So, what are your thoughts on abortion?

[augustuillo]

Then please expand on it.

Ive already made this argument!!!!!

You can win new civs/ maps

[arriah]

@farran34

I still disagree. So cloned fetuses are not human and may be slaughtered? When humans are cloned they will not be human an have no rights according to you.
And stem cells will have "potential humanity" but not be considered human.

[Sgt_ROFLCopter]

@metis

For what it's worth I've been actively performing bioinformatics research since 2010 and fairly recently left my position using ancestral reconstruction to study the role of kinase proteins in the origins of multi-cellular life at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. I'm well aware of the Human Genome Project, it's goals, and some of it's conclusions.

With modern technology, you are correct for all practical purposes. However, with upcoming advancements in bio-engineering we will soon be able to do something approximately based on removing the DNA from a zygote and replacing it with other "human" DNA. This DNA, however, could be something very different from any observed DNA from a natural human that also just so happens to be viable in a human womb. It might even be indiscernible from a natural human for the entirety of it's life but still have very high discrepancies using any alignment algorithm.

Furthermore, most potential mutations have never been observed. There are just far too many that it's hard to tell the nonviable mutations from the one's that simply never happened. Too many base pairs, too few humans, too low of mutation rate. The ones we do see are almost certainly not novel to the organism that has them' they most likely inherited most of their "mutant" information from their parents.

The rest of my argument is going to be hand wavy and largely an exercise in the Socratic method for interested readers because I have to be at a research review in 15 minutes.

The HeLa cell line (uterine cancer that is now capable of living outside it's host) could be argued to be it's own species by any modern definition of "species." Consider the probable alignment score between the HeLa genotype and Henrietta Lacks's (the patient) genotype. Do you suspect the HeLa cell line is more closely related to the patient than she is to other members of Homo sapiens? Consider the implications of using alignments (a metric based on BLOSUM/PAM, which are statistical observations) to try to draw a conclusion about an individual sequence. Consider a genetically engineered human who has novel metabolic pathways but is still genetically recombinative with natural humans.

Think about a mule, the hybrid of a donkey and a horse. It can survive because it has two different sets of recombinative proteins that are nearly as entirely complete as it's parents. It can't breed because independent assortment of the heterozygous F1 generation is highly unlikely to produce gametes with even one complete set of chromosomes (a full set of horse or donkey).

Consider the possibility that you magnetize the Horse DNA before breeding it with the donkey with a purely imaginative thought experiment apparatus that exists for the sake of not having to describe a very difficult but speculatively possible real life implementation. Using your cool magnets, you are able to cause specific orientations of chromosomes during anaphase I of meiosis (when independent assortment occurs). This causes all of the gametes of your heterozygous F1 generation (yes yes I know about cross-over, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain) to be exclusively horse or donkey! Would these gametes be able to form viable zygotes with members of horse, donkey, and mules?

Bonus mini-game, count all of the ethical violations I committed in all of my above thought experiments. Petition your local congressmen to let the evil back into science. Mwahahahaha!

Edit: Looks like I'm late.

[spanky4ever]

so we go to another topic - cant you stay on the subject.

[farran34]

@farran34

I still disagree. So cloned fetuses are not human and may be slaughtered? When humans are cloned they will not be human an have no rights according to you.
And stem cells will have "potential humanity" but not be considered human.

I think the topic of cloning and stem cells deserve a topic of their own, as the ethical implications of them are hotly debated and it gets into some pretty deep topics. One example is whether or not the identity of the cloned fetus is actually distinct from that of the original fetus. Stem cells is a whole different topic I believe also, and I do not really want to get into the topic.

For the mere sake of me not wanting to debate these topics (As I stated I am mostly done with the thread), I will not argue that it is a possible counter example.

You still have not argued how a baby is human yet not a fetus. What is the distinction you are using for this?

Why is infanticide wrong?
It would be nice if you can make a positive argument in this area.

[Sgt_ROFLCopter]

@farran34

I still disagree. So cloned fetuses are not human and may be slaughtered? When humans are cloned they will not be human an have no rights according to you.
And stem cells will have "potential humanity" but not be considered human.

One example is whether or not the identity of the cloned fetus is actually distinct from that of the original fetus.

DAE think identical twins are the same person?

[arriah]

@farran34

I still disagree. So cloned fetuses are not human and may be slaughtered? When humans are cloned they will not be human an have no rights according to you.
And stem cells will have "potential humanity" but not be considered human.

I think the topic of cloning and stem cells deserve a topic of their own, as the ethical implications of them are hotly debated and it gets into some pretty deep topics. One example is whether or not the identity of the cloned fetus is actually distinct from that of the original fetus. Stem cells is a whole different topic I believe also, and I do not really want to get into the topic.

