Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?

[Final-Fan]

elprincipe said:

Final-Fan said:

elprincipe said:

Final-Fan said:

elprincipe said:

Final-Fan said:

elprincipe said:

Final-Fan said:

[edit: Looking back, it seems that elprincipe has no problem killing fertilized eggs as long as they haven't been "implanted". Why the distinction, elprincipe?]

Easy, many eggs are fertilized and never implanted in the female and start to grow. I don't mourn these as lost lives because they never began life as a person; they were merely fertilized eggs. Once a fertilized egg is implanted in the female and begins to grow on its own, that is a separate, distinct, unique person and not just the two building blocks of a person together.

OK, but [edit: never mind this part, you never said what I'm arguing against. I'll leave it in though.] what does the survival rate of the fertilized eggs have to do with anything? Back in the middle ages when infant mortality rates were just ridiculous would it be OK to have abortion? (I seem to recall that way back when they didn't even name infants in many cultures until a certain age, presumably because so many died soon after birth. I could be wrong though.)

Why does successful implantation into the female make the fertilized egg MORE separate, distinct, and unique? That doesn't make any sense to me at all. Cell division begins to occur immediately; the growth is already underway. Why is a blastocyst human after successfully burrowing into the uterus and not before?

Repeat: Growth begins BEFORE implantation.

Simple, because before that happens there is a good chance that the cells will die naturally. Once what you've described happens, at some point the cells become a human being, no? If that is true, at what point? What other logical point is there, except the point we are talking about? Babies develop at different rates, so you can't say after X weeks of development. I suppose you could argue after heartbeats or brainwaves start, but these are semantics; children's brainwaves are different than adults, their bodies are different, yet they are human beings just as much as an adult, so I don't see how smaller children are somehow in a different category.

OK, now I guess I have to reinstate the part I took out:

What does the survival rate of the fertilized eggs have to do with anything? Back in the middle ages when infant mortality rates were just ridiculous would it be OK to have abortion? (I seem to recall that way back when they didn't even name infants in many cultures until a certain age, presumably because so many died soon after birth. I could be wrong though.)

As far as I can tell you've abandoned the idea that implantation actually is some kind of starting point and gone to, "well, it's just a good spot to pick." You seem to be admitting that at some point the developing tissue develops to the point that it is now considered a child, which is very different from what you have argued up until now. Are we now indeed down to arguing over the proper stage in development that that occurs? I want to make sure before I spend a few paragraphs on the brainwaves thing. (It's NOT semantics.)

If you leave a fertilized egg alone to develop naturally before it is implanted, it may or may not survive. If you leave a fertilized egg alone after it is implanted, most likely it will eventually be born. Therefore, one is a potential life and another is a life.

So again, you're using survival rate as the deciding factor? That seems strange to me, especially when you probably could have made an argument a thousand years ago in support of "abortion" up to the first year after birth based on that factor.

Not at all. If we allow nature to take its course we get a human being from that point forward. Before that point there are plenty of potential human beings that never come to be. So you see, I have no problem stopping it getting to that point, but once we reach that point what is implanted and growing is a human being. You can also deduce from this that I have no objection to stem cell research.

Your earlier post:  If you leave a fertilized egg alone to develop naturally before it is implanted, it may or may not survive. If you leave a fertilized egg alone after it is implanted, most likely it will eventually be born. Therefore, one is a potential life and another is a life.

What is your basis for saying that it is only "life" once it has implanted into the uterus?  As I showed above, growth has already begun and is well underway by the time that implantation occurs.  I am really trying to understand you here.  Unless you are merely trying to say that this is the particular stage in a continuum of prenatal development that you believe is where we should 'draw the line' between "not human yet, OK to kill" and "it's human now, killing is murder"? (while Rath and I think the line (or range of time) should be drawn later on). 

I'm honestly confused here.  At first, you seemed to be saying that the fertilized egg wasn't human because it hadn't yet begun to grow, which would be very sensible but turns out not to be the case.  Then you seemed to be saying that it wasn't human because "there is a good chance that the cells will die naturally".  Your latest response begins, "Not at all", but it appears that you are continuing to use the survival rate argument! ("If we allow nature to take its course we get a human being from that point forward. Before that point there are plenty of potential human beings that never come to be.") What did you mean by "not at all" if you are agreeing that you define human life to begin when the prenatal fatality rate drops to a sensible level?