Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The abortion issue: pro-choice vs. anti-abortion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (226)	5/15/2011 7:26:58 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 286

<When life begins isn't really the question. Life began billions of years ago.> Nice to get that out of the way... guess that's just letting us know your not a young Earth creationist. <Which only makes fertilization a non-instantaneous process. But doesn't change anything about what you have at that end of that period.> Which is of course the big question... or more appropriately probably should be when is a new living human is "ensouled". <Which means that early in human development, a human being has the ability to turn in to two human beings.> Or a future human can become 2 future humans... have to define all this. <When (if ever) does a human being gain a soul (if you believe souls exist), and when does it become a person, are not the same question as when you have a human being.> Depends on who you talk to I'm sure... if you have all those answers I'd get yourself an editor and get at it! It seems clear that this issue is critical to any "moral" decision on the matter. As I'm sure you're aware there are many different traditional viewpoints on this, even within the Catholic church over time. <Genetic uniqueness is indeed not a requirement to have a separate individual life form, but it is an indicator of it. The fact that new life form has a different genetic code than its mother or its father (most particular than the mother, since no one is arguing its part of the father), indicates its a new life form, not part of the old ones that preceded it and created it.> You seem to be redefining "life form".. other than that the point is superfelous... each egg and sperm, each red blood cell have different genetics than that organism in which it resides. So? Almost every cell in the body expresses it's genome differently and are separate little "entities"... so? <Yes its possible for the new life form to die and be absorbed. Its also possible for me to die and be absorbed by other life forms (say I get eaten by a predator). > It's also possible to for "life forms" to be eliminated by the parental body or kill themselves for the greater good of the larger organism. Happens continuously. <If one accepts that view, the "morning after pill" would be acceptable, but it doesn't support most abortion.> IF anti-abortion groups "accepted" such idea of the "morning after" or simply a short time period after, or proceedures done by doctors immediately after rapes or incestual reports.... they may actually be able to stop huge numbers of abortions legislatively... sadly, that isn't happening. Agree on the neural stuff... seems beside the point. DAK