Carl Sagan - Abortion Debate - A Scientific View

[Welliam Wittier]

Iangb, I was referring to the fact that the U.S. and Canada refuses to issue patents on 'human organisms.'

The article that I read was about genetic engineering, stem cell research and cloning. It mentioned zygotes and embryo's specifically and I remember thinking about how much it supported the claim that a human life begins at conception.

If you want me to, I can try to find the article but the bottom line on it is the same. WE can't get a patent on human organisms and that includes human zygotes and embryos. There was something about 'one person can't own another' too and I thought that was really interesting because of the personhood part of the debate.

 

[iangb]

Yes, you mentioned that - and I'm asking for the specific policy/law which prevents this, so I can comment specifically on it. What's more, I was pointing out that the laws/policies of a governmental body do not necessarily reflect scientific fact. Repeating your position doesn't change either of these things.

 

[Welliam Wittier]

Yes, you mentioned that - and I'm asking for the specific policy/law which prevents this, so I can comment specifically on it. What's more, I was pointing out that the laws/policies of a governmental body do not necessarily reflect scientific fact. Repeating your position doesn't change either of these things.

I understand.

I can't find the article itself and I never saved it. It was when the laws about human cloning and stem cells were being written.

For the purpose of the abortion debate, existing laws and precedence matters more than does the science behind them. However, I see your point and I would like to see the specific language and arguments myself.

 

[AGENT J]

Iangb, I was referring to the fact that the U.S. and Canada refuses to issue patents on 'human organisms.'

The article that I read was about genetic engineering, stem cell research and cloning. It mentioned zygotes and embryo's specifically and I remember thinking about how much it supported the claim that a human life begins at conception.

If you want me to, I can try to find the article but the bottom line on it is the same. WE can't get a patent on human organisms and that includes human zygotes and embryos. There was something about 'one person can't own another' too and I thought that was really interesting because of the personhood part of the debate.

so it was exactly what i said, there are factually no laws that define anything, its your OPINION on the law and what you THINK it means.

THanks for clearing that up.

 

[iangb]

I understand.

I can't find the article itself and I never saved it. It was when the laws about human cloning and stem cells were being written.

For the purpose of the abortion debate, existing laws and precedence matters more than does the science behind them. However, I see your point and I would like to see the specific language and arguments myself.

I would certainly agree that I'd like to see the specifics myself - especially given the content of what my quick google found!

This thread in particular was not pertaining to laws and precedence, but to the science itself. As to regarding the wider abortion debate, I'd consider a mixture of the two to be important, although I'd certainly say that while laws can be guided by science, science (that is to say; things declared as scientific fact) should never be guided by laws.

Remember also that the biggest legal weight currently standing is Roe vs Wade, which is definitely a pro-choice precedent, and stated pretty specifically that there is no easy solution to the question of 'when life begins'.

 

[Welliam Wittier]

I would certainly agree that I'd like to see the specifics myself - especially given the content of what my quick google found!

This thread in particular was not pertaining to laws and precedence, but to the science itself. As to regarding the wider abortion debate, I'd consider a mixture of the two to be important, although I'd certainly say that while laws can be guided by science, science (that is to say; things declared as scientific fact) should never be guided by laws.

Remember also that the biggest legal weight currently standing is Roe vs Wade, which is definitely a pro-choice precedent, and stated pretty specifically that there is no easy solution to the question of 'when life begins'.

As far as I am concerned, the debate has long ago moved past the 'zygote is an organism' question.

We have standing laws that already establish the unlawful killing of a prenatal child in 'any stage of development' as a murder.

And, the laws which say we can't patent one (a human zygote) puts the issue to rest (for me) too.

I did find some documentation that sheds some light on both sides of the issue and I'll share them without making an argument.

Like I said, for me - it's already settled by the fact that we have these laws and clearly the debate has moved on because no one is challenging them.

U.S. Congressional Record

Edinburgh School of Law

 

[AGENT J]

As far as I am concerned, the debate has long ago moved past the 'zygote is an organism' question.

We have standing laws that already establish the unlawful killing of a prenatal child in 'any stage of development' as a murder.

And, the laws which say we can't patent one (a human zygote) puts the issue to rest (for me) too.

I did find some documentation that sheds some light on both sides of the issue and I'll share them without making an argument.

Like I said, for me - it's already settled by the fact that we have these laws and clearly the debate has moved on because no one is challenging them.

U.S. Congressional Record

Edinburgh School of Law

again this is only your OPINION and facts disagree, i like how your biased shoes so blantley though.

You admit the debate exists but then say for you its over because of things that factually do not settle the debate but you just "like them" LMAO

wonder if youll ever address my question and others who have asked you why you think its ok to infringe on woman's rights, im guessing youll never answer this since you cant logical explain how you view it different.

 

[hfd]

again this is only your OPINION and facts disagree, i like how your biased shoes so blantley though.

You admit the debate exists but then say for you its over because of things that factually do not settle the debate but you just "like them" LMAO

wonder if youll ever address my question and others who have asked you why you think its ok to infringe on woman's rights, im guessing youll never answer this since you cant logical explain how you view it different.

1. What's a blantley?

2. At what age should a child be before a woman no longer has the 'right' kill it?

Video: Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion | The Weekly Standard

 

[choiceone]

Iangb, I was referring to the fact that the U.S. and Canada refuses to issue patents on 'human organisms.'

The article that I read was about genetic engineering, stem cell research and cloning. It mentioned zygotes and embryo's specifically and I remember thinking about how much it supported the claim that a human life begins at conception.

If you want me to, I can try to find the article but the bottom line on it is the same. WE can't get a patent on human organisms and that includes human zygotes and embryos. There was something about 'one person can't own another' too and I thought that was really interesting because of the personhood part of the debate.

I would like to find out about this source because there seems to be problem with the logic here. A patent can only be had for an invention. However, property rights had be had for lots of things, and right now, property rights are the reason why husbands and wives who have had IVF zygotes/embryos produced, frozen, and kept at IVF clinics can prevent medical personnel from implanting them in women who did not provide the ova for the zygotes. Take away their property rights and any medical personnel could implant them in such women, without the consent of that husband and wife.

 

[AGENT J]

1. What's a blantley?

2. At what age should a child be before a woman no longer has the 'right' kill it?

Video: Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion | The Weekly Standard

1.) should say blatantly
2.) age? has we define has not barring
who is talking about a right to kill?

your video link is also meaningless to me :shrug:

please let me know when you have something on topic

could you

 

[~Dr.Who~]

1.) should say blatantly
2.) age? has we define has not barring
who is talking about a right to kill?

your video link is also meaningless to me :shrug:

please let me know when you have something on topic

could you

again and again you try to derail someones' thinking with nothing but negative commands.

the post was brilliant and the link 's relevance is not seen by you because ?????

yeah right!!!!!!

 

[AGENT J]

again and again you try to derail someones' thinking with nothing but negative commands.

the post was brilliant and the link 's relevance is not seen by you because ?????

yeah right!!!!!!

translation: you got nothing

before your next post, try to pick something on topic and we can discuss it because you obviously have no cluew what is being discussed nor my stance on anything.

 

[~Dr.Who~]

translation: you got nothing

before your next post, try to pick something on topic and we can discuss it because you obviously have no cluew what is being discussed nor my stance on anything.

erm uh....yeah right!!!!!

your found out is all....

no big deal dude....

 

[AGENT J]

erm uh....yeah right!!!!!

your found out is all....

no big deal dude....

translation: you still got nothing, i know its no big deal because the truth hasnt changed