# If it was against the law to kill a chicken...



## atlashunter (Mar 16, 2012)

Would it be a crime to eat a fertilized chicken egg?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2012)

No.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 16, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Would it be a crime to eat a fertilized chicken egg?



Atlas, it's been a while, glad to see you back around.

I think we should first establish why it would be illegal to kill a chicken.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 16, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Atlas, it's been a while, glad to see you back around.
> 
> I think we should first establish why it would be illegal to kill a chicken.



Thanks for the welcome back. Don't have as much free time any more but I'll try to check in as much as I can.


So you're saying whether eating the egg constitutes killing a chicken depends on why there is a rule against killing one? Seems to me you're either killing a chicken or you aren't.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> So you're saying whether eating the egg constitutes killing a chicken depends on why there is a rule against killing one? Seems to me you're either killing a chicken or you aren't.



Glad your back as well.  You and huntinfool backing off the forum a bit slowed things down a while.

Anyway, why is it illegal to kill the chicken?  Is it because their waste is used for fertilizer?  I know it's a loaded question, just think more info is needed.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 16, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Would it be a crime to eat a fertilized chicken egg?



If you change "chicken" to "eagle", yes.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Glad your back as well.  You and huntinfool backing off the forum a bit slowed things down a while.
> 
> Anyway, why is it illegal to kill the chicken?  Is it because their waste is used for fertilizer?  I know it's a loaded question, just think more info is needed.



I didn't get that far into the hypothetical and I'm not really seeing how it could be relevant. Maybe someone could give a couple different scenarios in which it would be killing a chicken in one case but not in another.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 16, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> If you change "chicken" to "eagle", yes.



That's because we have laws that explicitly prohibit messing with eagle eggs, fertilized or not.

Suppose the law simply stated "You may not kill an eagle.". If someone then destroyed an eagle egg that was known to not be fertilized, would they have committed a crime punishable under that law? What if it was known to be fertilized? Does that make it an eagle or is it still an egg?

They would prosecuted under our current law, not because of the law protecting eagles but because we have a law which explicitly protects eagle eggs whether fertilized or not which is why it isn't relevant to the discussion. Nice try though!


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 16, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Suppose the law simply stated "You may not kill an eagle.". If someone then destroyed an eagle egg that was known to not be fertilized, would they have committed a crime punishable under that law? What if it was known to be fertilized? Does that make it an eagle or is it still an egg?



I'm not quite sure how the enviro-loons would approach this.  Their knee-jerk reaction would be to say destroying the egg would be the same as destroying the eagle, but they know that same standard would then be applied to abortion, the holiest sacrament in their church.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I didn't get that far into the hypothetical and I'm not really seeing how it could be relevant. Maybe someone could give a couple different scenarios in which it would be killing a chicken in one case but not in another.



Let's say the only way a community has to fertilize their crops is with chicken waste.  So, killing the chickens in the hen house is illegal because they need the waste for crops.  This is irrelevant to the eggs, which may also be used to eat.  They just need the chickens in the hen house to live for the crops.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> but they know that same standard would then be applied to abortion, the holiest sacrament in their church.



That's where this thread is going anyway.....


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> That's where this thread is going anyway.....



Yep.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 16, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm not quite sure how the enviro-loons would approach this.  Their knee-jerk reaction would be to say destroying the egg would be the same as destroying the eagle, but they know that same standard would then be applied to abortion, the holiest sacrament in their church.



They might say it but I wouldn't agree. Would you?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Let's say the only way a community has to fertilize their crops is with chicken waste.  So, killing the chickens in the hen house is illegal because they need the waste for crops.  This is irrelevant to the eggs, which may also be used to eat.  They just need the chickens in the hen house to live for the crops.



I think what you are getting at would be the question not whether destroying the egg equates to killing a chicken but whether or not eggs should also be protected by the law which is a different question.


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 16, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Would it be a crime to eat a fertilized chicken egg?



It is a living organism once fertilized.  If it wasn't, then it would not hatch.


----------



## Havana Dude (Mar 16, 2012)

Outlaw eating vegetables, therefore no need for the fertilizer, so no need for chicken manure, so then it would be ok to kill said chicken. Seeing as how this chicken was once fertilized itself, then eating a fertilized egg would be no different.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 16, 2012)

dawg2 said:


> It is a living organism once fertilized.  If it wasn't, then it would not hatch.



But is it a chicken?

Single cells are living organisms too...


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 16, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Thanks for the welcome back. Don't have as much free time any more but I'll try to check in as much as I can.
> 
> 
> So you're saying whether eating the egg constitutes killing a chicken depends on why there is a rule against killing one? Seems to me you're either killing a chicken or you aren't.



