy or entire universe. We've sought to find something else out there, but as of yet, our search has been fruitless. If there is something out there, we have yet to find it, and it us. Our experience is that we are frighteningly alone in a vast, empty universe. Doesn't that impart on us some inherent value? Are we not more valuable than the rocks and the dust and space that makes everything else? If we are, then why would we seek to destroy something so precious?
You can treasure things that are unique and beautiful without making the whole of humanity suffer for your perspective. All value is arbitrary, as well as rights. So no, the rose doesn't have rights, you simply want to protect it. Your wants and desires do not equal rights. Every organism is unique, any reason you give to why one is more special than the other is only perspective, and likely a function of self preservation. A species or highly-related group of organisms will always give preference to their kind over others. If they didn't, they likely wouldn't have evolved to where they are. We don't know if we are alone until we've seen the whole universe, and you can easily find some graphic that demonstrates the fraction of the observable universe compared to the estimated total size. We have only seen a fraction. Anyways, no that doesn't impart inherent value. We are only more valuable to rocks and dust because we say so, and that's not much of a reason. Also, we are not seeking to destroy, but rather create, and we are inefficient. However, only by continuing that process can we become more efficient. Instead, I think it's naive to look at every gamete and pine for it to live. We are human, but that doesn't mean we should strive to birth as many others as possible (not anymore at least, since we are no longer evolving, and have no threats outside of threats from space or ourselves, and since space and resources are in question). If you believe that I could hold a sperm and egg together and when I push them together and they fuse it's human and when i pull them apart it's not, then that's fine, albeit ridiculous. The real issue is that it's not practical or helpful to anyone, so much that could be gained is lost.
|
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Well you also have things like genes that you pass along. An example I have encountered myself is that of women who carry BCRA genes. This highly increases the chances you have for getting cancer. There is something like a 50% chance that you will pass the gene over to you offspring. With IVF they can potentially reduce this chance to 0. It is very easy to say just adopt, but it is a very touchy subject to force decisions on others.
|
On July 05 2013 08:11 KwarK wrote:
Why would the mother have deciding control over what happens to the embryo if it's not inside her and it's composed of genetic material from both mother and father? It doesn't belong to her any more than it does to him. They both contributed one cell.
Why does the embryo's actual location matter?
If she was intended as the recipient of the implantation of the embryo, then of course she should be in control of what happens to it, just as if the embryo had been created naturally.
Just because the conception was artificial, it does not mean that the woman loses the rights to do with it what she wishes.
Think about it. What you are suggesting basically discriminates against women who otherwise cannot conceive. A woman who is capable of natural conception can consent to conceive, and then revoke consent at any point. Why should a woman who cannot naturally conceive, or who has chosen artificial conception, not have this same right?
|
United States41958 Posts
On July 06 2013 09:33 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 08:11 KwarK wrote:
Why would the mother have deciding control over what happens to the embryo if it's not inside her and it's composed of genetic material from both mother and father? It doesn't belong to her any more than it does to him. They both contributed one cell. Why does the embryo's actual location matter? If she was intended as the recipient of the implantation of the embryo, then of course she should be in control of what happens to it, just as if the embryo had been created naturally. Just because the conception was artificial, it does not mean that the woman loses the rights to do with it what she wishes. Think about it. What you are suggesting basically discriminates against women who otherwise cannot conceive. A woman who is capable of natural conception can consent to conceive, and then revoke consent at any point. Why should a woman who cannot naturally conceive, or who has chosen artificial conception, not have this same right?
The location matters because the mother's right to withdraw consent is directly built upon its dependence upon her body. She can say "I will no longer give you my womb to live in/my nutrients to consume/my oxygen to breathe and if that kills you then that's unfortunate but these things were never your right, they are my body and control of them is mine". If it's an embryo sitting in a test tube then the mother can exercise as much control over her body as she likes without it in any way impacting the embryo because the embryo isn't inside her womb. I don't believe there is any right for a woman to control an embryo, only over her own body. What I am suggesting in no way discriminates against women who cannot naturally conceive, both have the exact same rights to their own body and both have the same right of abortion once pregnant.
|
On July 06 2013 09:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 09:33 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 05 2013 08:11 KwarK wrote:
Why would the mother have deciding control over what happens to the embryo if it's not inside her and it's composed of genetic material from both mother and father? It doesn't belong to her any more than it does to him. They both contributed one cell. Why does the embryo's actual location matter? If she was intended as the recipient of the implantation of the embryo, then of course she should be in control of what happens to it, just as if the embryo had been created naturally. Just because the conception was artificial, it does not mean that the woman loses the rights to do with it what she wishes. Think about it. What you are suggesting basically discriminates against women who otherwise cannot conceive. A woman who is capable of natural conception can consent to conceive, and then revoke consent at any point. Why should a woman who cannot naturally conceive, or who has chosen artificial conception, not have this same right? The location matters because the mother's right to withdraw consent is directly built upon its dependence upon her body. She can say "I will no longer give you my womb to live in/my nutrients to consume/my oxygen to breathe and if that kills you then that's unfortunate but these things were never your right, they are my body and control of them is mine". If it's an embryo sitting in a test tube then the mother can exercise as much control over her body as she likes without it in any way impacting the embryo because the embryo isn't inside her womb. I don't believe there is any right for a woman to control an embryo, only over her own body. What I am suggesting in no way discriminates against women who cannot naturally conceive, both have the exact same rights to their own body and both have the same right of abortion once pregnant.
Perhaps I'm not understanding the specifics.
This only really comes into play when the man and the woman disagree over the fate of the embryo, correct?
Situation 1:
Father wants embryo destroyed. Mother wants it implanted.
Solution:
Implant it, the father should not have to support the child should it come to term.
Situation 2:
Father wants embryo implanted. Mother wants it destroyed.
Solution:
Either do nothing, or destroy it. Either way is essentially the same unless the mother changes her mind. Really only comes down to practicality of solution. Essentially though the mother is "in control" since the father has no way of getting what he wants.
Situation 3:
Father wants embryo implanted in a surrogate (who is agreeable). Mother wants it destroyed.
Solution:
Implant it in the surrogate, mother should not have to support the child if it comes to term. This situation is different from the original, though, as the intended recipient is not the same.
In almost every situation where the mother is the intended recipient of the embryo the only fair thing is to base the fate of the embryo on her wish, because it is HER body that will be used for the gestation. If the mother is not the intended recipient then the situation is different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
