it’s alive in the same way a virus or bacterium is alive or the scrapings from the inside of my cheek.
No, that IS the matter. That’s the whole point.
Well, you just, in this comment, agreed with the points that support her position.
Yes, I must have missed that. Perhaps a cut and paste for me since I can’t see what you’re talking about exactly.
But before you do that, you should understand that:
Your position dictates that abortion is immoral because your belief that a fertilized ovum constitutes a person via potentiality. The other potential leads to the opposite conclusion - that a fertilized ovum does NOT constitute a person because it does NOT have that potential. This gives the position that abortion IS moral. Same argument - YOUR argument - with a different conclusion using a different potentiality. That’s what happens when you use fallacious forms like this.
Your position treats a potentiality as an actuality. It says, since this thing has the potential to be X, therefore the thing is actually X. This is a completely false statement. A potentiality is not an actuality. You’re not describing an actual person, you’re describing a group of cells and calling it a person.
No, they absolutely have that potential.
You yourself are about to say so in the next sentence.
And a fertilized ovum, according to you, is a person. So, the sperm and egg have the potential to be a fertilized ovum, which you define as a person. You’re spinning your wheels here, man.
It’s the same potentiality as as the ova and sperm…
It’s a human activity, just like sex. And it produces the same potentialities - no difference. NONE.
Right, exactly the same potential.
By ‘outside’ forces’ you mean ‘people’ - the same outside forces that are also responsible for fertilized ova.
Again, it’s not unnatural, it’s a human activity, in the same way that fucking is a human activity.
It’s natural and it’s exactly the same genetic material that you have chosen to discuss and label as ‘potential person’ or in the case of your argument, ‘actual person’.
You’re saying that some genetic goo is a person, but if it’s inconvenient for your position, you want to ignore it even though it’s exactly the same genetic goo? It’s a rhetorical question mark.
It’s alive…just as my heart and kidneys are alive. They have human DNA. Under the right conditions and manipulations, I can be “cloned” from those tissues. I can be reborn. Those tissues are alive. They are human life.
An embryo/fetus is not an individual, though. It is not a self-contained autonomous unit.
A tree is alive. It is not sentient/conscious, though. Piefish: Your argument is invalid.
The better option is that a woman does not get pregnant. Pro-life people should embrace birth control. However, the same people who scream about abortion, scream about birth control. This makes no sense. People will have sex. my grandparents did, my parents did, and I you. it’s being a hypocrite. If you feel that abortion is a horrible procedure, then stop trying to prevent viable alternatives.
You guys we should be having unprotected sex all the time so we don’t waste any sperm/eggs while eating as much as possible since nutrients have the potential to be used for making reproductive cells which have the potential to become a person.
Also, I know this was a while back so I won’t quote it, but the whole “adoption is an alternative for abortion” is so ridiculous I actually can’t help but burst out laughing every time I hear it. If someone’s been raped they can abort and be done with it and try to piece their lives back together. If they choose to keep it they have to spend nine months of hell carrying a living reminder of that trauma that would make them feel like shit anyway. Afterwards they have to deal with crazy strong conflicting emotions of motherhood and disgust, and then whether they adopt the child or not they will constantly have the knowledge that somewhere out there is a physical manifestation of one of the worst moments of their life.
can you please address this? especially the last one, which is perfectly in line with your potentiality argument, only extended further
Also, you said that a zygote and a foetus look like a human being. It absolutely does not, not until well into the pregnancy. Early zygotes/foetuses look almost exactly the same as the foetuses of reptiles, sheep, etc., which is proof of our common ancestry.
Oh rite, God created us all using no templates whatsoever.
He, like, just made each animal from scratch, and made them all have, say, internal organs that somewhat work the same. But no template, no.
Sounds tiresome…
You have made the completely wrong connection to discredit, and disagree, I am not saying you have lost all credibility, and by assuming that only akes it worse. You have lost credibility because all your accusations against abortion have been countered.
Point < Counter Point
I’m not sure if you’re asking me or Assassin, but I’ll go over what I said again, in case I wasn’t clear enough. The things I’m typing make sense to me because I’m typing what I’m already thinking in my head, so maybe I left some parts in my head and didn’t type them out.
Anyway, I earlier drew a distinction between the potentialities which sperm and ova have and the potentiality which a human zygote has. I’m defining them by using their teleological ends, mind you. The teleological end and ultimate potentiality for a spermatozoan is to fertilize an ovum, or not. Those are the two basic potentialities that it has. The converse for the ovum; it’s ultimate potentiality is to be fertilized by a spermatozoan. Once the fertilization takes place, the ovum and spermatozoan cease to exist—something completely new is created. A human zygote with a complete human DNA structure is created with a new set of distinctly human potentialities. Just because my parents were the cause of me being born does not mean I am the same as them. Aren’t you not the same as your parents? You might be a genetic amalgation of them, but you are clearly distinct.
Similarly, a bunch of inanimate carbon (theoretically) might have the potentiality to evolve into conscious beings, sure. However, if/when it does evolve, it becomes something completely new, and when it does, like the sperm and eggs, it hits the end of its potentiality. The newly evolved substance now has a completely new set of potentialities that are distinct to whatever it is.
I think we’re focusing too much on potentiality here. The underlying reason that I even brought it up is that the zygote which is formed after fertilization has completely human DNA, which is something that nothing but a human zygote can have. It is uniquely human, and therefore human.
[b]Zen[b], I’m going to be brief in my response to you, as I have to get to class soon.
You’re nitpicking about something I never brought up. My only point was that IT IS ALIVE. That is all that I said. As for the parasite/virus analogy, if you want to open up the flood gates of those definitions, then we are all nothing but parasites feeding off of the Earth. So what is the point of bringing that up and trying to make a distinction when everything on Earth is a parasite?
Yes, I’ve said that at least twice now, but I got tired of repeating myself.
I never supported that it was not alive.
I’ll address this in my response to Bur.
No, they don’t. A spermatozoan will never turn into a human without joining with an ovum to form a zygote. The human zygote that is formed is something new and distinct from both the ovum and spermatozoan.
I’m really not, I never said that they have the potential to become a fertilized ovum, as a fertilized ovum is something completely new and distinctly human, as can be identified by its DNA. The spermatozoan and ovum, again, only have the potential to fertilize/not fertilize and be fertilized/not be fertilized, respectively. If and when fertilization takes place, they cease to be sperm and ova.
I guess you don’t have to think so, but I’ve repeatedly explained my reasoning behind their being different.
I think I’ve already addressed these points, and I have to go to class.
Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.