I asked that question to know what kind of value we are putting on the chicken? Apart from any transcendent value, I don't think anything is off limits to murder or kill.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 16, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I asked that question to know what kind of value we are putting on the chicken? Apart from any transcendent value, I don't think anything is off limits to murder or kill.




Speciest!!!!!  (I'm one, too)


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Speciest!!!!!  (I'm one, too)





You crazy.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 16, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> But is it a chicken?
> 
> Single cells are living organisms too...



Yes, (to the OP). It would be killing a chicken. Should the law regulate it? Yes. The primary function of the guberment SHOULD be to protect its citizens. In this scenario, I believe a fertilized chicken egg to be a citizen (of the hypothetical chicken nation).

If you really wanted to stretch it, you could have asked if it were illegal to kill a butterfly, and you killed a caterpillar, then would killing the caterpillar also be illegal! Metamorphasis!!!


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 16, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> But is it a chicken?
> 
> Single cells are living organisms too...



Semantics.  Is a (human) baby an adult?  A chick is not a chicken.  A kitten is not a cat.  A poult is not a turkey.  A puppy is not a dog.  A keet is not a Guinea, etc. ad nauseum (trans: continuing to the point of nausea) based on your word game.


----------



## Asath (Mar 21, 2012)

But the overall point seems fairly clear --  at what point, precisely, is the line drawn?  

And why?  “It is a living organism once fertilized.”   Well, actually, an egg is a living organism WAITING to be fertilized so that it can grow into a much more complex and wholly realized organism.  It is no less ‘alive,’ than it is not yet actualized.  No less the sperm that fertilizes that egg.  A flower seed is merely a flower that has not yet been properly planted – and the seed itself, representing the potential to become a flower, ought have no lesser rights than the flower itself.  (For this proposition we draw from the Biblical prohibition against the Sin of Onan, where one may not spill one’s seed upon the ground.)

In this context, if I may extend my own thought, the OP hangs its hat – If both of the Potential prerequisites of Higher life are living organisms, which they are --  and it is only through the combination of the two that a higher organism may be realized (which is also true), then at which point can a purist draw a distinction, in good conscience, while eating a hearty Breakfast?

Now I’m hardly an animal rights idiot – quite the opposite, in fact – but in the abstract it is a fine thought experiment – “What’s for Breakfast?”  --  “Honey, I made your favorite – I scrambled up some liquid chickens for you!”   -- “Did you make sure they were unfertilized, Hon?  I’d hate to accidentally eat something that wasn’t a lesser form of life . . . “

If Life is Sacred, but only under a long list of conditions, then one probably needs to re-examine the entire thought process.


----------



## Hankus (Mar 22, 2012)

No. Everybody knows you can't count your chickens before they hatch, and using that as the basis for measurement they aren't chickens before they hatch.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 22, 2012)

Asath said:


> If Life is Sacred, but only under a long list of conditions, then one probably needs to re-examine the entire thought process.



The point of the thread was to demonstrate that claiming life begins at conception is false.

At what point does the egg become a chicken?  At what point does the embryo become a human?

I see no line more clear than conception.  And, as many times as the point has been debated in this and the political forum, nobody can make a better case for when life begins.  

As to the OP, if the chicken is also granted rights, as people are, I guess we would be comparing apples to apples.  But humans are granted rights, and we must define at what point it is a human.  Then, once we have defined such a distinction, those rights are to be protected.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> The point of the thread was to demonstrate that claiming life begins at conception is false.
> 
> At what point does the egg become a chicken?  At what point does the embryo become a human?
> 
> ...



Conception is a clear line, but so is birth, so is conception + 3 months.

Clarity is important, but hardly sufficient support for a conclusion.

This topic can often boil down to definitions. What is life? If anything that is alive have life, than as Asath elegantly pointed out, sperm is alive, an egg is alive, your finger nails are alive, do they have life?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 22, 2012)

Four said:


> If anything that is alive have life, than as Asath elegantly pointed out, sperm is alive, an egg is alive, your finger nails are alive, do they have life?



None of the things listed make a complete human system.

Birth is a poor line because the embryo is often viable long before this event.  Conception + 3 is only an arbitrary mark in time.  Conception is where the parts become a human system.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 22, 2012)

Isn't this entirely based on the rights of humans? If a chicken had the same "rights" as a human, than it should be treated as such. Does anyone here think a chicken has the same rights as a human?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 22, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Isn't this entirely based on the rights of humans? If a chicken had the same "rights" as a human, than it should be treated as such. Does anyone here think a chicken has the same rights as a human?



Not me. But I'm a speciest.


----------



## Four (Mar 23, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> None of the things listed make a complete human system.
> 
> Birth is a poor line because the embryo is often viable long before this event.  Conception + 3 is only an arbitrary mark in time.  Conception is where the parts become a human system.



I wasn't advocating any of the lines that i mentioned, only pointing out that the clarity of the line is insufficient.

