Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[Lizziebel]

What human being is an unfertilized egg part of? The mother? The two don’t even have the same DNA.

An unfertilized egg is part of any human female…even a fetus… that has reached the point of developing them. So the mother has them, and her daughter would also have her own as well.

As far as the DNA in an egg or sperm cell being different, how do you mean? It’s still that person’s DNA, as in, the DNA isn’t from someone else. An egg cell or sperm cell has half of that person’s DNA (one set of 23 chromosomes) so that when the two combine, the resulting embryo has the complete 46 chromosomes…one set of 23 from each parent. Then you have another human life with it’s own unique DNA.

 

[CWBetts]

An unfertilized egg is part of any human female…even a fetus… that has reached the point of developing them. So the mother has them, and her daughter would also have her own as well.

As far as the DNA in an egg or sperm cell being different, how do you mean? It’s still that person’s DNA, as in, the DNA isn’t from someone else. An egg cell or sperm cell has half of that person’s DNA (one set of 23 chromosomes) so that when the two combine, the resulting embryo has the complete 46 chromosomes…one set of 23 from each parent. Then you have another human life with it’s own unique DNA.

I’ve already brought that up. Get ready for another round of inane rationalizations

 

[fix]

Your responses seem to me to be thought up on the spot and designed to dispute whatever point is made. If I stated that something was black, even if the black object was produced in front of you, you would precede to build a case for it is not really black but some color resembling black.

And that is the basic point of all these abortion and homosexual threads. There is ample, good, logical, cogent, prooof available. It is always rejected. That does not mean the proof is wrong. It does mean some will refuse to accept it no matter what.

One has to be open to the truth and some just refuse to be open.

 

[gearhead]

Here’s something I posted earlier that answers this: When does a human being come to exist? Following sperm-egg fusion, a single cell is generated, the human zygote or one cell embryo. To decide if this cell is a human being, as opposed to merely a human cell, we need to consider the difference between a cell & an organism. The key feature of an organism is that all of the parts of the organism work together in a coordinated manner for the good of the entity as a whole. In the case of the one-cell human embryo, the scientific evidence clearly indicates that all parts of the zygote- those contributed by the mother & by the father world together from the beginning in a highly coordinated way to promote the life, health & maturation of the embryo itself. The one-cell embryo functions like an organism to generate the structures & relationships that are required for its own, ongoing development- and it does this from the very moment of the sperm-egg fusion onward. The embryo functions from the beginning like an organism & is therefore a human being; a whole & complete member of the human species at the earliest stage of life.”

This is an argument that conception creates a new life. It doesn’t have any bearing on the question of whether an unfertilized egg is also a new life. The two conclusions aren’t mutually exclusive.

An unfertilized egg is part of any human female…even a fetus… that has reached the point of developing them. So the mother has them, and her daughter would also have her own as well.

As I pointed out (and as I’ll go into more below), the egg is already genetically distinct from the mother. After ovulation, the egg is also physically distinct from the mother as well.

Frankly, I think it would be easier to argue that an implanted embryo is part of the woman than it would be to argue that an egg, floating on its own, is.

As far as the DNA in an egg or sperm cell being different, how do you mean? It’s still that person’s DNA, as in, the DNA isn’t from someone else. An egg cell or sperm cell has half of that person’s DNA (one set of 23 chromosomes) so that when the two combine, the resulting embryo has the complete 46 chromosomes…one set of 23 from each parent. Then you have another human life with it’s own unique DNA.

The egg’s DNA is only half of the mother’s. The two sets of DNA are not equivalent; both are distinct and unique. The 23 chromosomes in the egg are an individual set that is found nowhere else in that combination.

Look at it this way: say you lived in a far-off future world where cloning was perfected. You can take any cell, extract the DNA, and create a perfect clone from it. Would you be able to create a clone of the mother from the DNA in the egg? No - the two sets of DNA are different.

