Real simple:

[Cremaster77]

Umm, yes it is. The natural process is for sperm and egg is to meet, it requires active human intervention to prevent their meeting, and many times the active human intervention is unsuccessful. That is, sex IS natural, preventing sex IS intervening. That said, I'm all for intervention, whether to prevent egg and sperm from meeting or to prevent a zygote from further development.

If you take a sperm or egg and do nothing else actively, they will progress in development? That's some strange egg or sperm.

I never said that sex isn't natural. Nor did I advocate preventing sex. What I said is that a haploid egg or sperm will not progress in human development if there is not the active intervention of combining them. Without the active intervention, the sperm and the egg will never develop. Without active intervention the zygote's natural biologic course is to progress.

 

[OKgrannie]

"What I said is that a haploid egg or sperm will not progress in human development if there is not the active intervention of combining them. "

You're not getting it. The fact is that combining the egg or sperm is not an intervention, it is the natural course of action. It is what WILL happen WITHOUT intervention. Mankind interferes, or intervenes, with the natural course of action all the time. Intervening in the instance of the zygote is neither more nor less moral than intervening with the natural course of action of the egg and sperm. The zygote is neither more nor less valuable to society than the egg/sperm.

 

[1069]

Whether or not a zygote, embryo, or fetus is alive, "human", and/or sentient is ultimately beside the point.
No person or entity has the right to occupy the body of an unwilling human host, or to extract another person's bodily resources without their consent.
Period.
The end.

 

[Cremaster77]

"What I said is that a haploid egg or sperm will not progress in human development if there is not the active intervention of combining them. "

You're not getting it. The fact is that combining the egg or sperm is not an intervention, it is the natural course of action. It is what WILL happen WITHOUT intervention. Mankind interferes, or intervenes, with the natural course of action all the time. Intervening in the instance of the zygote is neither more nor less moral than intervening with the natural course of action of the egg and sperm. The zygote is neither more nor less valuable to society than the egg/sperm.

I understand your point, but I think it's flawed. The combination of sperm with egg requires human action to make it happen. You state that egg and sperm WILL combine WITHOUT intervention. In this case, sexual intercourse or in vitro fertilization are the interventions. Sexual intercourse is a conscious human intervention. The eggs of a person who is celibate will not proceed in development. It REQUIRES the intervention of intercourse or through even more artificial means. This is not to say that sex is not a natural act, but fertilization requires the conscious act of intercourse.

 

[Cremaster77]

Whether or not a zygote, embryo, or fetus is alive, "human", and/or sentient is ultimately beside the point.
No person or entity has the right to occupy the body of an unwilling human host, or to extract another person's bodily resources without their consent.
Period.
The end.

What do you consider extracting bodily resources? Would you consider forcing a person to provide for their child which requires time, energy, effort as bodily resources?

BTW, finishing a post with "Period. The end." doesn't mean your point is valid. It just means you are unwilling to discuss it. There's a big difference. Many people with completely illogical and nonsensical stances are not willing to discuss their stance. I'm not saying you are illogical or nonsensical, but dismissing a conversation off hand speaks volumes.

 

[1069]

What do you consider extracting bodily resources? Would you consider forcing a person to provide for their child which requires time, energy, effort as bodily resources?

What are you babbling about?
Time and energy bodily resources?
Look up the term "bodily resources", if you don't know what bodily resources are.
I don't have time to tutor cretins, and I'm not being paid to do so.

 

[Cremaster77]

What are you babbling about?
Time and energy bodily resources?
Look up the term "bodily resources", if you don't know what bodily resources are.
I don't have time to tutor cretins, and I'm not being paid to do so.

Clearly you have no interest in discussing anything. Only hearing the tapping of your own typing. Please do not respond to any more of my posts and I will do the same for you.

 

[OKgrannie]

I understand your point, but I think it's flawed. The combination of sperm with egg requires human action to make it happen. You state that egg and sperm WILL combine WITHOUT intervention. In this case, sexual intercourse or in vitro fertilization are the interventions. Sexual intercourse is a conscious human intervention. The eggs of a person who is celibate will not proceed in development. It REQUIRES the intervention of intercourse or through even more artificial means. This is not to say that sex is not a natural act, but fertilization requires the conscious act of intercourse.

