Science told: hands off gay sheep!

Originally posted by PVS
because the choice of its existance is up to the parents to make given the conundrum left in leaving it up to a nonexistant zygote.

thats an issue of law. i personally think that once the fetus gains a basic state of consciousness it should have the protections of a born person. [edit: barring any immediate unforseen threat to the life of the mother] however we go off topic

sentient beings

sentient beings

sentient beings

I agree that is a difficult question made mostly of guesses. But if genetic alteration on a fetus is indeed wrong because that fetus will eventually grow up into a sentient person who should have been the one to decide if he/she wanted or didn't want such alterations, then why not using that same rational could the fetus in question have the same right in choosing it's life or death? Understand where I am coming from?

Originally posted by Robtard
I agree that is a difficult question made mostly of guesses. But if genetic alteration on a fetus is indeed wrong because that fetus will eventually grow up into a sentient person who should have been the one to decide if it wanted or didn't want such alterations, then why not using that same rational could the fetus in question have the same right in choosing it's life or death? Understand where I am coming from?

i understand what you're saying but its a flawed connection.
its NOT the same rational. the choice of existance is made by the parents exclusively. same as the choice for it to not exist. thats life. thats...nature.

Originally posted by PVS
i understand what you're saying but its a flawed connection.
its NOT the same rational. the choice of existance is made by the parents exclusively. same as the choice for it to not exist. thats life. thats...nature.

How can the non-choice of eye color, body fat or even sexual orientation supersede the non-choice life/death?

Originally posted by Robtard
How can the non-choice of eye color, body fat or even sexual orientation supersede the non-choice life/death?

its not a choice between life and death. life and death are issues daling with sentient beings. it is existance and nonexistance. the choice is often made before conception.

Originally posted by PVS
its not a choice between life and death. life and death are issues daling with sentient beings. it is existance and nonexistance. the choice is often made before conception.

You can't say it's wrong to alter a fetus genetically because that fetus will become a person with rights who may or may not want those alterations that where imposed on 'him' but then say it is fine to abort a fetus because that fetus which is to be aborted is 'just a fetus'.

The aborted fetus would have become a sentient being just as the genetically altered fetus... Different edges of the same sword my friend.

A woman may terminate a pregnancy, not because she has a unilateral right to do as she wishes with the fetus, or because the fetus does not have rights, but because the right to bodily integrity of the woman is more stringent than the right to life of the fetus.

Once she has conceded to the pregnancy, the fetus has a right to bodily integrity that should not be infringed upon.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A woman may terminate a pregnancy, not because she has a unilateral right to do as she wishes with the fetus, or because the fetus does not have rights, but because the right to bodily integrity of the woman is more stringent than the right to life of the fetus.

Once she has conceded to the pregnancy, the fetus has a right to bodily integrity that should not be infringed upon.

Not sure if that was directed at me, but I obviously would not consider a woman in the wrong for going through an abortion because her life was in danger.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A woman may terminate a pregnancy, not because she has a unilateral right to do as she wishes with the fetus, or because the fetus does not have rights, but because the right to bodily integrity of the woman is more stringent than the right to life of the fetus.

Once she has conceded to the pregnancy, the fetus has a right to bodily integrity that should not be infringed upon.

But changing the genetic setup of sperm and egg are alright then, aren't they?

Also, what about an embryo.

Originally posted by Robtard

The aborted fetus would have become a sentient being just as the genetically altered fetus... Different edges of the same sword my friend.

until you see the difference between the hypothetical "would have been this, could have been that" and the inevitable "will be", and that this choice alone is logically the parents to make as opposed to how tall it will be, its pointless to continue this

Originally posted by PVS
until you see the difference between the hypothetical "would have been this, could have been that" and the inevitable "will be", and that this choice alone is logically the parents to make as opposed to how tall it will be, its pointless to continue this

I do know the difference and it is silly to say that future potential matters in one issue but doesn't matter in another issue, if future potential matters than it is across the board.

If you stand on the grounds that a woman can go through an abortion because the fetus is hers to do whatever she will with, even the ultimate choice of choosing life or death, than the reasoning stands that she has the right to alter it as she will regardless that it will eventually become a person, she altered it before it became a person. Ultimately it is the parents choice then on how tall, how lean and how non-gay the child is if you're going to allow the woman the ultimate choice of life or death.

