Abortion, SCNT, IVF, et al related thread

Bartikus wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

With IVF embryos do not die by the hands of others.....they just die.

With abortion embryos (human life) die by the hands of people.

Do you not see the difference?

Just a reminder.

Sorry, it's hard to keep track of every question you throw my way. I've done my best to answer.

The difference in the above is not based on any science: The embryos that expire both naturally and electively are the same. It is not supported by the idea that the embryo should have the right to life, and if by Intrepid's arguement that the many embryos that die during IVF die of natural causes. This declaration of nature being the only means of death that is acceptable opens the door for any individual who does not wish to have a child to carry the unborn to term, give birth, and then allow the newborn to die naturally, like starving, or from exposure, or dyhydration. All natural ways in which life ends, yes?

As for dying at the hands of people, am I incorrect that many species kill their young. Is this not a part of nature? Where does natural law support your beliefs?

Key word here is natural right? That's what separates the evil abortionists and stem cell sociopaths from the benevolent doctors at the fertilization clinics, right? The embryos die naturally? Of course they were "artificially" inseminated... a paradox right? You define what is right and wrong by what is natural, and then you require what is unnatural to provide what is right? Tell me whose on the merry-go-round?

As you can see comrades, you're use of nature to divide is both cruel and hypocritical. It doesn't work.

The truth is that the doctors working on abortions, IVF, and SCNT stem cell research are not the sociopaths the pro-life crowd paint them to be. No more for that matter than all the teachers, firefighters and nuns are benevolent angels they are always made out to be.

I've seem the articles RL posts here about people who abuse the system, doctors who run clinics in a shady way, and I don't approve, but it's unrealistic to buy into a large conspiracy that would indentify all the intents of the doctors and nurses as evil, and all the women as idiots.

We don't see people rioting in the streets demanding that our police forces be shut down every time a cop excepts a bribe do we?

As for the people having the abortions, look at the facts. Look at the numbers. They don't support the idea of women with no care for life or respect for child birth.

Did you know that the abortion rate for women with no children is the same as the aboriton rate for women with 4+ children? With 4 or more children, I think you know what a child means.
Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html

It's no surprize that unmarried women have more abortions? Do the unmarried have a less apreciation of life? You ready to make that case?

intrepid wrote:

If you already agree that life begins at conception, the rest of it is a moot point.

You see, there's nothing to disagree about on this. What is disagreed on is what that information's significance is in the larger equation.

Deathrow inmate's are human, yet our society for better or for worse finds it to be justifiable to end their life. They could use any number of means to expire a criminal, which do they choose: natural or unnatural? when was the last time you heard of a criminal being put to death by starvation? Do you know why we choose a unnatural means of death? Because, man is kinder than nature. Even Jesus on the cross met a nicer death than many victims of HIV/AIDS or any number of diseases.

intrepid wrote:

We seem to agree when life begins. We only differ on when and how it should end.

Incorrect again sir. I have no opinion how it should end.

intrepid wrote:

BTW... an embryo is not potential life. It IS life.

Quite agreed, but again life itself is not the defining characteristic of character or personhood.

Bartikus wrote:

We never argued that the unborn was just potential life.....he did and maybe you.

Rather it is a human life....with potential!

Before I go for the night... morning... whatever, I'll return to the seed and the tree. I'll try my best to demonstrate what Chumly has been trying to show you.

The statement above that the embryo is human life with potential is with the gift of science no different than the skin cell. While the skin cell does not equal the embyo, both are human life, both share the potential, and both can produce the same final outcome.

With IVF a artificial procedure is done which results in a natural result.

With the skin cell, a unnatural procedure could be done which would provide a natural result.

So given three human beings:
1) one naturally concieved
2) one artificially concieved (IVF)
3) one cloned

All three coming into existance by different means. Does the third have less significance because it came from a skin cell?

when all three were just a single cell was any of them more entitled than the other?

The idea that something is a human life with potential is also not a very objective.

So what do I find valueable? Choice.

Choice is what gives the seed a value. I can have a seed, all I like, but it doesn't have any value until I either eat it or put it in the soil to grow.

If I tend to that soil, I get a leaf, then a sappling, and then a tree. That tree one day can bear fruit, and put it's seeds out. I can choose to fill a field full of trees, make a grove. One day I will run out of land. I can choose to keep planting my seeds in the grove but the seeds don't grow well in the shade. Their roots don't get the water or nutrients from the soil. They don't really grow. Soon, I have more seeds than I know what to do with. Two men come along, one offers me to sell his land, and says if I buy he'll even show me the best way to irrigate my grove. The second man simply tells me that I must plant the seeds, that it's natural for the seeds to be planted and that it's my responcibility. Both men agree that more trees are better, but they have different ideas on how to go about it.

I'd buy the land, and make the grove larger. I'd plant the seeds I already have.

You see the the soil and water represents the resources needed to raise a child: Homes, families, schools, medicine. The extra land certainly costs more and takes more time, but in the end, you have more trees that are healthier.

This is just one example of the tree and the seed. There's no excuse for not understanding the metaphor after my prose.

That's all for tonight folks.
K
O

P.s. - I understand this is far too large of a post to respond to. This is mostly unfortunate, as I would liek to hear rebuttle for ALL of my arguements, but realize this would lead to further ridiculously large posts.