What "trick" question?

It's a perfectly legitimate one.

If there are any tricks being played here, it's the way you're attempting to dodge answering it.

Altho from this statement of yours:

I approve (and hope for) the eventual overturn of Roe v. Wade...precisely because it DOESN'T limit the legality of abortion to rape/incest victims.

I infer that you have answered it because you seem to imply that if Roe v. Wade did limit the right to abortion to rape and incest victims you would be OK with it.

But then, you go on to say

If it is eventually overturned, and a rape/incest victim does seek an abortion and it is that important to her, then she will have to find a way to get one. Otherwise, she will have to make the decision to give up the child for adoption or keep and raise it.

You seem to imply that even rape or incest victims should be denied abortions.

But if it's OK for the rape or incest victim "to find a way to get one", then I guess that will apply to anyone who wants one, if you're suggesting that they get one illegally.

Forget your daughter or sister or whomever.

Do you think that the right to abortion should or should not apply to rape and incest victims?

As far as the "trick question" tactic being creative, what in any of this is creative?

Just the same old stuff as the last time and the time before that.

But effective? Yeah, I'd say it was, or you'd have no problem or trouble in anwering it, even though it's not a "trick question" to begin with.

And BTW, as far as I know, abortions were always legally available in cases where the mother's physical or mental health was in danger.

Would you eliminate those as well?

Well, plawrence...even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, which I hope it one day is, no woman should be denied an abortion if she really wants or needs one and has the means to get one. It is a decision she alone (and perhaps with the help of her Dr if health was an issue) would have to make.

I would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned because it does not limit legal abortion to circumstances that have been discussed within this thread.

Apple

Apple, seriously.....

I'm not trying to ask any trick questions or corner or trap anyone here. Please believe me.

You just wrote:

no woman should be [i]denied an abortion if she really wants or needs one and has the means to get one.
[/i]
Now I'm really confused, because that sounds exactly like the way I feel about it.

What's the difference between that and abortion by demand?

What does Roe v. Wade allow for that your statement above doesn't?

Geez...all you have to do is go through my past posts within this thread but if you seriously need to play games so be it.

The ruling of Roe v. Wade allows a legal abortion to any woman who wants to have one, regardless of the reason...she wants it, she pays for it, she gets it.

I would like to see Roe v. Wade someday overturned so that abortion on demand is once again illegal, as it was prior to 1973. If and when it is, and in that case if and when a woman wants/needs/has to have an abortion, and has the means to get one, then I guess she's entitled to go & find a dr who's willing to perform one.

Incidentally, if as you state "...abortions were always legally available in cases where the mother's physical or mental health was in danger...", then that would probably remain the case if Roe v. Wade were overturned.

So that really wouldn't be a problem, would it?

Anyway...I was thinking about something while typing my response to plaw above, since he apparently needed it spelled out for him.

Regarding Roe v. Wade itself...I saw a tv movie some 20 years ago depicting the personal story behind this case. It starred Holly Hunter as the mother. If I recall correctly, this was a single woman who gave up an out-of-wedlock child for adoption, signed the papers before the birth...and was not allowed to see her newborn baby even once. It was just born and taken away. I'll never forget the line uttered by Hunter, "Just a peek...". She was denied that peek.

Somewhere down the road she got pregnant again, and I really don't recall the details but this pregnancy led to the Roe v. Wade case...because to put it simply she would rather end her pregnancy than have to make the choice of giving up another child for adoption.

So if any of this is the true story behind the case, then a woman ALWAYS had a right to choose. Legal abortion simply gave her a third choice...and apparently for many, a choice that was in the long term easier than the other two.

One more thing regarding RvW itself...I could be wrong but I believe the mother who originated the case and I forget her name, came out a year or so ago now regretting her decision to abort, and is now a pro-life advocate.

Again, I could be wrong about that but vaguely recall hearing something akin to it on the news a while back.

