tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post609611134488113732..comments2023-05-05T06:38:34.592-04:00Comments on IMHO: Abortion vs. Embryonic Stem Cell ResearchNiceguy Eddiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03896896323840121445noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-59658467631787134752009-10-10T11:57:46.140-04:002009-10-10T11:57:46.140-04:00"Fertilized egg: left on its own, given nothi..."Fertilized egg: left on its own, given nothing but time, may develop into an agreed-upon life form."<br /><br />Not without implantation it can't. ;)Niceguy Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896896323840121445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-30336656201928048192009-10-09T23:51:05.320-04:002009-10-09T23:51:05.320-04:00I understand how you're seeing it, what I'...I understand how you're seeing it, what I'm saying is that you're making an argument to satisfy conservatives, and a fertilized egg's "potential for potential" qualifies for legal protection according to the argument you made.<br /><br />Talking about the point before an egg is fertilized makes zero sense. Obviously there's a huge difference between that and a fertilized egg before implantation. Remember, this is about the definition you provided, so let's put the two things to your test:<br /><br />Unfertilized egg:left on its own, given nothing but time, will never develop into an agreed-upon life form. Zero percent chance, therefore not "potential life".<br /><br />Fertilized egg:left on its own, given nothing but time, may develop into an agreed-upon life form. Since it has a greater-than-zero chance, it is "potential life".<br /><br />It should be very clear that I'm not talking about ESCR, since my first post talks about forms of contraception. Bear in mind that one of the functions of birth control pills - not just morning after pills - is to prevent implantation. The same is true for IUD's and Norplant. <br /><br />And that's the point here. If you're going to grant the generous threshhold you defined, then logically you have to argue that birth control methods that prevent implantation should be illegal. To change that, you have to move the threshhold or redefine your terms.Brabantionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-44778811651826887892009-10-09T22:31:56.203-04:002009-10-09T22:31:56.203-04:00It has the potential to implant. Just as sperm ha...It has the potential to implant. Just as sperm has potetnital to fertilize an egg, or an egg has potentail to be fertilized. So all any of those things have is the potential... for potential. Without ALL THREE, you cannot make life. It may seem a technicality, but it's undeniably true.<br /><br />I can have dirt, a seed, water and sunshine... but the chance of me ever haveing a plant is zero until everything's put together just right. I have to put one inside the other, pour one over it and place under the last.<br /><br />Likewise I can have sperm, an egg and a uterus. But if one is not inside the other, and inside the other, then everything dies before it becomes anything other than what it is. That's why I say it has no potential.<br /><br />Now... since your talking about the natural process being interrupted, I assume that your only really referring to things like the moring after pill, which prevents implantation, and not ESCR, whcih involved embryos created outside the body anyway, correct?<br /><br />Beyond that, I think we're just going to have to disagree here. The only way I can see it, the moment at which the potential to develop into life begins IS implantation. THAT is when contraceptive measures become abortive ones. <br /><br />Otherwise it's like playing baseball with 18 guys, 9 gloves and a bat... but no ball. Do you really have the potential for a game if your missing such a critical component?Niceguy Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896896323840121445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-7090513054146534442009-10-08T00:44:27.951-04:002009-10-08T00:44:27.951-04:00"Please re-define pregnancy, and/or find me a..."Please re-define pregnancy, and/or find me a p-test that will detect an embryo prior to implantation."<br /><br />I don't see how being detectable by testing is relevant at all. We're talking about "potential life" here, and that's a separate term from "pregnancy". The phrasing involved an entity left on its own having a chance of becoming an agreed-upon life form. Left on its own, a fertilized egg conceived naturally quite clearly qualifies. How would it not, outside of arbitrary determination?<br /><br />"And why is sperm that never comes near an egg different from an embryo that never comes near the uterine wall? Niether will ever produce a child / neither has any potential for "life.""<br /><br />Obviously some eggs will not implant, but that's natural. It's not a manipulation through science. You're talking about one specific egg that fails to implant, but the point is that eggs in general may implant unless there is prevention of that. Talking about "chance" dictates that the discussion goes beyond a single embryo, obviously.<br /><br />The "potential life" argument was supposed to satisfy conservatives. I don't see how that's going to work out. You're promising protection based on the terms you defined, but you can not prevent a fertilized egg from implanting without violating that protection. It's not just about where you personally start the clock, if you're going to sell it to someone else then the terms have to have a consistent meaning.<br /><br />Think about it this way: the term in question is "potential life", but you're essentially arguing that the egg itself doesn't count as that because it only has a 30% chance of implantation. Isn't that exactly what makes it "potential" life? Even if you were to say that an implanted egg has a 50% chance of eventually becoming a fetus, then it's a 15% chance overall. No matter how you cut it, it's greater than zero.Brabantionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-49765259810369365222009-10-07T18:42:50.425-04:002009-10-07T18:42:50.425-04:00"So if you prevent a fertilized egg from atta..."So if you prevent a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterine wall, that's different from removing a fertilized egg from the uterine wall?"