I dont remember it being mentioned that the point was to preserve a "human system".

If we want to discuss it, lets start from first principles and definitions. What are we talking about, life? potential life? independent life? a human, human system, potential for a human system?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2012)

Four said:


> If we want to discuss it, lets start from first principles and definitions. What are we talking about, life? potential life? independent life? a human, human system, potential for a human system?



I guess the point of this thread was to argue over abortion anyway, so why not........

Life is hard to define.  But I guess a working definition would be a good start.  Potential, independant, and human life can all fall into place once life is defined.

Just for the sake of speeding things up, I am convinced a fertilized human embryo meets any definition of human life.  It is not independant, but neither is a two week old baby.


----------



## Four (Mar 23, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I guess the point of this thread was to argue over abortion anyway, so why not........
> 
> Life is hard to define.  But I guess a working definition would be a good start.  Potential, independant, and human life can all fall into place once life is defined.
> 
> Just for the sake of speeding things up, I am convinced a fertilized human embryo meets any definition of human life.  It is not independant, but neither is a two week old baby.



You could easily define human life as any living tissue that has human genetics.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2012)

Four said:


> You could easily define human life as any living tissue that has human genetics.



But, does it make a whole system?  Me,you, the fertilized embryo continue to be a "living" human system even if we get our fingers chopped off.


----------



## Four (Mar 23, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> But, does it make a whole system?  Me,you, the fertilized embryo continue to be a "living" human system even if we get our fingers chopped off.



what is a living system? Is cell not a living system? It seems that almost by definitions to have life you must have a system.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2012)

Four said:


> what is a living system? Is cell not a living system? It seems that almost by definitions to have life you must have a system.



I don't have my biology book with me, but I posted the definition of life from it on this forum several months ago in a similar debate.  But, yes, it is defined by the system it supports in my perspective (too lazy to try and dig up the exact quote).  A single human cell does not define a human life because there are many types of human cells...skin cells, muscle cells, brain cells, etc.  Each cell works together to create the system.  It is the system which consitutes life.

A single celled organism can be alive.  A single human cell only makes a human life when it is the entire system.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2012)

From dictionary.com:



> Life
> 1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
> 2. the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.
> 3. the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual: to risk one's life; a short life and a merry one.


----------



## Four (Mar 23, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I don't have my biology book with me, but I posted the definition of life from it on this forum several months ago in a similar debate.  But, yes, it is defined by the system it supports in my perspective (too lazy to try and dig up the exact quote).  A single human cell does not define a human life because there are many types of human cells...skin cells, muscle cells, brain cells, etc.  Each cell works together to create the system.  It is the system which consitutes life.
> 
> A single celled organism can be alive.  A single human cell only makes a human life when it is the entire system.



So a cell, or group of cells that depends on the organism that it lives in and the surrounding cells isn't life? 

It seems like this would include an early embryo. Certainly an embryo isn't an entire system until it develops the proper organs, etc. right?



JB0704 said:


> Life
> 1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
> 2. the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.
> 3. the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual: to risk one's life; a short life and a merry one.



I think we can ignore #3, as that's more a common usage vs. scientific term.

It seems to me that a human cell is life as proposed by #1 & #2


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2012)

Four said:


> So a cell, or group of cells that depends on the organism that it lives in and the surrounding cells isn't life?
> 
> It seems like this would include an early embryo. Certainly an embryo isn't an entire system until it develops the proper organs, etc. right?



I disagree because everything required to develop those things exist in the form of genetic material, stem cells, etc.  



Four said:


> It seems to me that a human cell is life as proposed by #1 & #2



Depends on how you look at the terms used.  Does a skin cell metabolize?  Is it, if seperated from the system, going to grow and adapt?


----------



## Four (Mar 23, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I disagree because everything required to develop those things exist in the form of genetic material, stem cells, etc.



This is changing the stakes a little, now we've moved to include the ability, not just manifestations.



JB0704 said:


> Depends on how you look at the terms used.  Does a skin cell metabolize?  Is it, if seperated from the system, going to grow and adapt?



Yes, skin cells do metabolize, and reproduce. Once again, you're changing parameters. The life definition you put forth didn't say anything about being separated from the system. It will however grow and adapt as apart of the system. Again, if something is not life because it cannot continue to grow and adapt than any embryo that cannot survive outside the womb would not constitute life.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2012)

Four said:


> Yes, skin cells do metabolize, and reproduce. Once again, you're changing parameters. The life definition you put forth didn't say anything about being separated from the system. It will however grow and adapt as apart of the system. Again, if something is not life because it cannot continue to grow and adapt than any embryo that cannot survive outside the womb would not constitute life.



Does it, on it's own, constitute a human life?  Does one look at a skin cell and say "yes, that is the system which constitutes a human life?"  We can say as much for the fertilized embryo, for the single celled amoeba. We cannot for the dead skin cell going down the shower drain.