Apple

Even more confused than ever....

So you're saying that any woman who "wants" or "needs" an abortion and has the means to pay for it should find a doctor willing to perform one illegally?

You also write

if as you (PL) state "...abortions were always legally available in cases where the mother's physical or mental health was in danger...", then that would probably remain the case if Roe v. Wade were overturned.

Do you agree or disagree that that should be the case?

If a woman is pregnant as a result of rape or incest, do you think that a legal should abortion be available to her?

Three simple questions, I think.

I'm apologize - seriously - if I seem particularly more dense to you than usual today and, as I say, I'm not trying to trap or corner you.

I mean, is it me that's missing something here, or are you not explaining yourself very well?

I'm merely trying to understand exactly what your position is.

My answers are

"No, I think that any woman who wants or needs an abortion should be able to get one"

"Yes", and

"Yes".

Well, with RvW overturned, 'illegally' is the only way it's going to be performed isn't it???

:rolleyes:

Apology accepted.

Remember,

Apple

Well, with RvW overturned, 'illegally' is the only way it's going to be performed isn't it???
:rolleyes:
[/b][/quote]Apple, however small the percentage is, I want to talk about the rape case.
The rape victim already suffered physically and mentally. Now, according to your idea, she has two choices:
1)Suffer more by nurturing a child and eventually giving birth to it.
(OR)
2)Suffer more by aborting illegally and permanently be under the fear of going to jail someday if caught.

Seems like a bad idea to me. Endless punishments for the woman for no fault of hers :rolleyes:

So, Apple....

Basically, then, you don't believe that there should be legal abortions under any circumstances, correct?

Except in cases where the health of the mother is concerned, you understand that prior to Roe v. Wade an abortion was available, but you're not saying whether you agree or disagree that that should be the case, only acknowledging that it probably would be the case if Roe v. Wade was overturned, correct?

And Partagas....

May I infer from that story that if your teenaged daughter was to find herself pregnant as the result of a rape by a street thug who mugged her and beat her as well, you would want her to see the pregnancy through?

Here we go again, the "What if YOU were the family member of ..." game!!!

:rolleyes:

But Partagas, I have a question for you as well.

I assume that since you and the whole family knows that your cousin is the product of rape, then of course he does as well. If it isn't being too nosy...how does he handle this knowledge and do you have any idea how it was told to him? I ask because (and I almost brought this up earlier) if I had become pregnant the time I was raped, and if I had decided to have and raise the baby...I cannot imaging how I would have explained to this child how he/she came to be. And yet, I would not have wanted to hide it, either.

I know, you are still recovering from having been 'Dukakis'd' !! But since you so thoughtfully shared the heartwarming story of your aunt & cousin, I was just wondering if you knew (and wanted to share) any of these other things as well.

Whatever the answer I know one thing for sure...your aunt turned out to be a wonderful, caring, loving mother!!

Best,

Apple

Thanks for sharing the story Part. Rape even still has a "stigma" attached to it, dont you think? (as far as the victim and especially if a pregnancy results). I'm sure even moreso at the time your aunt went through her crisis.

It's wonderful that it turned out well for her. I give her a lot of credit for making what she is sure now, was the right decision, even if her options were next to none.

I can't imagine how a woman would balance(if that's the right word?) the abusive way this child came into the world, against how much she loves him. I can only guess the mother's love for the child overpowers how he came to be.

Again thanks for sharing. I feel like this is "True Confessions" of sorts.

TIS

'

I think you're correct about the mother's love overpowering the other thing. I certainly cannot speak for Partagas' aunt, but would imagine that although she may have dreaded the birth of the child...once this innocent baby was born and in her arms all the ugliness of his origins were simply swept away. At least THIS child was not made to suffer for the sins of its father.

Apple

I appreciate an honest answer to what is certainly a difficult question.

Most, like those who would refuse to answer I think, wouldn't be so honest, and rather than say that if their own loved ones were involved they would seek an abortion, but for everyone else then the answer is having the child.