<br /><br />Do you deny that one prevents a pregnancy from starting while the other stops one that has? Please re-define pregnancy, and/or find me a p-test that will detect an embryo prior to implantation. Because even the woman's own body does not start to react until it implact. (Everything kicks into high gear pretty quickly once it does, but until then - all systems normal, Captain!)<br /><br />And why is sperm that never comes near an egg different from an embryo that never comes near the uterine wall? Niether will ever produce a child / neither has any potential for "life."<br /><br />Why, then, would Sperm that's "in a woman's body" be different from an unimplanted embryo that's "in a woman's body?" Given TIME, both MIGHT eventually get to the point of potential, but still: nothing is possible without implantation. That's why I don't 'start the clock until then.'<br /><br />And just as not all sperm fertilize the egg, not all fertilized eggs implant. MORE do, obvioulsy - it's not the million to one odds that the sperm face - but it's still down around 30%. So you've now got a 30% chance to eventually establish the threshold of potential, assuming we're infact talking about one this IS inside a woman's body, and not frozen in Hydrogen, but until it is implanted, you just can't say it has any greater chance of becoming a human. We both say "given time" but I still won't 'start the clock' until implantation. Maybe it will (implant) and maybe it won't. But until it does, it's odds are not greater than they are when it in my hand, on the table or frozen solid. You may be CLOSER to having potential, but you don't have it yet.Niceguy Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896896323840121445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-20988104115244041882009-10-06T21:52:34.724-04:002009-10-06T21:52:34.724-04:00I find this distinction to be truly strange. So i...I find this distinction to be truly strange. So if you prevent a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterine wall, that's different from removing a fertilized egg from the uterine wall? They're both interventions of the natural process that's already running its course. And prevented implantation after natural conception is somehow similar to sperm cells that have never come anywhere near an egg?<br /><br />I don't see how a fertilized egg <i>in a woman's body</i> doesn't have a "greater than zero" chance of developing into a legally protectable entity. "Given nothing but time", that's clearly a possible human being. That simply isn't the same thing as sperm that is prevented from reaching the egg to begin with.Brabantionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-19269093684759943162009-10-06T18:53:50.953-04:002009-10-06T18:53:50.953-04:00I disagree.
What will it "develop naturally&...I disagree.<br /><br />What will it "develop naturally" INTO if it doesn't implant? Why is preventing implantation different from preventing concepcion? The potential does not go higher than zero until implantation. So at no point are you 'reducing' the potential, because without implantation there simply isn't any. Also, if you define 'potential' that broadly, then Sperm Cells have 'potential.' All they have to do, after all, is GO TO A SPECIFIC PLACE. Consider even a BLOOD CELL. I can make human life from THAT, right? All I have to do it put it's contents into an embryo. IOW: I have to PUT IT IN A SPECIFIC PLACE. Once I do that, it has potential. Anywhere else it doesn't. <br /><br />Well... that's all the embyo has to do: GO TO A SPECIFIC PLACE. And your chances of developing into "life" are zero until it does. Destroying an embryo is no different from destroying a sperm, egg or blood cell, as long as it isn't taken from the UTERINE WALL. Neither has any potential for life until it's in the EXACT SPOT that it needs to be.<br /><br />So ALL devices, including the "morning after pill" that prevent IMPLANTATION are contraceptive in nature. They do not reduce the potential, because prior to implantation there wasn't any. They do not END a pregnancy, they PREVENT one from ever starting. <br /><br />And NONE of these, including the morning after pill, will work AFTER implantation. So when you start talking about (for example) RU486, you're moving beyond contracepetion and into the realm of ABORTION because this STOPS [a pregnancy] that's already started. No form of contraception can claim to do THAT. That's why IMPLANTATION is such an important milestone, though one that's often overlooked. It is, by any definition I can see, the point at which contraception ends and abortion begins. And thus, from my POV, the earliest possible time that any position on ABORTION can really be relevant. (Hence my feeling that they should be removed from the ESC debate.)Niceguy Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896896323840121445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-35744185778053493502009-10-06T08:39:49.470-04:002009-10-06T08:39:49.470-04:00"So we all agree that their potential is “zer..."So we all agree that their potential is “zero,” and thus most ration peoples views regarding <b>contraception</b>, masturbation, IVF, surrogate/sperm donation, research, etc... So those (and most rational peoples' views on such matters) both pass the test, and thus the the test WORKS, in this case."<br /><br />"Until the embryo is implanted in the uterine wall, it's chance on developing into universally agreed upon life is exactly: ZERO. Thus the appropriate milestone at which the POTENTIAL for life is established is thus IMPLANTATION, not conception!"<br /><br />Doesn't the form of contraception make a difference then? A birth control pill that prevents implantation would deny potential life that would otherwise develop naturally.Brabantionoreply@blogger.com