.....wish I had my dang biology book.  Had a much more clear definition.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2012)

Four said:


> This is changing the stakes a little, now we've moved to include the ability, not just manifestations.



If left in a natural state, it will continue to develop it's natural parts.

Also, a two day old baby cannot remain alive on it's own.  I think you and I would both agree a two day old baby constitues a human life.  Independance is not the qualifier from my perspective.  It is the system as a whole which exists in the fertilized embryo.


----------



## Four (Mar 23, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> If left in a natural state, it will continue to develop it's natural parts.
> 
> Also, a two day old baby cannot remain alive on it's own.  I think you and I would both agree a two day old baby constitues a human life.  Independance is not the qualifier from my perspective.  It is the system as a whole which exists in the fertilized embryo.



it cant remain alive on its own, but it can be alive outside the system (womb)

You were the one that put forth independent when referring to skin cells not living independent of the organism.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2012)

Four said:


> it cant remain alive on its own, but it can be alive outside the system (womb)
> 
> You were the one that put forth independent when referring to skin cells not living independent of the organism.



Not organism, system.  Your intestines are filled with bacteria that cannot live outside of your body.  They are still life.  They are each single celled systems.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 24, 2012)

When some of these scientists have cloned a lamb or sheep or another animal.....what is it they use to clone that animal?

Is our dna in each and every cell of our body? Is it different than anyone else's dna? Can you take a cell from my body and make a sheep?

Just asking for science sake.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 24, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> If left in a natural state, it will continue to develop it's natural parts.
> 
> Also, a two day old baby cannot remain alive on it's own.  I think you and I would both agree a two day old baby constitues a human life.  Independance is not the qualifier from my perspective.  It is the system as a whole which exists in the fertilized embryo.



Agreed.

I used to debate abortion years ago. Some would say that the embryo was just a blob and it was a parasite and could not live alone outside the womb. No kiddin'?
On the other hand ever seen a 2 year old child that could live on it's own? Does that make it a parasite as well? Is it moral to just kill any ol' parasite?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 27, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> The point of the thread was to demonstrate that claiming life begins at conception is false.
> 
> At what point does the egg become a chicken?  At what point does the embryo become a human?
> 
> ...



Asath already made the point that "life" is there even before conception. My question isn't so much when life begins as when in the whole process do we draw the line between "potentially developing into a human being vs a developed human being"? I think most people who look at an egg will call it an egg, not a chicken. Under the right circumstances it might develop into a chicken but at that point in it's development it's an egg, not a chicken.

As you correctly point out, there is no black and white line in the development process to draw that line.

I think what makes this such a great topic is that moral absolutists love to think in terms of black and white, moral codes rather than moral principles. They are very rigid in their thought. It's entertaining when nature doesn't cooperate to fit into the way they choose to see the world.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 27, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Isn't this entirely based on the rights of humans? If a chicken had the same "rights" as a human, than it should be treated as such. Does anyone here think a chicken has the same rights as a human?



Before you can discuss rights for a particular thing you need to have a clear definition of that thing.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 27, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I used to debate abortion years ago. Some would say that the embryo was just a blob and it was a parasite and could not live alone outside the womb. No kiddin'?
> On the other hand ever seen a 2 year old child that could live on it's own? Does that make it a parasite as well? Is it moral to just kill any ol' parasite?



Would it be moral to violate the body of the 2 year old against their will to sustain your life?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 27, 2012)

While we are on the topic of nature not adhering to the black and white paradigm look up anencephaly. Is a baby that develops without a brain still a human with rights equal to everyone else?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 27, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> While we are on the topic of nature not adhering to the black and white paradigm look up anencephaly. Is a baby that develops without a brain still a human with rights equal to everyone else?



What is the answer to the OP using only logic and reason? Or more to the point, what is the logical and reasonable stance on abortion?

Speaking of 2 year olds and infanticide,  I was trying to imagine a scenario where it would be better, logically, to kill my child.  I imagined if we were in a burning building where there was no way out I might kill my daughter to save her from suffering, much like the people who jumped out of the towers on 9/11 did to themselves; or "pulling the plug" in a hospital.  I don't see that as a violation of her rights.  I guess the same logical process would apply to "pulling the plug" on anyone if it got to that point.  Hard questions but I think that reason and logic will get you pretty close if not exactly to the right decision.

In the case of anencephaly, abortion seems logical, reasonable and merciful.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 27, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> My question isn't so much when life begins as when in the whole process do we draw the line between "potentially developing into a human being vs a developed human being"? I think most people who look at an egg will call it an egg, not a chicken. Under the right circumstances it might develop into a chicken but at that point in it's development it's an egg, not a chicken..