Or, alternativeley, leave themselves open to the criticsm that some would heap upon someone else for requiring that their daughter bear the child of someone who brutally raped that child.

I, being non-judgemental, would only offer the opinion that I, of course, disagree with yours.

I think the question posed here is not if you would WANT your daughter to carry that child, but, rather, if you would FORCE her to. Because essentially, that is what we are discussing. If your daughter was brutally raped, and that rape resulted in a pregnancy, would you FORCE her to have that child? Would you leave her no other choice?

I respect both Apple and TIS and the decisions that they would have made under these circumstances. And Apple, I will be eternally grateful that I didn't have to make that choice, because I don't know what I would have done. But I am also eternally grateful that I had a choice. I was 22, just out of college, first job, and I don't know if I would have terminated the pregnancy or not. Having gone through two very, very joyful pregnancies, I don't know how I would've felt to carry that asswipe's baby.

But I think that it's a very personal decision that each woman needs to make for herself. And I truly believe that each and every avenue of options needs to be available for her to make that decision. And if Roe v. Wade were overturned, then that would eliminate certain avenues, wouldn't it?

Apple, you mentioned something about the original woman in the case, and I have to agree with your memory. There's something that sticks in mine as well. I did pose a question in an earlier post that I think was swallowed up before. Does anyone know why the decision allowed such late term abortions?

SB, you have apparently enrolled in the NP course of demanding a question be answered the way YOU want it answered. Surely there are better sources of higher education out there.

The question posed actually (if you're referring to the one asked of Partagas), was if one's daughter became pregnant as the result of rape, would they 'see her through' that pregnancy. I do agree that Partagas answered in an honest, thoughtful way, as to how he believes he his wife and daughter would proceed.

Now, you and others are re-wording both the question and answer suit your own feelings; to insinuate that a parent would FORCE the daughter to carry to term whether she wanted to or not. They would leave her no choice but to have the child. That implied was neither the question posed, nor was it the answer.

Up to that point, the discussion had been mainly about the legality/illegality of the abortion procedure. The 'woman's choice'. Then, a very personal question was asked and answered and I'm hoping that it isn't that you cannot accept that a preconcieved family decision was presented to you in a way that you yourself might handle the same situation.

Thanks,
Apple

I had understood the question as would you "want" your daughter to have an abortion or carry the baby.

Through my experience and having two daughters, you can imagine that we've had several conversations (when they were younger and living at home) about this whole "rape" topic. One said she had no doubt that she'd get an abortion, the other wasn't sure. As a parent, I think I would "have" to leave the decision to her. She's the one who has to live with whatever decision she makes, and because I think I'd do one thing, I can't assume or expect her to do as I think I would do. I would stand by her no matter what she decided.

And SB, just to be clear, I certainly understand your thinking and respect your opinion as well. I don't condemn nor judge woman who have abortions in cases of rape or incest. I can only say what I think I would do. I don't think that in this particular case there's a right or wrong, but rather a very serious and life affecting decision that a woman has to make.

TIS

Apple, twisting words was not my purpose. My intent was to point out that I understood Part's answer, and also believe it was heartfelt. However, as of today, abortion is an option. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, it no longer would be an option. Therefore, by supporting that, one would, in essence, be forcing their daughter to carry her rapist's child. That's why I asked MY question the way I did.

I understand that you, Apple and TIS, do not agree with legalized abortions. However, I wondered how you would feel if your daughters availed themselves of this legal avenue, or would it not matter at all? I do know a couple whose teenage daughter was pregnant. They promised to raise the child as their own and fully support her. Then, when she was about seven months pregnant, they told her they would never allow the child in their house and she would have to give it up for adoption. Since she was only 16, she did so. Her parents told her that they lied so that she wouldn't have an abortion. I was wondering your take on something like that.