However, you’re right in one respect: any gene you can find in the egg’s DNA, you can also find in the mother’s… but in the same sense, an embryo doesn’t have unique DNA either, since every gene in it can be found in the DNA of either the mother or the father.

 

[gearhead]

And that is the basic point of all these abortion and homosexual threads. There is ample, good, logical, cogent, prooof available. It is always rejected. That does not mean the proof is wrong. It does mean some will refuse to accept it no matter what.

On the contrary. I think that the religious justifications against abortion and homosexuality really just break down to these:

• abortion: a fetus has a soul, and is therefore a person.
• homosexuality: God says it’s wrong.

Unfortunately, neither of these positions can be demonstrated in any measurable way, so the people making these claims against abortion and homosexuality have to use different tactics and arguments if they want to convince others who don’t share their religious beliefs.

I’ve noticed a trend: people tend to be a lot less critical of the logic and support for arguments if the thing being argued is something that they already agree with. Of course an embryo is a person, so why doesn’t he accept the argument that it’s a person because it has 23 pairs of chromosomes? Of course homosexuality is harmful, so why doesn’t he accept the word of NARTH? It’s only because you’ve accepted the conclusion a priori that you think these sorts of arguments are reasonable.

 

[DOShea]

It’s only because you’ve accepted the conclusion a priori that you think these sorts of arguments are reasonable.

Presumptuous. It assumes no one else except the skeptic bothers with any reason. Many have reasoned to these conclusions without accepting them a priori.

Unfortunately, neither of these positions can be demonstrated in any measurable way

Quite the contrary. We have God’s word revealed to us that condemns both homosexual acts and killing the unborn. A reasonable reconciliation between killing the born and killing the unborn could be that each has a soul, making their killings equally against the law of God.

 

[fix]

This is an argument that conception creates a new life. It doesn’t have any bearing on the question of whether an unfertilized egg is also a new life. The two conclusions aren’t mutually exclusive.

As I pointed out (and as I’ll go into more below), the egg is already genetically distinct from the mother. After ovulation, the egg is also physically distinct from the mother as well.

Frankly, I think it would be easier to argue that an implanted embryo is part of the woman than it would be to argue that an egg, floating on its own, is.

The egg’s DNA is only half of the mother’s. The two sets of DNA are not equivalent; both are distinct and unique. The 23 chromosomes in the egg are an individual set that is found nowhere else in that combination.

Look at it this way: say you lived in a far-off future world where cloning was perfected. You can take any cell, extract the DNA, and create a perfect clone from it. Would you be able to create a clone of the mother from the DNA in the egg? No - the two sets of DNA are different.

However, you’re right in one respect: any gene you can find in the egg’s DNA, you can also find in the mother’s… but in the same sense, an embryo doesn’t have unique DNA either, since every gene in it can be found in the DNA of either the mother or the father.

The problem here is your premise is wrong. An unfertilized egg is part of the woman. A fertilized egg, implanted or not, is part of woman. That is how physiology worrks. That is how humans are designed to live. Again, another easy concept to grasp if one simply is open to what is obvious and true.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think the argument is more fundemental thatn what is being discussed, so no one is getting to the nub of it. What makes one thing different from another? Are there multiple discrete things in the world? How do we recognize them? What makes a tree a tree and a toad a toad? Is a tadpole a toad?

These are more basic components of the question of whether a zygote or an embryo is a thing of it’s own, or part of something larger.

What makes a thing a thing?

 

[fix]

On the contrary. I think that the religious justifications against abortion and homosexuality really just break down to these:

• abortion: a fetus has a soul, and is therefore a person.
• homosexuality: God says it’s wrong.

Religious arguments may be true or false. That you reject them does not mean they are false or unworthy of consideration.

Unfortunately, neither of these positions can be demonstrated in any measurable way, so the people making these claims against abortion and homosexuality have to use different tactics and arguments if they want to convince others who don’t share their religious beliefs.