For the mere sake of me not wanting to debate these topics (As I stated I am mostly done with the thread), I will not argue that it is a possible counter example.?

You still have not argued how a baby is human yet not a fetus. What is the distinction you are using for this??

Why is infanticide wrong?
It would be nice if you can make a positive argument in this area.

But I dont have to argue those things because it is not the position I took... As I have stated before my position is that since there is yet a logical answer for that it become irrelevant and we move on to other factors.

Abortion being illegal is clearly bad for society but infanticide is not... Thus, my position.

Edit: I mean infanticide IS bad

[Metis]

Furthermore, most potential mutations have never been observed.

I''ve never worked with human genetics but I''m pretty sure that I once observed a mutation in a population of rodents because it wasn''t present in the fairly large sample I collected in one year but was there in one juvenile individual from the sample I collected the following year. I''m pretty sure that it didn''t come in via gene flow from surrounding populations either as none of them showed any heterozygosity at that locus.

[Mr. Pecksniff]

Let's see if we can get this thread locked as well.

@arriah your gay

[arriah]

Let''s see if we can get this thread locked as well.

@arriah your gay

My gay what???

[Metis]

One example is whether or not the identity of the cloned fetus is actually distinct from that of the original fetus.

DAE think identical twins are the same person?

Ive got identical twin cousins. They do think and act more similar to each other than they do to their non-identical sister. However, its hard to say whether this is primarily due to identical genomes or the fact that they did everything together through college. For twenty-five years I was never able to tell them apart. However, since they have started leading separate lives I can usually distinguish them from their mannerisms.

Edit:

My aunt once told me that she isnt completely sure that those girls actually have the right names as she got them mixed up herself when they were babies.

[spanky4ever]

I wounder about you metis: how old are you to be in the IIW - and how many twins have you - and how many masters?

[Metis]

I wounder about you metis: how old are you to be in the IIW - and how many twins have you - and how many masters?

I think that the meaning of my posts is being lost in translation. I didn''t say that I was in WWII but that my great uncle was. I have identical twin cousins, my dad and his brother are fraternal twins. I have one masters degree, in mammalian taxonomy.

OK, now tell us something about yourself. Where are you from? If English is not your first language, do you use a translator? Translators only approximate what is actually written and can change the intended meaning considerably.

[spanky4ever]

Im from Norway - and as you maybe have guessed - English is not my native language. I have pretty good English language - i guess if i misspell a little (without any translator) you will get my meaning.

[Metis]

Im from Norway - and as you maybe have guessed - English is not my native language. I have pretty good English language - i guess if i misspell a little (without any translator) you will get my meaning.

You have more English than I do Norwegian, which is none.

[spanky4ever]

thx and guess that right metis

[farran34]

I think the topic of cloning and stem cells deserve a topic of their own, as the ethical implications of them are hotly debated and it gets into some pretty deep topics. One example is whether or not the identity of the cloned fetus is actually distinct from that of the original fetus. Stem cells is a whole different topic I believe also, and I do not really want to get into the topic.

For the mere sake of me not wanting to debate these topics (As I stated I am mostly done with the thread), I will not argue that it is a possible counter example.

You still have not argued how a baby is human yet not a fetus. What is the distinction you are using for this?

Why is infanticide wrong?
It would be nice if you can make a positive argument in this area.

But I dont have to argue those things because it is not the position I took... As I have stated before my position is that since there is yet a logical answer for that it become irrelevant and we move on to other factors.

Abortion being illegal is clearly bad for society but infanticide is not... Thus, my position.

Edit: I mean infanticide IS bad

Why is infanticide clearly bad for society? If it is performed in the same way abortion was meaning you are required to go to the doctor and not do it illegally ext.
There have been moral philosophers who argue that infanticide is not wrong actually, but just socially not accepted.

[Metis]

If one is going to argue that abortion is ethical because the fetus is not self-aware then it's hard to say infanticide, up to the age of self-awareness, would not also be ethical. However, as I stated some posts ago, there is considerable variation as to when humans become self-aware and it's even possible that some become so in utero.

[farran34]

If one is going to argue that abortion is ethical because the fetus is not self-aware then it''s hard to say infanticide, up to the age of self-awareness, would not also be ethical. However, as I stated some posts ago, there is considerable variation as to when humans become self-aware and it''s even possible that some become so in utero.

What do you mean by self-aware? I found this definition of self-awareness and have trouble believing most new-born babies would have this: "Self-awareness is a psychological state in which people are aware of their traits, feelings and behaviour. Alternately, it can be defined as the realization of oneself as an individual entity."

