Get out and vote on Tuesday 6 Nov 18

Hi Tim,

I got your PM, and yes, happy to discuss. Fire away. I don't check insectnet or my private messages too often, but I will definitely reply.

I am replying to your last post publicly though, since you do quote me. You state

"If i'm not mistaken, murder is the killing of another human being. A sperm is not a human being and does not posses the unique DNA that the zygote/fetus/baby does. No one is saying that killing sperm is murder because that is absurd.
Killing an innocent human person is wrong.
Human life scientifically begins at fertilization.
The fetus is a unique person with a unique genetic code.
Abortion is the intentional killing of the fetus.
Therefore abortion is wrong."

Hyperbole aside, a lot of this hinges on definitions and semantics. You, or someone else, may define murder as the killing of another human being. Someone else may say that murder applies to the killing of any living organism. How hippy do we want to get here? You say human life begins at fertilization. Does an unborn fetus have human rights, or are those rights only conferred once it's out of the womb and not dependent on another person's uterus for survival? Abortion is wrong you say. That's a very overarching blanket statement. Suppose you had a fetus who does not have a head, a congenital condition called anencephaly. The fetus is "alive" so long as it's in the uterus, but anencephaly is not compatible with life outside the uterus, and this "living "unique" "human being" is not going to survive if it's born. Is abortion okay in this case, or would you (if you become a doctor) insist that this woman continue with the pregnancy and see what happens? What if there's a complication during the pregnancy and the presence of the fetus threatens the live of the mother, whose life gets priority? I'm not going to say if you're right or wrong. Clearly, you've made up your mind about your position and you will find people who both agree and disagree with you. However, above are some questions for you to ponder.

"Frankly, I don't understand how killing millions of babies of our own species is a topic that is a "waste of time". Although no one is forcing you to read this part of the forum and post here I appreciate your willingness. How many times must I say, it is not her body. It is scientifically a distinct, whole, human being."

It's not a waste of time to discuss this topic in general. However, such topics are not the intent of this forum (it's for insects...it's not called http://abortionnet.proboards.com). There are plenty of other fora where you can discuss abortions, human rights, consciousness, choice/free will....where you will encounter many doctors, politicians, philosophers who will offer you their opinion. You say that "it is not her body." I think if you were a woman with a metabolically active organism growing inside you that depends completely on you for survival, you might have a different perspective. One perspective is that it's not a "whole, human being" until it is born and is able to sustain it's own breathing and metabolism.

"I am personally going into a medical profession myself. I know several physicians (with more than ten years of experience) who have come to the same conclusions as I have, not that that matters though, obviously all the physicians in the world don't agree."

I'm not sure if you are going to be a doctor, nurse, or some other healthcare professional. Regardless, one of the pillars of modern day medicine is "patient autonomy" which means patients get to decide what happens to their body, no one else. Of the several physicians you know who agree with your view point, how many are religious and how many are not?

So long as the fetus is physically connected to the woman's body through the umbilical cord and uterus and fully dependent on her for oxygen and nutrients, it's part of her body and she calls the shots. You do not get to decide what she does with her body. You are entitled to your beliefs of course, but as a physician, those beliefs are not something you can impose on a patient. For example, years ago I was working a night shift and I got a call about an escaped prisoner who stole a car and crashed it on a highway median, hurting himself in the process. I can't remember if he hurt others during this prison break. I was the physician on call as part of the trauma team to help this patient. The non-physician part of me did not think highly of this person's actions or life, and frankly, the world would probably be better off without this individual. What if the car he crashed killed someone a bunch of kids on a school bus? However, the physician part of me did not hesitate to help him, regardless of any and all personal biases and emotions. I treated him to the best of my abilities and it did not matter if he was a criminal, a philanthropist, or King of England. You can have your opinions of fetuses, abortions, and the women who seek them out. However, you are not in a position to assign a moral judgement to another person based on your religious inclinations or deny them the medical options they seek.

Taking the conversation away from the definitions of "life" and "human being" for a moment. Consider also the social impact from a purely practical perspective. If one forces a woman to give birth to a child she does not want and may not be able to support, what does that ultimately do to society? What is accomplished by forcing these women into cycles of poverty and abortion? Once these children are born, are they going to live in a happy home or a broken family who never wanted them in the first place. If the latter, and that leads to higher rates of social and psychological problems, abuse, drugs, violence...etc (these people can buy guns too btw), are the same pro-life tax payers going to be the same people who will vote in favor of social programs to help these individuals and families?

Earlier in this thread, someone more or less said that if there was an unwanted intruder in their home, it would be perfectly fine to take a gun and shoot them, to defend your home which is your castle. An unwanted fetus can be viewed by a woman as an intruder inside her body. Can she not take measure to protect her castle?