There is a natural moral law that can be known by all regardless of sectarian understandings. As for “demonstrations” there are plenty. If the only “proof” you accept is some form of *materialistic *evidence then you exclude all other types of proofs. Which brings us back to my point that you are not open to the truth.

I’ve noticed a trend: people tend to be a lot less critical of the logic and support for arguments if the thing being argued is something that they already agree with.

I’ve noticed a trend: people tend to be a lot less critical of the logic and support for arguments if the thing being argued is something that they already agree with.

*an *embryo is a person, so why doesn’t he accept the argument that it’s a person because it has 23 pairs of chromosomes? Of course homosexuality is harmful, so why doesn’t he accept the word of NARTH? It’s only because you’ve accepted the conclusion a priori that you think these sorts of arguments are reasonable.

People use common sense. When they know of an unborn baby gestating they think of him/her as what they are a person. This is not a leap of faith. This is common sense.
As for the homosexual issue I leave that to other threads.

 

[Lizziebel]

As I pointed out (and as I’ll go into more below), the egg is already genetically distinct from the mother. After ovulation, the egg is also physically distinct from the mother as well.

Frankly, I think it would be easier to argue that an implanted embryo is part of the woman than it would be to argue that an egg, floating on its own, is.

What I posted on the topic was simply in answer to your question of whose egg it was. You asked, “What human being is an unfertilized egg part of? The mother? The two don’t even have the same DNA.” So, the answer, simply put, is that is is part of whatever female human being that the unfertilized egg develops in. We’ve discussed the fact that those particular cells of her body have half of her genetic material and the obvious reasons for this already, so I won’t get more into that again except to say that the DNA doesn’t come from someone else (unless, of course, you’re talking about an (name removed by moderator)lanted embryo).

But let’s move on from that discussion, as the uniqueness of an egg cell or an embryo/fetus isn’t so much the issue in relation to the thread’s topic of abortion.

The point that an embryo/fetus is a human life, is. And as such, it is no more right to take that life than it is to take the life of someone who has already been born.

 

[Caramel]

The problem here is your premise is wrong. An unfertilized egg is part of the woman. A fertilized egg, implanted or not, is part of woman. That is how physiology worrks. That is how humans are designed to live. Again, another easy concept to grasp if one simply is open to what is obvious and true.

I have to disagree with you here. True, an unfertilized egg is part of the woman that is carrying it. However, a fertilized egg is, from conception on, a separate human being that is inside the woman. Simply because something is inside a human being does not make it part of that human being. If that were true, our fillings in our teeth, the food we eat, even a tampon, would be considered part of the woman that they are in.

A fertilized egg (ovum) is a complete human being, with a full set of genes from both the mother and the father, meaning that it not only has DNA different from the mother, it has DNA different from the father. It only remains for the woman to continue carrying the fertilized ovum for it to go through the stages it needs to go through in order to be able to live on its own.

If a fertilized egg is part of woman, so is an embryo, so is a fetus, so is the child who is born. The only difference between a fertilized ovum and a born child is the change that it goes through to develop into a fully functioning person who can live on his/her own. And this continues after birth. A newborn baby is certainly not able to care for itself. It still needs the help of other human beings, probably its mother.

A fertilized ovum, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, teenager, adult - these are all just phases in the life of a human being. Humans, as many other animals, are designed to carry the child inside of them so that it can develop in a protected environment. This makes sense from a biological viewpoint. But if humans, like many other animals, ejected (I don’t like that word, but I can’t think of another one, sorry) the fertilized egg, it would still progress through the stages necessary for it to develop into a fully functioning human being. Humans don’t do that. That is not the way we are designed.

God bless,

caramel

mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)

“Bless the beasts and the children,
they have no voice, they have no choice…”

 

[gearhead]

I have to disagree with you here. True, an unfertilized egg is part of the woman that is carrying it.

Can you provide more support for this statement? As you point out:

Simply because something is inside a human being does not make it part of that human being. If that were true, our fillings in our teeth, the food we eat, even a tampon, would be considered part of the woman that they are in.