You state that sexual intercourse is a conscious human intervention. I say that PREVENTING sexual intercourse requires a conscious human intervention. It is true that the eggs of a person who is celibate will not develop, but many eggs of a person who is NOT celibate will not develop, and once development has begun, it will frequently cease even without intervention. In fact, approximately 70% of fertilized eggs do not survive to birth, and while this may cause individual anguish, society does not mourn this loss. So why should society be grieved over the loss of fertilized eggs that do not survive because of intervention? BTW, fertilization does not require the act of intercourse, just that the sperm be deposited close enough to the vagina that one can make its way to the egg.

 

[1069]

You state that sexual intercourse is a conscious human intervention. I say that PREVENTING sexual intercourse requires a conscious human intervention. It is true that the eggs of a person who is celibate will not develop, but many eggs of a person who is NOT celibate will not develop, and once development has begun, it will frequently cease even without intervention. In fact, approximately 70% of fertilized eggs do not survive to birth, and while this may cause individual anguish, society does not mourn this loss. So why should society be grieved over the loss of fertilized eggs that do not survive because of intervention? BTW, fertilization does not require the act of intercourse, just that the sperm be deposited close enough to the vagina that one can make its way to the egg.

And this, or intercourse, can certainly be inflicted upon a female without her consent and against her will.

 

[Cremaster77]

You state that sexual intercourse is a conscious human intervention. I say that PREVENTING sexual intercourse requires a conscious human intervention.

I think that both intercourse and contraception are conscious human interventions. Left on its own in its natural environment neither a sperm or egg will develop. The egg does not suddenly grow to become an adult within a woman's ovary nor does a sperm grow to become an adult in a man's testicle. The natural progression of a zygote however is to progress within the uterus through human development.

It is true that the eggs of a person who is celibate will not develop, but many eggs of a person who is NOT celibate will not develop, and once development has begun, it will frequently cease even without intervention. In fact, approximately 70% of fertilized eggs do not survive to birth, and while this may cause individual anguish, society does not mourn this loss. So why should society be grieved over the loss of fertilized eggs that do not survive because of intervention?

Somewhere between 50% of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort before the mother ever knows she was pregnant. Once a women has progressed far enough in her pregnancy to actually know she is pregnant, approximately 80% of pregnancy will progress to live birth. Regardless of the percentages, the spontaneous abortions that occur do so due to the natural biologic processes of development. But as these numbers clearly show, the number of pregnancies that are aborted that would naturally progress to live birth are much higher than the 30% you indirectly suggest above, since for the most part, abortion does not occur before a person even knows they are pregnant. The reason that society doesn't grieve the loss of something that spontaneously aborted is because it was considered a natural biologic act.

BTW, fertilization does not require the act of intercourse, just that the sperm be deposited close enough to the vagina that one can make its way to the egg.

You are correct that intercourse is not the only intervention that can result in pregnancy; however, aside from IVF, which clearly is human intervention, real world cases of pregnancy without intercourse are almost non-existent.

 

[1069]

The reason that society doesn't grieve the loss of something that spontaneously aborted is because it was considered a natural biologic act.

Well, that doesn't make any darn sense. :?
If one of my boys dies of lymphoma, do you really, seriously think I'm going to grieve less than if one of them gets murdered or dies in a car accident, simply because disease is "a natural, biological event" which involved no human intervention?
People don't grieve for the spontaneously aborted zygotes, embryos, and fetuses of strangers because nobody gives a crap about fetuses, really.
Even if your sister or your best friend miscarries, what you're really grieving for is her, her sadness, her ruined expectations. Not the fetus she miscarried.
Prolifers don't care about fetuses that are aborted, either.
It's all just a facade, to disguise the fact that they are threatened by women, and therefore wish to take away their right to bodily autonomy.
Some prolifers pretend for so long, they actually become confused and start believing their own hype, start believing they're on a crusade to rescue the pweshuss wittle fetuses. But nevertheless, it's still just hype.

Here's my theory about their real motives:

link

 

[Felicity]

Prolifers don't care about fetuses that are aborted, either.
It's all just a facade, to disguise the fact that they are threatened by women, and therefore wish to take away their right to bodily autonomy.
Some prolifers pretend for so long, they actually become confused and start believing their own hype, start believing they're on a crusade to rescue the pweshuss wittle fetuses. But nevertheless, it's still just hype.