Please, SB!! Despite our differences both past and present I do like and have a degree of respect for you. Don't belittle yourself like some who insist on playing that "What if you were..." game.

What if I were the parent of a homosexual who wanted to get married?

What if I were the parent of a registered sex offender?

What if I were the parent of an uncircumsised son?

What if I were the parent of a girl who were raped and got pregnant?

What if I were the parent of a girl who got pregnant of her own will, in other words without having been raped?

What if, what if, what if!!!

The initial subject of this thread was the banning of (nearly all) abortion in S. Dakota. Naturally, it evolved into a debate over Roe v. Wade. That's fine, some (like me) would like to see it overturned and some (like you) would not like to see it overturned. That's still fine. The problem with you and your buddies is that you feel you can bring up every possible scenario, every possible family situation and say, "How would you feel about THAT?" "What would your 'take' be on THIS situation?" "Well...ok then, I meant to word it THIS way. But how do you feel about THIS story that happened to a neighbor...?"

Even when someone decides to offer their own personal family story of a tragedy that ended up in a happy story, some have the nerve to twist into a "Does this mean if it were YOUR daughter that...."

Even when THAT question gets an honest reply, it's twisted again into... "So, you're saying that you would 'require or force' your daughter to...??"

What does banter like this accomplish? The problem with liberals is that they ARE judgemental, they pretend to themselves and others not to be, but of course they are. Because as this thread proves, they simply cannot accept a POV that collides with their own (which of course is the right one, every time in every situation).

Do you think you're going to change my mind about Roe v. Wade? Do you think I'm going to (or am trying to) change yours? The answer to both of course is...NO!!

So please, cut the crap. If you believe abortion should remain legal regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy, regardless of the situation of the mother, that above all else it should be considered 'a woman's choice', then so be it...that is your belief. I happen to disagree. If you have a problem with that, then the problem is yours, not mine.

For what it's worth...I do feel that the parents in your story (if it's true) did an aweful thing to their daughter by purposely lying to her and then turning her away. In that particular case, they did force her to do what THEY wanted but did so through deceit and trickery. In reality, they took away ALL her options by leading her to believe they would help her, when they knew they wouldn't.
These people simply did a horrible thing to their daughter and in reality, the overlying dynamic of this particular situation really had little to do with the abortion debate.

And my feeling still is that one day, Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

Apple

Well, for one thing I wouldn't be letting those kind of people hold office where they could/should be making those types of decisions for others in this country. They were not worthy.

You know what, Apple? I don't think that by asking for more detail, I was turning this into a What If game. I appreciated the sincere and, as you said, heartfelt sharing that went on here. I was merely pointing out that by overturning this law, you limit the options of the girl or woman involved. That's all I was trying to say, and YOU twisted it into a word game.

I am, quite possibly, one of the most forthright people here. Like you, I don't pretend to be something I'm not. And I don't like to lump people into groups - people like "you and your buddies". I am what I am, and I stand on my own two feet and declare my opinion for what it is - MY opinion. And if, in YOUR opinion, furthering the debate by opening new avenues of questioning and/or clarifying my statement, belittles me in your eyes, then so be it.

As for being judgmental, what the hell are you talking about? Whatever did I say to give you the idea that I was judging anyone? If a person sincerely believes that abortion is wrong, and wants to give life to a new person no matter the circumstances, God bless them and the baby. They'll need it, as it is a difficult road ahead. I don't believe that I posted any reference to hellfire and damnation, though someone did earlier.

And of course by presenting my POV, I would hope to make someone think in a different light. Why else would I post my POV? Why else would you have a debate? The whole purpose of debate is to try and get the person with the opposite opinion to think the same way you do, or at least to reconsider their opinion. I think that everyone here put down their sincere and honest feelings, but I guess that's just "crap" to you.

And yes, the story was quite true. It was not a hypothetical. It was the younger sister of a girl I was friends with in college.

Bullshit.