 

[Caramel]

I think the argument is more fundemental thatn what is being discussed, so no one is getting to the nub of it. What makes one thing different from another? Are there multiple discrete things in the world? How do we recognize them? What makes a tree a tree and a toad a toad? Is a tadpole a toad?

These are more basic components of the question of whether a zygote or an embryo is a thing of it’s own, or part of something larger.

What makes a thing a thing?

What makes a thing a thing? In the case of animals, it is the ability to form viable offspring with another of its kind. A toad can make new toads only with another toad. This is the basic definition of species. A member of one species cannot produce viable offspring with the member of another species.

Is a tadpole a toad? It depends on what kind of tadpole it is. Maybe it will develop into a frog. Just kinda kidding here. Yes, a tadpole that, if given time and nourishment and whatever else toad tadpoles need, will develop into an adult toad. It’s all a continuum - fertilized egg, tadpole, toad - they are all “toad”, but different stages of “toad.”

In the case of plants, I have no idea.

Your question is so difficult and I know I haven’t answered it very well but I thought I would put in what little I can think of right now. It is so philosophical. I personally think that each being, whether it is a human, a toad, a tree, or a rock, has an essence about it that can’t be further reduced. It is a defining essence - not a soul, or maybe it is a soul.

Just something I thought I would throw in. It’s not something to take too seriously but your question is one that I have thought about a lot through the years and it is very difficult to answer.

God bless,

caramel
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)

“Bless the beasts and the children,
they have no voice, they have no choice…”

 

[Lizziebel]

The woman’s body made the unfertilized egg cell. This is different from something such as food or a filling that is placed in the body.

 

[Caramel]

Can you provide more support for this statement? As you point out:

I can try!! Usually, every month a woman produces an egg which leaves the ovary and, if not fertilized, is flushed away. Basic biology. We all know this stuff.

The unfertilized egg cannot go through stages to become anything else. It will decompose. It can’t do anything else. It never had a full component of genes. It had the DNA that the woman producing it and carrying it gave it. That’s all. It’s tissue. Without fertilization it is a dead end.

It’s the same with the spermatozoa that a man produces, except in males we’re speaking of much higher numbers. A spermatozoan that fertilizes an egg is one thing. But what of the ones that are present in the ejaculate but don’t fertilize an egg? Again, they are dead ends. They are flushed out and decompose.

BUT - if a spermatozoan fertilizes an ovum, BOOM - now you have a complete human being, separate in DNA from both mother and father, and, hopefully through time, will be born.

God bless,

caramel
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)

“Bless the beasts and the children,
they have no voice, they have no choice…”

 

[CWBetts]

This discussion is definitely taking a metaphysical turn. We ask what makes a human a human. If we say a human is human because of his DNA, that is a good argument, because it does not eliminate people based on level of development. We can also say it is a poor argument because if we determine someone’s DNA to have “errors” then that can be used to remove the individual from humanity, and opens the door for eugenics. It has also been postulated that self-awareness and the ability to reason are criteria. This is good, because it preserves the humanity of the physically challenged, but it eliminates certain individuals, such as children under the age of about 4 and some forms of schizophrenia. Another criterion that gets thrown around is self-sufficiency. An organism cannot be considered a true individual until it can survive on its own. This is a loaded question. Self-sufficiency is a continuum of degrees. We would have to agree on which degree of self-sufficiency as appropriate to call one human. I would say what makes one Human is a soul. I would also argue that this soul is created at the moment the sperm unites with the egg, at the point where quite literally, “the two become one flesh”

 

[Caramel]

The woman’s body made the unfertilized egg cell. This is different from something such as food or a filling that is placed in the body.

Yes, it is different. I agree with you. My point was that simply because something is inside a woman’s body it doesn’t have to be part of that body. A woman does make the egg cell. And it is part of her. But the person I was debating with stated that both an unfertilized ovum and a fertilized ovum are part of “woman” (sic). I disagree. I believe that a fertilized ovum is a separate human being.