Here's my theory about their real motives:

link

Are you familiar with the Freudian concept of projection? You must be--you present, so clearly, an example. Oh, wait..it is a delusion in order to protect one's own psyche...so maybe you aren't aware of it.

 

[Cremaster77]

It's all just a facade, to disguise the fact that they are threatened by women, and therefore wish to take away their right to bodily autonomy.
Some prolifers pretend for so long, they actually become confused and start believing their own hype, start believing they're on a crusade to rescue the pweshuss wittle fetuses. But nevertheless, it's still just hype.

Here's my theory about their real motives:

link

So far in the 3 days that I've posted in the forum you've called me a cretin, implied that I hate women, and accused me of being threatened by women. As I said before, if you want to have a rational discussion about abortion, I would be happy to participate. If all you want to do is call names and rant with sole purpose of finding some gratification in reading your rantings in anonymous internet forums, then I will pass and suggest you ignore my posts so that I can discuss this important issue with people who actually want to discuss it.

 

[Jerry]

You state that sexual intercourse is a conscious human intervention. I say that PREVENTING sexual intercourse requires a conscious human intervention. It is true that the eggs of a person who is celibate will not develop, but many eggs of a person who is NOT celibate will not develop, and once development has begun, it will frequently cease even without intervention. In fact, approximately 70% of fertilized eggs do not survive to birth, and while this may cause individual anguish, society does not mourn this loss. So why should society be grieved over the loss of fertilized eggs that do not survive because of intervention? BTW, fertilization does not require the act of intercourse, just that the sperm be deposited close enough to the vagina that one can make its way to the egg.

Your argument is an Appeal to Nature and is therefore fallacious.

A miscarriage is not a conscious choice. It is mindless biology and therefore can not be compared to an elective abortion.

 

[Jerry]

Here's my theory about their real motives:

link

You clearly do not comprehend PL motives as you just conceded the Reverse Debate without having made any ground.

 

[1069]

You clearly do not comprehend PL motives as you just conceded the Reverse Debate without having made any ground.

Well, at least I gave it the old college try (reverse debate, that is).
And I really had hoped that, by temporarily assuming a prolife position, I'd learn something to help me understand prolifers differently, or at least better.
But there's simply nothing.
I pored over every piece of prolife literature I could find on the internet.
There's nothing to support the position, nothing but one big emotional appeal that boils down to "Fetuses are cute, so don't kill them! And women who have sex are sluts, so who cares about their human rights?"

It's not a position I was interested in pursuing further, because it makes me very sad.
The only way I can explain anyone adopting such a misogynistic position is by imagining that they must feel threatened by women for some reason, which would explain why they wish harm upon them.
It's too awful to imagine that maybe anti-choicers don't feel threatened by women; maybe they wish harm upon women for no particular reason, maybe they wish to take away women's fundamental human rights simply "because".
People aren't that evil. I refuse to believe that they are.

 

[Jerry]

Well, at least I gave it the old college try (reverse debate, that is).
And I really had hoped that, by temporarily assuming a prolife position, I'd learn something to help me understand prolifers differently, or at least better.
But there's simply nothing.
I pored over every piece of prolife literature I could find on the internet.
There's nothing to support the position......

You never came accross this?

"Creation" occurs at conception, because after conception DNA shows that the organism in question already exists, therefore the right to life applies to the Zygote and all related PC philosophical/ideological/religious arguments are irrelevant.

 

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Jerry
You clearly do not comprehend PL motives as you just conceded the Reverse Debate without having made any ground.

Well, at least I gave it the old college try (reverse debate, that is).
And I really had hoped that, by temporarily assuming a prolife position, I'd learn something to help me understand prolifers differently, or at least better.
But there's simply nothing.
I pored over every piece of prolife literature I could find on the internet.
There's nothing to support the position, nothing but one big emotional appeal that boils down to "Fetuses are cute, so don't kill them! And women who have sex are sluts, so who cares about their human rights?"

It's not a position I was interested in pursuing further, because it makes me very sad.
The only way I can explain anyone adopting such a misogynistic position is by imagining that they must feel threatened by women for some reason, which would explain why they wish harm upon them.
It's too awful to imagine that maybe anti-choicers don't feel threatened by women; maybe they wish harm upon women for no particular reason, maybe they wish to take away women's fundamental human rights simply "because".
People aren't that evil. I refuse to believe that they are.

