quote:

So, if not then, when? Ah, the age old question. How about 20 weeks, 15 weeks? What if one fetus progresses faster than the other, do we use weight instead of age? Or, do we simply say it is what it is, conceived by humans and therefore human on conception since we are not able to say when it might otherwise be human. We are incapable of making that judgment so we cannot judge and therefore must find for the innocent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Then you really don't grasp the issue at all. HeLa cells survived standard sterilization techniques in use in the 60's and 70's. That's how they contaminated other cell lines. I've personally added bleach right from the bottle to a colony and some of the cells survived.

You seem to think they are simply living on growth media in a dish. They survive most any cleaning of lab equipment except sterilization in an autoclave and they apparently even sometimes survive that.

Okay, so they're hardy little buggers... We've strayed so far from the issue I don't see where this is heading.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

So, if not then, when? Ah, the age old question. How about 20 weeks, 15 weeks? What if one fetus progresses faster than the other, do we use weight instead of age? Or, do we simply say it is what it is, conceived by humans and therefore human on conception since we are not able to say when it might otherwise be human. We are incapable of making that judgment so we cannot judge and therefore must find for the innocent.

The point of viability works for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Then you really don't grasp the issue at all. HeLa cells survived standard sterilization techniques in use in the 60's and 70's. That's how they contaminated other cell lines. I've personally added bleach right from the bottle to a colony and some of the cells survived.

You seem to think they are simply living on growth media in a dish. They survive most any cleaning of lab equipment except sterilization in an autoclave and they apparently even sometimes survive that.

Okay, so they're hardy little buggers... We've strayed so far from the issue I don't see where this is heading.

The point remains they are human life and we kill them all the time. Which conflicts with your contention that random clumps of cells should be treated as fully human.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

How do I decide when a baby can be sliced up without feeling any pain?

A study? Which one?

Are they not fallible?

What if the study is wrong?

How can we avoid being wrong?

There is only one way and that is do not slice the baby up and vacuum it out of it's mother's womb. Ever. Never.

We cannot be wrong about this. Never.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Humans cannot set lines like this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Humans cannot set lines like this.

If humans don't, who does?

Do the Priest Kings decide?
Does some imaginary invisible thing in the sky decide?
Does a 5th century semi literate monk decide?

I prefer humans

quote:

Did you not bother to read the thread before posting or did you read one and decide that was all the wisdom to be gleaned from the entire series?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

Did you not bother to read the thread before posting or did you read one and decide that was all the wisdom to be gleaned from the entire series?

I read it. Would you stake your life or someone else's life on a study if you had a choice not to and if you don't, then all will be well, but if you do and it is wrong then you have inflicted an amazing wrong on fellow humans?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Humans cannot set lines like this.

If humans don't, who does?

Do the Priest Kings decide?
Does some imaginary invisible thing in the sky decide?
Does a 5th century semi literate monk decide?

I prefer humans

This presupposes a decision must be made and in that vein why was a decision needed on the Jewish question in Nazi Germany when they decided to abort fully adult Jews? I suggest it is the same reason a decision is needed on when to slice babies up in their mothers womb. Self interest.

So, if I understand you correctly, you would leave it up to other humans to decide when to slice you up or take you off life support?

I am amazed you trust your fellow humans to make that decision and you'll forgive me if I don't.

quote:

Would you say the same if you yourself were one day before that point, which moves as technology gets better at keeping premature babies alive?

So, the point where we can take a baby out of the womb without special reason is the point where they cannot survive outside the womb, pre-viability. This suggests "viability" outside a support system determines if you live or you die in our fair Republic, the land of the free and the home of the brave.

quote:

So, by your definition, any error in biology to prevent the implantation, which is a crucial element for any growth of life, in the species we are discussing, is actually murder.

quote:

The point remains they are human life and we kill them all the time. Which conflicts with your contention that random clumps of cells should be treated as fully human.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

So, by your definition, any error in biology to prevent the implantation, which is a crucial element for any growth of life, in the species we are discussing, is actually murder.

No.

An error in biology is not the same thing as shooting someone in the head.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

The point remains they are human life and we kill them all the time. Which conflicts with your contention that random clumps of cells should be treated as fully human.

Where did I say that random clumps of cells should be treated as fully human?

On the contrary, I specifically stated with my first post on this thread that I am and remain firmly pro-choice.

I do think that some clumps of cells, under certain circumstances should be regarded as human because to draw the line at any point other than conception (the obvious, natural starting point of a human being) is arbitrary. I also believe that much of the dismissive talk about "clumps of cells" and "viability" is just double talk and euphemisms whose purpose is to shield ourselves from the unpleasant fact that every time an abortion occurs, a human life is snuffed out.

quote:

No. It is simple knowledge of biology. At least 2/3rds of fertilized eggs are not viable. Either there is a lethal abnormality or the blastocyte fails to successfully implant. Therefore it is wrong to regard such a clump of cells as a human life.

quote:

Somebody dying of a genetic disorder probably managed to implant into their mother's womb lining and develop from a foetus to something that could survive (at least for a while), after birth, so that comparison might be a little specious?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

No. It is simple knowledge of biology. At least 2/3rds of fertilized eggs are not viable. Either there is a lethal abnormality or the blastocyte fails to successfully implant. Therefore it is wrong to regard such a clump of cells as a human life.

Would you regard someone who is dying of an inherited disease as non human?

The fact of the matter is, any definition of human or not human you come up with is going to have exceptions. One size does not fit all. You would need a lengthy, convoluted, definition that covers all possibilities... if that is possible.