God bless,

caramel
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)

“Bless the beasts and the children,
they have no voice, they have no choice…”

 

[gearhead]

I can try!! Usually, every month a woman produces an egg which leaves the ovary and, if not fertilized, is flushed away. Basic biology. We all know this stuff.

Why does “basic biology” imply that it’s part of the woman and not something separate?

And AFAIK, about a quarter to a half of all embryos get “flushed away” when they fail to implant in the uterine wall. This is also “basic biology”. Does this somehow imply that an embryo is part of the woman as well?

The unfertilized egg cannot go through stages to become anything else. It will decompose. It can’t do anything else. It never had a full component of genes. It had the DNA that the woman producing it and carrying it gave it. That’s all. It’s tissue. Without fertilization it is a dead end.

And without various hormones supplied at just the right time by the mother, a fertilized egg is also a “dead end”.

And an egg doesn’t have the DNA of the woman producing it. The egg’s DNA is certainly derived from the woman’s, just as the DNA of an embryo is derived from the DNA of the woman and man, but the egg’s DNA is not the same as the woman’s. As you point out, it’s not the full genome of a human being.

It’s the same with the spermatozoa that a man produces, except in males we’re speaking of much higher numbers. A spermatozoan that fertilizes an egg is one thing. But what of the ones that are present in the ejaculate but don’t fertilize an egg? Again, they are dead ends. They are flushed out and decompose.

BUT - if a spermatozoan fertilizes an ovum, BOOM - now you have a complete human being, separate in DNA from both mother and father, and, hopefully through time, will be born.

It strikes me that your argument isn’t based so much on inherent differences between embryos and unfertilized eggs and sperm separately, but on the practical implication that there’s just too many of them for us to care about all of them. However, that doesn’t mean that they don’t have the same sort of moral or ethical basis for rights as an embryo.

 

[fix]

I have to disagree with you here. True, an unfertilized egg is part of the woman that is carrying it. However, a fertilized egg is, from conception on, a separate human being that is inside the woman. Simply because something is inside a human being does not make it part of that human being. If that were true, our fillings in our teeth, the food we eat, even a tampon, would be considered part of the woman that they are in.

I was using the phrase in a more loose way. It is true a fertilized egg is a separate life, but it is bound to the woman. I am not saying they are both the same person.

I would add ingested food does become part of us in some chemical sense. Dental fillings are part of our bodies in that they repair pathology just like an artificial joint is part of us.

A fertilized egg (ovum) is a complete human being, with a full set of genes from both the mother and the father, meaning that it not only has DNA different from the mother, it has DNA different from the father. It only remains for the woman to continue carrying the fertilized ovum for it to go through the stages it needs to go through in order to be able to live on its own.

Yes, and my point is that process of gestation is natural.

If a fertilized egg is part of woman, so is an embryo, so is a fetus, so is the child who is born.The only difference between a fertilized ovum and a born child is the change that it goes through to develop into a fully functioning person who can live on his/her own. And this continues after birth. A newborn baby is certainly not able to care for itself. It still needs the help of other human beings, probably its mother.

Ok, not sure of your point?

A fertilized ovum, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, teenager, adult - these are all just phases in the life of a human being. Humans, as many other animals, are designed to carry the child inside of them so that it can develop in a protected environment. This makes sense from a biological viewpoint. But if humans, like many other animals, ejected (I don’t like that word, but I can’t think of another one, sorry) the fertilized egg, it would still progress through the stages necessary for it to develop into a fully functioning human being. Humans don’t do that. That is not the way we are designed.

Sorry, but why are you saying this? My point to the other poster is that it is natural that a developing baby is “part” of the mother. Not like an organ but part of her as in depends on her. There is a unique bond both physiologically and morally.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I And very, very few people I know would try to make the argument that a blastocyst is somehow a person.

Then you know nothing but the wrong kind of people.