When does the egg have all ingredients necessary to be a chicken?  And why is the chicken protected.....again, we are back to my waste example.



atlashunter said:


> As you correctly point out, there is no black and white line in the development process to draw that line.



Which is why I go with the least arbitrary line in the process....conception (implantation).  We are discussing another human's life and rights (avoiding, of course, Rothbard's thoughts on the woman's right to personal domain....we have run that rabbit a time or two).



atlashunter said:


> I think what makes this such a great topic is that moral absolutists love to think in terms of black and white, moral codes rather than moral principles. They are very rigid in their thought. It's entertaining when nature doesn't cooperate to fit into the way they choose to see the world.



I can agree with that.  But defending human rights is a principle as well.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 27, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> When does the egg have all ingredients necessary to be a chicken?



Good question. I think it would be better stated "_become_ a chicken". It's like asking when does a pan of cake batter have the necessary ingredients to become a cake? I'd say the ingredients are there but it takes more than just ingredients to make the finished product. Takes the right temperature, time, humidity, physical stability, etc... But I think just asking the question demonstrates that we are talking about two objects that are not one and the same.




JB0704 said:


> Which is why I go with the least arbitrary line in the process....conception (implantation).  We are discussing another human's life and rights (avoiding, of course, Rothbard's thoughts on the woman's right to personal domain....we have run that rabbit a time or two).



Least arbitrary in your view but still arbitrary. If fertilization is the line we draw then what rights would a fertilized egg in a test tube have?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 27, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Good question. I think it would be better stated "_become_ a chicken". It's like asking when does a pan of cake batter have the necessary ingredients to become a cake? I'd say the ingredients are there but it takes more than just ingredients to make the finished product. Takes the right temperature, time, humidity, physical stability, etc....



I think if we assigned inalienable rights to pancakes it would be a legitimate discussion.  Because who decides when a pancake is a pancake and not batter.  Some folks might like to eat the raw material as a pancake. It would be the same argument, with zero resolution.



atlashunter said:


> Least arbitrary in your view but still arbitrary. If fertilization is the line we draw then what rights would a fertilized egg in a test tube have?



I believe I mentioned implantation as the line where the human is developing and will continue to develop.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 28, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Would it be moral to violate the body of the 2 year old against their will to sustain your life?



I dunno, I'd ask is it lawful according to the laws we have now? Morally, I'd say a 2 yr old parasite is no different than a 3 month old embryo in the womb, neither could exist on it's own. When abortions became legal it was 14 weeks that they had to be terminated, now it can be up to partial birth abortion, ready to be born, but without taking a first breath. Full term like taking  12 coonhound puppies, not taking the sack off them and putting them in a bag and throwing in the river. 

Ya know people say....stay out of my body, stay out of my uterus.....how's about since 80% of abortions are state subsidized.....if you'll stay out of my pocketbook I'll stay out of your womb. I'm sure as heck I don't wanna pay for someone to have an abortion at $450 a pop with my taxes that could go for something better.

Cut out subsidized abortions and you can do what you want with your body.  That's leaving religion out of it. I'm forced to pay for something I don't believe in. Have your abortions, just leave me and my money out of it.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 28, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> But defending human rights is a principle as well.



I'm prochoice as far as if you believe differently than I do about abortions, my problem is why should I have to pay for them. You can get free birth control at the health dept, same place you go to get a free abortion that us taxpayers have to pay for.....hellooooooo....anybody out there?

What part of this is so hard to agree with?

My granddaughter needs some extra help with some subjects....I'd rather pay for that than someone's 'carelessness' abortion......sheesh. Why is that so outlandish????


----------



## Four (Mar 28, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I'm prochoice as far as if you believe differently than I do about abortions, my problem is why should I have to pay for them. You can get free birth control at the health dept, same place you go to get a free abortion that us taxpayers have to pay for.....hellooooooo....anybody out there?
> 
> What part of this is so hard to agree with?
> 
> My granddaughter needs some extra help with some subjects....I'd rather pay for that than someone's 'carelessness' abortion......sheesh. Why is that so outlandish????



I agree!

But then again, i dont agree with public schools, wars, subsidies, military industrial complex, etc

Can i not pay for that?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 28, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I believe I mentioned implantation as the line where the human is developing and will continue to develop.



Yet the egg in and of itself is the same either way. One is a human that has rights but the other isn't? A chicken egg sitting on the table is just an egg but put it in the incubator and it is now considered a chicken? Seems pretty arbitrary to me.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 28, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I dunno, I'd ask is it lawful according to the laws we have now? Morally, I'd say a 2 yr old parasite is no different than a 3 month old embryo in the womb, neither could exist on it's own. When abortions became legal it was 14 weeks that they had to be terminated, now it can be up to partial birth abortion, ready to be born, but without taking a first breath. Full term like taking  12 coonhound puppies, not taking the sack off them and putting them in a bag and throwing in the river.