Tim, please don't use the word "scientifically" to determine the beginning of "life". It's a question of philosophy and morality, not science. Scientifically life doesn't start at reproduction. There is one entity of life and it only gets passed on to the next individual. The chemical and energetic imbalance to keep life going is never created during reproduction.

You will never reach a common ground as the topic is a question of morals and different morals seldomly mix well.

Kudos to eurytides for his detailed and great public answer.

As a matter of fact, we see ourselves as civilized and with the ability to solve and resolve most any challenge, which is clearly not the case. In many cases, the problem/ challenge is clouded by our cultural beliefs and (though none would want to admit) brainwashing by those in power.

There is no simple answer to when a human is "alive". Clearly, and historically, birth is the delineation. Science and religion seek to and/ or have moved this mark...or not.

Then there are repercussions. In the very interesting tome "Freakonomics" the authors use statistics and science to demonstrate a strong link between abortion (or lack thereof) amongst American urban society and crime, the end result being that the restriction on abortion caused a massive rise in crime by aging unwanted children.

As self-declared science-minded people, one would think we are better able to embrace a more holistic understanding than the "information" fed to us. Guns in USA is an excellent example. Much hyped media anecdotes aside, swimming pools kill ten times as many children as guns (see again, "Freakonomics"). And, something like 88% of gun deaths are restricted to urban gangs, a group clearly nobody (left or right) really cares about, because nothing is done about it. Nobody wants to admit it's a failed microcosm or a cultural problem, so guns get the blame- meanwhile, there are many, many more guns (much more powerful guns) in far more experienced hands in rural areas, yet they account for virtually no crime. Thus, from almost all scientific angles, gun control in USA just doesn't wash. There is, of course, the cultural element in that the founders of USA wanted everyone to be armed against a recognized enemy- our own government- a lesson many would have best heeded in the past, from the Jews of Warsaw to the conservatives of Venezuela.

Many problems are hyped and fed by a media which has an agenda. Clearly, many problems would be solved by throttling the media. This though is a short-term solution, that like many "solutions" has long-term repercussions. Throttling the media (supression of our right to free speech) is a guaranteed path to control by an oppressive government (just like gun control.)

I am convinced that many of these "hot button" topics are the tail wagging the dog- entities in power leveraging these topics to build a power base and/or distract us from real issues. So how many drank this Kool-Aid and listen and get sucked into it? There is no easy solution, and we want an easy solution, it's almost like burning witches and I for one am not going to attend the fire.

Chuck

Eurytides, while your argument is sound, it is not factually correct in some cases. What we see (in extremis) as "good" and "bad" are largely a matter of cultural mores.

For example, Erik the Red was banished from Iceland not because he killed someone (which was more or less legal without the monikers of "kill" vs. "murder") but because he (again) failed to follow the law which required he report the killing immediately (within 3 houses.) As we can see, even in such a grevious case, laws and morals were not those we live by in today's culture. The list goes on, depending upon where one is and to which culture one belongs.

Further, the investigation and/ or prosecution of crimes is largely based on political clout or lack thereof. There is a reason that the US prison population is #2 globally, and a reason that a majority of the US prison population is black (hint: it isn't because the color of one's skin indicates a deep, natural tendency toward crime.)

"Good" and "bad" (and thus often "legal" and "illegal") are very much a reflection on ever changing cultural norms. I don't like good/bad, I think in terms of ramifications.

Chuck

What I find irritating is that many arguments are based on religion which I find nonsense at all 5000 religions we have and which is from times people were analphabetic nomads. The point that the catholic church still is against it and even for prevention is that they want to become the biggest population on earth. It is a kind of breeding humans rsp. prevent that the population of catholics will decrease. This is here in Europe in all times since the middle age. Yes,
Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed
in your neighborhood as monthy python is singing. ( great film )

And eurytides mentioned that fact that people do not need holy books. Even insects and crocodiles are kind to their children, it is a normal thing in life. As I am not religious, I do not kill people as I said.

But I see there is still much discusion about this what shows progress in society is still on it´s way, a long way

Skandinavisk, it's amazing how many species of animals exhibit an innate sense of fairness and what is "right" even if there isn't a universal definition. There's a Youtube video showing a fascinating experiment which I can't find at the moment. In it, there are two monkeys who are given the exact same task to do. One monkey finishes the task and gets a grape or something along those lines, a sweet treat. The second monkey, who completes the same task is given a cucumber slice, something that's not as desirable. The second money goes nuts and starts screaming and rattling the cage!! It's sort of funny to watch, but if you think about it a bit deeply, it actually shows us something amazing about our primate kin.