Like others, you presented one more situation with the story of your neighbors, and asked for our 'take' on it (for I understood the question to be directed at TIS as well). After we had presented our 'takes', then I wonder if you (and/or others) would have come up with another story, another family situation where the 'abortion/not abortion' decision/option had played a crucial role.

And another story after that, and another story after that.

We all have stories to tell, relatives, friends, friends of friends or our very own stories. While each story adds it own depth to a particular discussion, to ask someone's 'take' on it or ask what they would do it THEY were in that situation when in reality, they've already made their views clear, then after a while it becomes little more than a game.

Whether we intend it as a game or not, it's a game.

I've made my views clear, and I've also respected the views of others. It has now become a game and for me, the game is over. The rest of you can keep on playing on as long as you like.

Apple

Sorry, I didn't notice this earlier.

The point of a 'debate' is not necessarily to change people's minds to agree with yours. It is more to present your POV against those who disagree, and explain why your POV is what it is. Why you feel the way you do on a particular issue. In most cases they're conducted with the understanding that no one is going to change anyone's mind. If that happens, it's icing on the cake!! Debates are interesting, and in many cases...fun (as this one was until it got ridiculous).

A look back into this thread will hopefuly show I did not for one moment fool myself into thinking I'd get you or plawrence or anyone else who's on the opposite side to 'think the same way I do' on Roe v. Wade and abortion. If you really did enter this discussion believing you might get some to 'think the way you do', then you truly have been playing a game.

Ok, now I'm finished.

Apple

In the future, when I present my views, I would appreciate it if you did not dismiss them as "bullshit" or "crap". I don't refer to you or your opinion in such a way, and I would ask the same of you.

I know this original topic was R vs W, and I suppose it stretched out to a degree, but I see nothing wrong with discussing it for whomever wants to contribute.

Apple & SB, we unpredictably found a common "life experience" and I think the emotions since our revealing it, have surfaced and at least for me, and maybe you two, something we haven't necessarily thought or talked about in so many years, sparks the emotion in us. I know I surprised myself getting a little teary eyed even as I posted the short portion that I did. Where'd that come from??? I hate to see it become an arguement because I do believe each of us are sincere in our beliefs and that's to be respected.

Yes, if I was asked to take a stand, I would say I am against abortion. However, the cases we are referring to (rape, incest)is something to be looked at with an understanding heart (as opposed to abortion for birth control). I do understand the arguement and admit I do take a step back in these cases, no matter what I may or may not decide in my personal situation, leaving me confused at times. Does that make sense?

TIS

TIS, You make perfect sense. This is a difficult topic, and when you add the personal experiences that we all have shared, it makes it even more so. As always, though, you are a voice of reason and compassion, trying to understand all sides.

Why? Why do they call it a zygote at a certain stage? An embryo at another? Because there are distinct stages in the development of a human being. That doesn't mean it isn't alive.

Exactly half of the human chromosome set is on a sex cell (known as a 'haploid'), which are produced during gametogenesis. This is the process by which males produce sperm (spermatogenesis) and females produce eggs (oogenesis). This is the only time in the human body that such a cell division is made - it is known as "meiosis," as opposed to the more common "mitosis," which is normal cell division.

Perhaps I can illustrate better:

2N = diploid (human being) which has 46 chromosomes
N = haploid (sex cell) which has 23 chromosomes, half of a full set

During meiosis, 2N --> N, which in turn is combined at conception with an opposite sex cell to partner with another N to make 2N.

---

Now that Mr. Science is done, I will address the questions. Do I consider a sperm to be partly human as well? No. It is not a human. It derives from a human, and, when combined with an egg, becomes a human, but alone, it is not human.

And no, it is not like the fetus/baby relationship (which you've apparently concocted for the sake of this discussion). A fetus is simply a stage in growth of a human being, like adolescence.

So apparently, in this case, size matters, Plaw?