Originally posted by Robtard

If you stand on the grounds that a woman can go through an abortion because the fetus is hers to do whatever she will with

the fetus which will never become a person of free will, a sentient being, yes...

Originally posted by Robtard

even the ultimate choice of choosing life or death,

existance or nonexistance of a sentient human being. nobody is being killed. a person must be in order to be killed. this is where imho you are failing to comprehend. it is a parents choice whether or not to bring a person into existance. [this is the important part]: to choose to have a child is to inevitably (barring complications) create a conscious sentient being, as opposed mistakenly creating a zygote and destroying it.

Originally posted by PVS
the fetus which will never become a person of free will, a sentient being, yes...

existance or nonexistance of a sentient human being. nobody is being killed. a person must be in order to be killed. this is where imho you are failing to comprehend. it is a parents choice whether or not to bring a person into existance. [this is the important part]: to choose to have a child is to inevitably (barring complications) create a conscious sentient being, as opposed mistakenly creating a zygote and destroying it.

If the logic is, a woman can abort her fetus because "future potential" is meaningless, meaning the fetus isn't entitled to rights until the mother allows it so (going through pregnancy, birth etc.). Then it would stand to reason that the woman is ultimately the "decider" (thanks Dubya) of everything the fetus/child/person will become; including eye color, body fat, or genital size if she wishes as long as it is done within the borders where she has full control over the fetus.

I do see your point to an extant and it's funny we debate since we have very similar views on abortion and prenatal genetic modification, but I do not see how you can draw a line and say "yes" and "no" here so cleanly.

Originally posted by Robtard
If the logic is, a woman can abort her fetus because "future potential" is meaningless, meaning the fetus isn't entitled to rights until the mother allows it so (going through pregnancy, birth etc.). Then it would stand to reason that the woman is ultimately the "decider" (thanks Dubya) of everything the fetus/child/person will become; including eye color, body fat, or genital size if she wishes as long as it is done within the borders where she has full control over the fetus.

I do see your point to an extant and it's funny we debate since we have very similar views on abortion and prenatal genetic modification, but I do not see how you can draw a line and say "yes" and "no" here so cleanly.

i drew the ethical line very clearly

you are not seeing the point because you still havent acknowledged "inevitable". forget "potential". if a fetus is destroyed it has no potential for anything. nothing is inevitable. no being is effected. never was. zip. nada.

Originally posted by PVS
i drew the ethical line very clearly

you are not seeing the point because you still havent acknowledged "inevitable". forget "potential". if a fetus is destroyed it has no potential for anything. nothing is inevitable. no being is effected. never was. zip. nada.

And altering a fetus is not altering a person, if a fetus can be sucked away and disposed of without consequence because it is a fetus and not a person than a fetus can be altered without consequence. The fetus will (inevitably) become the person the mother choose for it to become, just as she choose to allow it to develop (live) or didn't and aborted it.

I do see your point of "It was done away with before it became a person, so no harm no foul", I just don't agree with it in regards to this. The fetus in question would be altered before it became a person, so in theory, "no harm, no foul".

-edited

Originally posted by Robtard

I do see your point of "It was done away with before it became a person. so no harm no foul", I just don't agree with it in regards to this.

ok. "no harm no foul" is not what im saying though, but i guess this is close enough to rest my point

Originally posted by PVS
i drew the ethical line very clearly

you are not seeing the point because you still havent acknowledged "inevitable". forget "potential". if a fetus is destroyed it has no potential for anything. nothing is inevitable. no being is effected. never was. zip. nada.

That is a limp argument... There are health risk with any operation you willfully decide to go undertake.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Not completely true. There are health risks associated with abortions.

health risks to the mother, not another being.

Originally posted by Robtard
That is a limp argument... There are health risk with any operation you willfully decide to go undertake.

Originally posted by PVS
health risks to the mother, not another being.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Ok, however, I thought you were referring purely to the fetus and that the mother would not be effected which would not be true. However, since that was not the case we have no argument here.

...yeah it happens