Lawful and moral are two different things in my book. My question remains unanswered. May the body of a two year old be used against their will to sustain the life of someone else? Is that moral? Or since a two year old may not yet be developed enough to understand the situation how about an older child? I'd say their body belongs exclusively to them and it should be their choice in who does or doesn't get to use it. The alternative is to violate their will and force them to become a host to a parasite. Their refusal may cost someone else their life just as your refusal to be an organ donor could cost someone their life. That does not mean you are violating their rights because no one has a right to your body except you.




mtnwoman said:


> Ya know people say....stay out of my body, stay out of my uterus.....how's about since 80% of abortions are state subsidized.....if you'll stay out of my pocketbook I'll stay out of your womb. I'm sure as heck I don't wanna pay for someone to have an abortion at $450 a pop with my taxes that could go for something better.
> 
> Cut out subsidized abortions and you can do what you want with your body.  That's leaving religion out of it. I'm forced to pay for something I don't believe in. Have your abortions, just leave me and my money out of it.



I agree completely. There are a great many things government forces us to pay for that it shouldn't. I'd like to not have any of my hard earned money being used to subsidize religious organizations who rake in billions and don't pay a dime in taxes.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 28, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Yet the egg in and of itself is the same either way. One is a human that has rights but the other isn't? A chicken egg sitting on the table is just an egg but put it in the incubator and it is now considered a chicken? Seems pretty arbitrary to me.



Until it is implanted, it will never develop.  It is still raw material until then.  At that point, it becomes a developing human.

It is a very clear line.  I would ask at this point if you might suggest a better one.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 28, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Until it is implanted, it will never develop.  It is still raw material until then.  At that point, it becomes a developing human.
> 
> It is a very clear line.  I would ask at this point if you might suggest a better one.



I think your position is problematic because you're now saying that it isn't the act of fertilization in itself that constitutes a new human being with rights. My understanding is that once fertilized the egg will begin devoloping. Will it not split into two cells even in a test tube? Obviously the conditions have to be right but on what basis are you saying that this egg has a right to not be destroyed and given the necessary conditions to develop to maturity but another does not? That line is not at all clear to me.

The line of birth of a viable infant that does not require a human host to survive seems just as clear a line to me if not more so.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 28, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> The line of birth of a viable infant that does not require a human host to survive seems just as clear a line to me if not more so.



Said infant is just as viable many weeks before birth.  After birth, the infant is no more independant than it was in utero, in fact, it demands more of the "host" once outside the womb.  I just don't agree with your clarity.

I don't see my position as problematic.  Combine a sperm and an egg inside a tube and it will never be more than that.  Implant it, and the baby is on the way.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 28, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Said infant is just as viable many weeks before birth.  After birth, the infant is no more independant than it was in utero, in fact, it demands more of the "host" once outside the womb.  I just don't agree with your clarity.



My definition includes premature births provided that the infant has developed to a stage that it can survive without a human womb. Keep in mind this is not entirely complete. An anencephalitic baby even at full term is just a collection of human organs even if it can be kept alive. Without a human brain you're not a human being IMO.



JB0704 said:


> I don't see my position as problematic.  Combine a sperm and an egg inside a tube and it will never be more than that.  Implant it, and the baby is on the way.



So I take it you have no problem developing that fertilized egg artificially to a certain stage for research purposes?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 28, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Without a human brain you're not a human being IMO.?



The brain begins development within three weeks of implantation.  I can provide links if needed



atlashunter said:


> So I take it you have no problem developing that fertilized egg artificially to a certain stage for research purposes?



What is the stage, pre-implantation?  Either way, it is very tricky ground because we are discussing human life here...not chickens.  We might agree that one carries a greater intrinsic value than the other.  So, for me, pre-implantaion in a petry dish has moral implications.  It is intentionally created and stunted human life for the sake of research.  

Your argument for the petry dish must also stand for an unborn child at any stage of development, and I do not believe it does.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 28, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Lawful and moral are two different things in my book. My question remains unanswered. May the body of a two year old be used against their will to sustain the life of someone else?*I don't guess you're suggesting a 2 yr old would know how to not become pregnant? or is even capable of becoming so?* Is that moral? Or since a two year old may not yet be developed enough to understand the situation how about an older child? I'd say their body belongs exclusively to them and it should be their choice in who does or doesn't get to use it. *Ok, so the mama walks away and leaves the child, can the child survive on it's own without anyone to host it? I don't believe it can, any more than an embryo.*The alternative is to violate their will and force them to become a host to a parasite.*I am not saying that, I'm saying if the 2 year old is dependent on someone to sustain life, it is no different than unborn child who depends on it's mother, physically or morally to be feed.* Their refusal may cost someone else their life just as your refusal to be an organ donor could cost someone their life. That does not mean you are violating their rights because no one has a right to your body except you.*Like I said, everyone can do with their body what they want to, and if it feel morally correct to do 'anything', then so be it. A two year old cannot make such a decision to not become pregnant if you're insinuating that a 2 year old can do what it wants to with it's body, even fling itself off the deep end of a pool and cannot swim....so be it? eh?*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Tell me what things you mean, please.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 28, 2012)

Four said:


> I agree!
> 
> But then again, i dont agree with public schools, wars, subsidies, military industrial complex, etc
> 
> Can i not pay for that?