You can interpret that however you want. However, your ignorance to the truth doesn't make you correct. Again, scientifically, a human being is a human being at the point of conception, and there isn't any dispute over this. Period. I don't see how it can become "more human" or something along those lines. Does it grow? Certainly. Doesn't a child outside the womb? Yes. Does that mean we should kill children, because, after all, though they are outside the womb, it would be unlikely that a small child could live, thrive, and survive without care. Why can't we abort children that have left the womb, possibly to an age of 18 years? After all, they are not mature, grown humans, so by your definition, we should be able to kill them.

Not without dependency on another for a significant portion of their childhood.

No. A sperm cell cannot become a human being under any circumstances alone. By that same token, neither can an egg cell. Until they are combined ("conception") neither can become a human being, because they only possess half of the needed chromosomes.

And I find it interesting that a raging liberal like you (since you've decided to label) would attempt to dispute what I've said, even though your argument is wholly incorrect based on science, which you liberals seem to use to prove everything, from how we evolved from pond scum to why OJ was not guilty. I'm using the reason and facts that the left loves to use to prove us right-wing Christians wrong! Isn't that fun? Beating you lefties at your own game.

I haven't forgotten Creation. But it is interesting that you'd choose to attack my beliefs simply because you have little knowledge in the scientifics of genetics. Over your head, Pee?

Don't try to spin the issue. Why are you bringing this up? There is nothing in the Bible that disputes anything that I've said. You're pulling at strings. What I've said is back up by science, cold hard facts. There is no dispute whatsoever.

So, by your own token, don't go quoting me religion when it's convenient for you to do so and then tell me about how science proves it wrong.

Nowhere does it say that you can't believe in God, or believe in what the Bible says, and not believe in science as well.

No, not really. You do want to murder babies, but you've rationalized it by attempting to ignore science and call it "women's rights."

Really? Because you've said a "fetus isn't a human," and that "a fetus is a completely unique organism," both of which have no factual backing or truth.

Want to try again?

A skillful debate tactic, I grant you, by continuing to ignore the issue and bring up, of all things, old posts and the Bible.

And, not that I don't have an answer, it is just that I don't think I have to give you one. After all, I wouldn't want to spin the issue, which is, as you've said, and I quote:

This debate is and always has been about when does a fetus become an actual baby, human being, or whatever you wish to call it.

Pee, look! I've found another unsubstantiated, unjustified statement!

So, as long as they still promote abortion as a viable option, then they advocate and support it. I don't see how Partagas took this out of context.

Planned Parenthood promotes abortion. Period.

My argument doesn't dispute this. However, all of those cells still original from the original diploid cells that fuse (conception). Of course those cells have 46 - I've already described mitosis.

Not really - because cloning is not a natural procedure. It is the manipulation and replication of genes.

And of course clone cells don't have to come from sperm or eggs - IT IS A COMPLETE REPLICA OF THE ORIGINAL 46 CHROMOSOMES. In all sexual reproduction, N+N creates the 46. In cloning, this process is already complete, because it isn't changing anything - it is copying the exact makeup of the original 46 of that person.

You don't need sperm and egg cells to make an exact copy.

So what is your point?

I'm assuming you're saying that an embryo would be no different than a human embryo. But what you're failing to see is that all of these cells you've mentioned - hair, skin, teeth, etc. - all of these derive from the original cell that is formed at conception.

There is no bias or interpretation in my scientific analysis. It comes from taking quite a few biology, human anatomy, and chemistry courses at the college level. What I'm saying IS true, to the letter, of science.

Rape is a violent, despicable crime. But do two wrongs make a right? By killing her own baby (which is half hers) rather than giving it up for adoption, she is NO better than the rapist. She is a murderer. Plain and simple.

I concur. I am truly sorry that you had to be violated in such a abhorrent, disgusting crime.

Regards and Best Wishes,
Double-J

Very weak.