You have no credibility. Zilch.

Sorry....you have proven your lack of sincerity, not only in the RD, but also in the responses above. Everything you have to say on the abortion topic is without merit and a product of your own warped world view. May I remind you of your admission that your particular brand of pro-choice only claims to want to make the abortion option rare in order to appease "weak" pro-choicers and gain political ground to push the pro-choice agenda (in that case, I think it's fair to call it the "pro-abortion" agenda--which I don't normally call it out of deference to differring POVs). http://www.debatepolitics.com/452857-post55.html

You have no interest in the topic, you have an emotional grudge of some sort that I think relates to your relationship with your father, your absent mother, your rebellious childhood that you stripped yourself of at 17, a bad marriage, and an abortion...but those are your issues to deal with and I wish you all the best at sorting out that mess. However, it is clear that your bias and personal issues affect your ability to be rational and objective concerning the abortion topic. Too bad--you're a smart woman when your not spouting nonsense about other people's position being based on the "cuteness" of a fetus.:roll: or women are "sluts.":roll:

 

[OKgrannie]

Your argument is an Appeal to Nature and is therefore fallacious.

A miscarriage is not a conscious choice. It is mindless biology and therefore can not be compared to an elective abortion.

My argument is an appeal to intervention. A miscarriage, or spontaneous abortion, is mindless biology; an elective abortion is mindful biology, and the result is the same. Society is not damaged in either instance, so society, or society's members, should mind their own business.

 

[OKgrannie]

You never came accross this?

"Creation" occurs at conception, because after conception DNA shows that the organism in question already exists, therefore the right to life applies to the Zygote and all related PC philosophical/ideological/religious arguments are irrelevant.

"Creation" is a process, not an instantaneous occurrence. DNA is a blueprint for a person, not a person, not anymore than a blueprint for a house is a completed home. No one, not a fetus nor a grown person, has a "right to life" when its continued sustenance is dependent upon another person.

 

[Jerry]

My argument is an appeal to intervention. A miscarriage, or spontaneous abortion, is mindless biology; an elective abortion is mindful biology, and the result is the same.

Ah, your a moral relativist, now I understand why you make such logical fallacies.

If a miscarriage and an abortion are to be seen as equal, then so is a heart attack equal to a homicide. The result, after all, is the same, and "society" (by whatever ambiguous definition, which you have not given, you use) suffers the loss of one who dies of a heart attack just as it does with an abortion; which you imply is non at all.

Society is not damaged in either instance, so society, or society's members, should mind their own business

I'm not sure how you don't see decapitation as a damage, but since abortion regulation is a matter of public policy it is indeed society’s business.

The People are minding our own business: Law and public policy.

Should someone inquire as to the medical records of a spicific individual, then you will have grounds to assert that that person mind their own business. However, you have no grounds to assert that people outside yourself should have no say on abortion, as that would divorce you from even Roe-v-Wade.

"Creation" is a process, not an instantaneous occurrence. DNA is a blueprint for a person, not a person, not anymore than a blueprint for a house is a completed home. No one, not a fetus nor a grown person, has a "right to life" when its continued sustenance is dependent upon another person.

Please quote and link to the case law supporting your assertion that, say, Siamese twins who shear organs, are not persons.

 

[1069]

Siamese twins who shear organs

:shock:

Sounds like some new B-grade horror movie.

You and Doughgirl ("prostrate cancer") = two peas in a pod.
Are you sure you're not her alter ego?

link

 

[Jerry]

:shock:

Sounds like some new B-grade horror movie.

You and Doughgirl ("prostrate cancer") = two peas in a pod.
Are you sure you're not her alter ego?

link

OKgrannie, please notice how 1069 avoids answering the question completely, hiding behind some half-baked attempt at calling doubt to my character.

I suggest that you avoided similar tom foolery and meet the challenge of backing up your argument.

 

[1069]

OKgrannie, please notice how 1069 avoids answering the question completely, hiding behind some half-baked attempt at calling doubt to my character.

I suggest that you avoided similar tom foolery and meet the challenge of backing up your argument.

:ws

That's right, Grannie... none of your "tom foolery", you hear?
This is very serious business. :?

 

[Jerry]

:ws

That's right, Grannie... none of your "tom foolery", you hear?
This is very serious business. :?

That is another example of a post which does not answer the question.