So you're comparing public schools that you probably used as a child or possibly some children in your family use, to abortions? Alrighty then.

Those things benefit us, even though I'd prefer not to pay for war, etc, either. But you want to pay for somebodys good time on friday night because they know in the back of their mind if they mess up they can get it taken care of free.....that is totally something way different than feeding people using subsidies, and protecting our country, but of course you are free to compare anything you like to justify anything you want to.


----------



## Four (Mar 28, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> So you're comparing public schools that you probably used as a child or possibly some children in your family use, to abortions? Alrighty then.
> 
> Those things benefit us, even though I'd prefer not to pay for war, etc, either. But you want to pay for somebodys good time on friday night because they know in the back of their mind if they mess up they can get it taken care of free.....that is totally something way different than feeding people using subsidies, and protecting our country, but of course you are free to compare anything you like to justify anything you want to.



You essentially made the claim that you shouldn't have to pay for things you don't want, for which I agreed.

But now its only ok for you to not pay for things you dont want / disagree with, but not me?

I could also follow a line of logic and say that unwanted pregnancies cost more to the tax payer in the long run than offering free prevention, etc. Would it then be OK because it is a net gain vs. the alternate?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 28, 2012)

Four said:


> I could also follow a line of logic and say that unwanted pregnancies cost more to the tax payer in the long run than offering free prevention, etc. Would it then be OK because it is a net gain vs. the alternate?



I would say no because there is a principle involved.  The choice of "ok v not ok" has less to do with net gain and more to do with principle of action.  The principle being that there is no point for free services stop if we provide other certain services.  Once we gave the people entitlements, there was demand for more.

And nothing is free.  Somebody is paying.


----------



## Four (Mar 28, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I would say no because there is a principle involved.  The choice of "ok v not ok" has less to do with net gain and more to do with principle of action.  The principle being that there is no point for free services stop if we provide other certain services.  Once we gave the people entitlements, there was demand for more.
> 
> And nothing is free.  Somebody is paying.



I like it! I agree that entitlements are bad, which is why i mentioned before that somebody shouldn't be forced to pay for something that they do not want.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 28, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> What is the stage, pre-implantation?  Either way, it is very tricky ground because we are discussing human life here...not chickens.  We might agree that one carries a greater intrinsic value than the other.  So, for me, pre-implantaion in a petry dish has moral implications.  It is intentionally created and stunted human life for the sake of research.



Tricky ground indeed. It seems to me you are trying to have it both ways. If the argument is the fertilized egg isn't a human being until it is implanted then you have no basis for defending the egg in the petri dish. If your argument is that we aren't calling it a human with rights until the ball gets rolling toward developing into a human at what stage in that development do you draw that line? When it splits into two cells? Or some later point? What ever line you draw is going to be arbitrary. So that takes us right back to the single cells which you are saying some are human beings and some aren't. 




JB0704 said:


> Your argument for the petry dish must also stand for an unborn child at any stage of development, and I do not believe it does.



How do you figure? I'm not the one equating a few cells to a fully developed human. My understanding is that 3 days after conception you've got 150 cells. Is that a human being? Not in my book. Is it a human a month before birth? I'd say yes. At what point in between those two stages does that change? Biologically I don't think there is any single point in time that can be pointed to. It's like looking at a gradient between black and white and being asked to pinpoint the exact point that it ceases to be white and becomes black. Any line drawn at a particular point in time will be arbitrary which is why I submit it should be whatever point that it is viable enough to survive without requiring a human host.

I know the hypothetical has been posited here before but if you are forced to save the life of a 5 year old child or a 5 day old embryo I think you'll be hard pressed to make the case that those two choices are morally equivalent. At what point would they become equivalent? That's a question that no book or moral code can easily answer.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 28, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> If the argument is the fertilized egg isn't a human being until it is implanted then you have no basis for defending the egg in the petri dish. If your argument is that we aren't calling it a human with rights until the ball gets rolling toward developing into a human at what stage in that development do you draw that line? When it splits into two cells? Or some later point? What ever line you draw is going to be arbitrary. So that takes us right back to the single cells which you are saying some are human beings and some aren't..



