Originally Posted by OhDear

BD, I like how you cut right to the chase. You live up to your name, and detect the baloney and then in one sweep, debunk it clearly...

OD

Originally Posted by baloney_detector

Read on:

“Imagine that you have a fertilized egg, a conventional zygote, in one test tube and an unfertilized egg in another. Neither can develop into a human being by itself. Left to themselves, they would both perish. Each, however, has the potential of becoming a human being, provided that it is supplied with the appropriate machinery. In the case of the zygote, that machinery is the mother’s body. In the case of the unfertilized egg, that machinery involves a laboratory and then the mother’s body.

Those who argue that life begins at conception hold that the zygote is legally entitled to the use of the machinery it requires to realize its potential. By what criterion, then, would they deny that right to the unfertilized egg? Surely it is a much easier choice to grant the right to a laboratory procedure than to the use of somebody’s body. To be consistent, you would have to say either that both the zygote and the unfertilized egg are potential life and therefore are entitled to the use of life-giving machinery, or that neither is. There is no middle ground.

But isn’t the machinery needed by the unfertilized egg unnatural? It is no more unnatural than the incubator used to keep a premature infant alive, and certainly less unnatural than in utero surgery. We are used to intervening during the course of a pregnancy to allow the embryo or fetus to achieve its full potential. By what right, then, do we refuse to intervene to allow an unfertilized egg to do so?

The only way to make a distinction is to say that a zygote is already in the uterus and thus has already appropriated the machinery. But this sort of argument simply begs the question around which the abortion debate centers, namely, the question of whether the woman or the fetus has the right to decide on the use of that machinery.

To find a scientific reason to support the possible life argument, then, we have to agree that when the technology for parthenogenesis becomes available, it should be considered immoral to allow any unfertilized egg to go to waste. Every time a woman menstruates, a potential life has been cut off just as surely as when a zygote is killed. We do not normally worry about the moral consequences of the menstrual cycle, but if we accept the potential-life argument, we would have to.

In other words, since both the fertilized and the unfertilized eggs have the potential for life, the choice to extend legal protection to one and not the other must be based on some other criterion. It cannot be based on this potential alone.”


"The Facts of Life"
Harold J. Morowitz and James S. Trefil

Originally Posted by KnightOfSappho

That same growth of which you speak is also a drain on the host. The woman should have the right to choose whether or not she is willing to do this.

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

It's all about where you draw the line. I think nearly everyone is against late-term abortions.

However, the conservative argument is that the 'future baby' has rights even as a zygote. But I'd say that this is inconsistent. Using this logic, two couples deciding against having a baby is just as equally morally unacceptable as terminating the birth in it's early stages. If two couples got married, there is that 'potential' that a baby would be born as a result...but them deciding against attempting at having a baby is denying this potential future baby the right to live. Therefore using the 'pro-life' logic, two married couples who decide not to have children are essentially committing murder.

Originally Posted by baloney_detector

Actually, there is great potential in human germ cells to produce viable human offspring without the need for fertilization.

Originally Posted by baloney_detector

Actually, the US Constitution speaks of "people" and "persons" who are citizens who are "born or naturalized in the United States."

And there is no example within the US Constitution whereby these terms are even remotely defined in any pre-natal context.

Originally Posted by KnightOfSappho

You can take that a step further...

Ova are developed and discarded monthly if there is no conception.

The ovum, also- by that standard- could be considered a 'potential baby.' So every female from about age 12 until 53(ish) would also be considered murderers.

Originally Posted by Jefferson

And YOU are a drain on the eco-system, of which I am a part.

I should have the right to decide whether or not I want you to continue to be able to live.

Originally Posted by baloney_detector

Read on:

“Imagine that you have a fertilized egg, a conventional zygote, in one test tube and an unfertilized egg in another. Neither can develop into a human being by itself. Left to themselves, they would both perish. Each, however, has the potential of becoming a human being, provided that it is supplied with the appropriate machinery. In the case of the zygote, that machinery is the mother’s body. In the case of the unfertilized egg, that machinery involves a laboratory and then the mother’s body.

Those who argue that life begins at conception hold that the zygote is legally entitled to the use of the machinery it requires to realize its potential. By what criterion, then, would they deny that right to the unfertilized egg? Surely it is a much easier choice to grant the right to a laboratory procedure than to the use of somebody’s body. To be consistent, you would have to say either that both the zygote and the unfertilized egg are potential life and therefore are entitled to the use of life-giving machinery, or that neither is. There is no middle ground.

But isn’t the machinery needed by the unfertilized egg unnatural? It is no more unnatural than the incubator used to keep a premature infant alive, and certainly less unnatural than in utero surgery. We are used to intervening during the course of a pregnancy to allow the embryo or fetus to achieve its full potential. By what right, then, do we refuse to intervene to allow an unfertilized egg to do so?

The only way to make a distinction is to say that a zygote is already in the uterus and thus has already appropriated the machinery. But this sort of argument simply begs the question around which the abortion debate centers, namely, the question of whether the woman or the fetus has the right to decide on the use of that machinery.

To find a scientific reason to support the possible life argument, then, we have to agree that when the technology for parthenogenesis becomes available, it should be considered immoral to allow any unfertilized egg to go to waste. Every time a woman menstruates, a potential life has been cut off just as surely as when a zygote is killed. We do not normally worry about the moral consequences of the menstrual cycle, but if we accept the potential-life argument, we would have to.

In other words, since both the fertilized and the unfertilized eggs have the potential for life, the choice to extend legal protection to one and not the other must be based on some other criterion. It cannot be based on this potential alone.”


"The Facts of Life"
Harold J. Morowitz and James S. Trefil