(Crisp &' Turner, 2010)


I also found most sources suggesting around 18 months it is usual for people to begin to become self-aware, but perhaps there is evidence suggesting it at a younger age also.

My question is though if we define one gaining humanity when they reach self-awareness, we could then argue that people in vegetative states have completely lost their humanity since their are not self-aware, as arriah used as a counter to me earlier.

Also, assuming a baby is not self-aware (still debatable maybe from your post, but for this lets assume), wouldn''t this mean a chimpanzees are more human than a baby? I think most would value the life of their baby over that of a chimpanzee.

[arriah]

But I dont have to argue those things because it is not the position I took... As I have stated before my position is that since there is yet a logical answer for that it become irrelevant and we move on to other factors.

Abortion being illegal is clearly bad for society but infanticide is not... Thus, my position.

Edit: I mean infanticide IS bad

Why is infanticide clearly bad for society? If it is performed in the same way abortion was meaning you are required to go to the doctor and not do it illegally ext.
There have been moral philosophers who argue that infanticide is not wrong actually, but just socially not accepted.?

Ok, Im not prepared to argue that, but even if you are right and babies arent considered "human" you still havent addressed the rest of the issues and my other points still stand.

[farran34]

Why is infanticide clearly bad for society? If it is performed in the same way abortion was meaning you are required to go to the doctor and not do it illegally ext.
There have been moral philosophers who argue that infanticide is not wrong actually, but just socially not accepted.

Ok, Im not prepared to argue that, but even if you are right and babies arent considered "human" you still havent addressed the rest of the issues and my other points still stand.

I would argue that perhaps abortions in a utilitarian sense are better for the world (not certain however), but I am uncertain that something such as infanticide would not also be better for the world in a utilitarianism

Most of the arguments for abortion in a utilitarian sense could also be used for infanticide. Population of the earth, unhappy lives, neglect, giving women choice, and among other things.

Also another important idea to note is most do not argue infanticide is wrong because it would make society worse off, but because there is something inherently wrong with infanticide, and I think this argument has some real value.

[arriah]

Ok, Im not prepared to argue that, but even if you are right and babies arent considered "human" you still havent addressed the rest of the issues and my other points still stand.

I would argue that perhaps abortions in a utilitarian sense are better for the world (not certain however), but I am uncertain that something such as infanticide would not also be better for the world in a utilitarianism?

Most of the arguments for abortion in a utilitarian sense could also be used for infanticide. Population of the earth, unhappy lives, neglect, giving women choice, and among other things.?

Also another important idea to note is most do not argue infanticide is wrong because it would make society worse off, but because there is something inherently wrong with infanticide, and I think this argument has some real value.

You think that the argument "its wrong because it just is" has value?

[farran34]

I think it is flawed to simply be a strict consequentialist, and ignore the actual action itself and just look to the consequences, yes.

Edit: I think it is flawed to simply be a strict consequentialist, and ignore the actual action itself and just look to the consequences.
This is what I should say, I am not necessarily saying yes to your question, as I think there are reasons for stating an action is wrong without looking strictly at the consequences.

[noissance]

Ok, Im not prepared to argue that, but even if you are right and babies arent considered "human" you still havent addressed the rest of the issues and my other points still stand.

I would argue that perhaps abortions in a utilitarian sense are better for the world (not certain however), but I am uncertain that something such as infanticide would not also be better for the world in a utilitarianism?

Most of the arguments for abortion in a utilitarian sense could also be used for infanticide. Population of the earth, unhappy lives, neglect, giving women choice, and among other things.?

Also another important idea to note is most do not argue infanticide is wrong because it would make society worse off, but because there is something inherently wrong with infanticide, and I think this argument has some real value.

What do you do with babies born with deformities? (Mom and dad did drugs/smoked/drank), or even have psychological disorders, or even down syndrome.

In a loose sense, aborting a baby that will grow up in a shitty neighborhood, likely face discrimination, and grow up in poverty is a form of euthanasia, except the baby doesnt choose, the mother does. This also loosely applies to utalitarian principles, as what you are doing is culling out the population that will stay trapped in a cycle of poverty, and not be productive for even themselves rather than productive for the world.

Also, I am not saying we force abortions to occur, just let the patients (women) themselves decide.

[arriah]

I think it is flawed to simply be a strict consequentialist, and ignore the actual action itself and just look to the consequences, yes.

Edit:?I think it is flawed to simply be a strict consequentialist, and ignore the actual action itself and just look to the consequences.
This is what I should say, I am not necessarily saying yes to your question, as I think there are reasons for stating an action is wrong without looking strictly at the consequences.

Well that just defeats the whole purpose of the debate.