I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.  I am against creating human life and then stunting it's growth for the sake of research.  I am against the petri dish, but will recognize that implantation is the least arbitrary line which can be drawn.  That is the point where it is now free to develop, yet everything needed is already there.  This is not the case for unfertilized eggs. 



atlashunter said:


> How do you figure? I'm not the one equating a few cells to a fully developed human. .



But you are the one claiming killing a petri dish full of fertilized eggs is moral, while killing an unborn child at 9.5 months may not be.  What is your basis?  Why one and not the other?  At what point do you assign an intrinsic value to that life? You said a human had to have a brain.  Well, humans have brains within three weeks of development.  Not "old enough" to be human yet?  What's your parameter?

And let's face it, according to your beliefs in the right to domain, it does not matter, and killing either is acceptable, so we are going to get nowhere here.



atlashunter said:


> My understanding is that 3 days after conception you've got 150 cells. Is that a human being? Not in my book Is it a human a month before birth? I'd say yes. At what point in between those two stages does that change? Biologically I don't think there is any single point in time that can be pointed to. It's like looking at a gradient between black and white and being asked to pinpoint the exact point that it ceases to be white and becomes black. Any line drawn at a particular point in time will be arbitrary which is why I submit it should be whatever point that it is viable enough to survive without requiring a human host...



Which is why "implantation" is the least arbitrary line we can draw.  Everything needed is already there.  The DNA, the uterine wall, all that stuff.  The ball is rolling at that point. 



atlashunter said:


> I know the hypothetical has been posited here before but if you are forced to save the life of a 5 year old child or a 5 day old embryo I think you'll be hard pressed to make the case that those two choices are morally equivalent. At what point would they become equivalent? That's a question that no book or moral code can easily answer.



It's the same question as whether you would save an old woman or a small child from a fire if you could only save one.  We assign a value to other people's lives.  However, if given the chance I would certainly believe the moral choice would be to save both, wouldn't it?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 28, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.  I am against creating human life and then stunting it's growth for the sake of research.  I am against the petri dish, but will recognize that implantation is the least arbitrary line which can be drawn.  That is the point where it is now free to develop, yet everything needed is already there.  This is not the case for unfertilized eggs.



Now it's human life but not human life with rights? Still trying to have it both ways. 




JB0704 said:


> But you are the one claiming killing a petri dish full of fertilized eggs is moral, while killing an unborn child at 9.5 months may not be.  What is your basis?  Why one and not the other?  At what point do you assign an intrinsic value to that life? You said a human had to have a brain.  Well, humans have brains within three weeks of development.  Not "old enough" to be human yet?  What's your parameter?



The basis is that one is a human being and the other is not.




JB0704 said:


> And let's face it, according to your beliefs in the right to domain, it does not matter, and killing either is acceptable, so we are going to get nowhere here.



Separate question from the thread topic but yes I don't believe any human has a right to use the body of another against their will, even if it is necessary to sustain their life.




JB0704 said:


> Which is why "implantation" is the least arbitrary line we can draw.  Everything needed is already there.  The DNA, the uterine wall, all that stuff.  The ball is rolling at that point.



The ball is also rolling when the egg splits in two and will continue rolling as long as the circumstances are right. What I think you are saying is that once that process has begun you have a human life with rights. 




JB0704 said:


> It's the same question as whether you would save an old woman or a small child from a fire if you could only save one.  We assign a value to other people's lives.  However, if given the chance I would certainly believe the moral choice would be to save both, wouldn't it?



It's only the same question if you consider a fertilized egg in a petri dish just as much a human being as the child or old woman. Toss a coin and decide which one to save? Either way is equally moral/immoral? Maybe in your scenario, not in mine.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 28, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Now it's human life but not human life with rights? Still trying to have it both ways..


 
No.  Both are human beings, I just readily admit that implantation is the least arbitrary line.  I am against the research on the petri dish of fertilized eggs.  



atlashunter said:


> The basis is that one is a human being and the other is not...



By what parameter do you make that assessment?



atlashunter said:


> Separate question from the thread topic but yes I don't believe any human has a right to use the body of another against their will, even if it is necessary to sustain their life...



Which is why I said we will get nowhere.  I disagree with you on this, as we have discussed, and it is an exercise in futility to debate it.



atlashunter said:


> The ball is also rolling when the egg splits in two and will continue rolling as long as the circumstances are right. What I think you are saying is that once that process has begun you have a human life with rights.



Yes.  The least arbitrary line to conclude the process has begun is implantation, but the point of fertilization is where my parameter for being "human" is.




atlashunter said:


> It's only the same question if you consider a fertilized egg in a petri dish just as much a human being as the child or old woman. Toss a coin and decide which one to save? Either way is equally moral/immoral? Maybe in your scenario, not in mine.



But, you were asking according to my scenario, in which case, it is the same scenario.  And no, it is not a coin toss, it is an assessment of the value we place in a life and all factors being considered.


----------

