Abortion 3

[DogOfHavoc]

So my sperm is human life too? And my hair? And my toenails? And my spit?

 

[Azlier]

>So my sperm is human life too? And my hair? And my toenails? And my spit?
Do those things grow to become a sentient being? I think not.

 

[DogOfHavoc]

They can if I use them to clone myself. You can't define human life as something that can grow into sentient life.

 

[Azlier]

Why not? Your hair is part of you, but it isn't its own life form. That developing fetus is.

 

[sqrage]

>>Do those things grow to become a sentient being? I think not.

Sperm does.

 

[DogOfHavoc]

So it's wrong to stop something that might one day become a human life? So is it wrong for me to not to impregnate every woman I meet? I mean by not making life with all of them, essentially I'm stopping what could one day be life from developing.

 

[Azlier]

Not alone. It is merely half of what is required to create new life.

>So is it wrong for me to not to impregnate every woman I meet?
What the hell are you talking about? The egg is not human life. Not alone.

 

[DogOfHavoc]

What I'm saying is that by not impregnating them, theoretically I'm stopping life. My sperm isn't fertilizing them and so I'm preventing a possible life from being born. Or at least that's what your logic would point to.

I think it's important you explain why it's wrong to kill life. Although it may seem obvious, I think it would clear some things up.

 

[sqrage]

>>Not alone. It is merely half of what is required to create new life.

Sperm is life, and it's the same life as the zygote that is created when it merges with the egg.

 

[Azlier]

>What I'm saying is that by not impregnating them, theoretically I'm stopping life. My sperm isn't fertilizing them and so I'm preventing a possible life from being born. Or at least that's what your logic would point to.

You're are indeed preventing a possible life from being born. But that is not the same as killing an already living soul.

It is not human life until the zygote is in existence. It is my belief that human life is... well, conceived at conception!

 

[DogOfHavoc]

Is that based on religious convictions?

 

[Azlier]

Perhaps. I am religious, after all. But abortion deals not just with religion, but with my personal morals.

 

[DogOfHavoc]

Personal morals are tied closely with dogma when a person is religious. But I digress. My question was, what basis do you have for saying a zygote is life? Because it has a soul? I argue that it can't think and so is really biomass rather than a human being. I don't believe abortion is a good thing, but I wouldn't say a little cell has the same value as a person I can converse with.

 

[Azlier]

Sperm does not grow into sentient life. An egg does not grow into sentient life. A zygote, however, does. When something acquires the ability to grow into sentient life, I call it sentient life.

 

[DogOfHavoc]

But sperm does have the ability to become life. It simply requires an egg to fertilize.

A zygote does have the ability to become life. It simply requires a gestation period of roughly 9 months.

Do you see what I'm saying? Many things have the potential to become sentient life. My saliva has the ability to become life. It simply requires cloning.

 

[Azlier]

>But sperm does have the ability to become life. It simply requires an egg to fertilize.
You see? It requires other "life" to become a single life form. A sperm cell, until it participates in fertilization, is not human life.

You can't clone saliva . It's just acids.

 

[DogOfHavoc]

Well then a zygote isn't life. It requires "other life" (the mother) and a period of nine months to become life.

And yes, you can clone with saliva, it contains DNA.

 

[Azlier]

A zygote is life. It doesn't need to bond with anything else to form life. Of course it will die without the mother. Everything has needs. If you lock a man in a steel cage for a year without food, you're bound to find him dead.

Saliva contains DNA? My science class told me it was just a bunch of weak acids to aid in digestion.

 

[sqrage]

>>If you lock a man in a steel cage for a year without food, you're bound to find him dead.

But if you provide him with his needs such as foods (you can argue if it's living or dead i guess), he will do just fine.

A zygote will still need it's biotic mother.

 

[Varine]

many say it is at conception. However, I have trouble believing a tiny cell is a human life. By that rational the skin cells that fall off my body are human lives as well.

I feel that the idea of conception is debatable, as generally when the baby is a mass of cells it can be taken care of with a morning after pill or something similar, which I can understand. However, after a short period of time that mass of cells becomes the shape of a human and begins developing organs, which is I think what ultimately defines it. Your skin cells are dead when they fall off usually, however they contain no organ systems working together to create a sentient being capable of thought or sense.

>What I'm saying is that by not impregnating them, theoretically I'm stopping life. My sperm isn't fertilizing them and so I'm preventing a possible life from being born. Or at least that's what your logic would point to.

However you are also constantly regenerating your sperm, and all but one of those are going to be useless anyway if you do impregnant someone. Perhaps a life isn't being created, as Azlier said, with that... dose, but it's not already going to become a human at that stage.

I think it's important you explain why it's wrong to kill life. Although it may seem obvious, I think it would clear some things up.

My beliefs on this: Because you are depriving someone of their ability to live in the world and fulfill whatever deed it is they are destined to do. As to whether or not you are agreeing with me, I feel that people do have some point to their existence in some form or another of what is basically destiny, although that thing may or may not be completed in their lifespan regardless of how they die given their free agency of will to do as the please. I remember some one I met before had a more deeply religious explanation than that, which was something like if every person that was born fulfulled what they were predestined to do in this world, it would be a celestial world similar to that of the Garden of Eden (even though it wouldn't be, as in order for anyone to be born Eve had to sin... right?), however because of the free agency that we all have, people either are killed or whatever before they fulfill their cause, or simply miss it because of the choices they made. If you're an athiest... I don't know what to say about that, seems like anarchy would be optimal political belief since if there is no form of afterlife or destiny, there wouldn't be a point to morality, and therefore no point to do what would be considered right.