Some good stuff about the zygotes and everything, which, sadly, is wasted on me anyway, and a lot of cute little quips and such in there, but not much in the way of substance I'm afraid.

But I'm glad that my comments rate the time you spent on your responses, though. Makes me proud.

But I noticed in one of them, Double-J, that you managed rather artfully to avoid the question of whether or not if you had a sister or daughter who was pregnant as a result of being raped you would expect her to see the pregnancy through regardless of her age and what psychological damage it might do to her. [/quote][/qb]

No, of coure you don't.

And, not that I don't have an answer, it is just that I don't think I have to give you one (Na-na-nanana )

But that comment really says it all, doesn't it?

You managed to try and answer just about everything else, so I wonder....

I do commend you, though, for what would obviously be your willingness to head for the nearest abortion clinic if your daughter was pregnant as a result of a rape, even though you don't care to admit it.

Can't say as I blame you for not being willing to say so, though. If I had one set of rules for myself and another for everyone else, I wouldn't be so quick to admit it either.

But believe me; It's perfectly all right to feel one way about an issue, and then when actually confronted with it doing something different than what your beliefs tell you because of expediency.

You'll learn that when you get older and are faced with reality and the hard decisions of life.

Meanwhile, enjoy your youth and idealism.

Oh, and please take me out and shoot me for bringing up an old post.

I didn't realize that according to the "Jeff Jarrett Rules of Internet Conduct" that's not permitted. :rolleyes:

Forget the NY Post, The Times or even Newsday. If you want the real answers to these tuff questions, you better pick up Monday's Daily Apple.

Telling it like it is to the the Big Apple and the Gang at the Ganstewr BB since 2001. The writers take the no bullshit approach. They call a spade a spade.
If something stinks, they let you know before the stench can reach your nostrils.

My argument doesn't dispute this. However, all of those cells still original from the original diploid cells that fuse (conception). Of course those cells have 46 - I've already described mitosis.

Quote:

2)There are stem cells, that have the capability to form living humans. They are used for cloning. They do not have to come from sperms or eggs. So the theory of eggs fertilizing with sperm loses its meaning.

Not really - because cloning is not a natural procedure. It is the manipulation and replication of genes.

And of course clone cells don't have to come from sperm or eggs - IT IS A COMPLETE REPLICA OF THE ORIGINAL 46 CHROMOSOMES. In all sexual reproduction, N+N creates the 46. In cloning, this process is already complete, because it isn't changing anything - it is copying the exact makeup of the original 46 of that person.

You don't need sperm and egg cells to make an exact copy.

Quote:

3)The embryo is definitely human embryo. After 9 months, a giraffee would not come out. But the human quality of embryo is just the same as what one would find in any human cell. They consume energy, divide and carry DNA(chromosome) of humans.

So what is your point?

I'm assuming you're saying that an embryo would be no different than a human embryo. But what you're failing to see is that all of these cells you've mentioned - hair, skin, teeth, etc. - all of these derive from the original cell that is formed at conception.

Quote:

DJ, you are free to interpret what you want, consistent with your beliefs. But scientific ananlysis is not trivial for me. It makes me understand things without bias. It is okay if you do not appreciate this fact. I am glad that Plaw found this approach pertinent.

There is no bias or interpretation in my scientific analysis. It comes from taking quite a few biology, human anatomy, and chemistry courses at the college level. What I'm saying IS true, to the letter, of science.
[/quote]OK, let me put foth my argument slightly differently. You object to destroying fetuses becasue they develop to become babies in the future. I am saying that even stem cells can develop into babies in right environment. Ofcourse hair, teeth etc that I gave examples of, are not stem cells. But do you think that destroying a stem cell will also constitute murder then? I am not convinced by your 'artificial' tag for cloning, because, I would object to killing a cloned baby, even if it was produced artificially.
What do you think?


Rape is a violent, despicable crime. But do two wrongs make a right? By killing her own baby (which is half hers) rather than giving it up for adoption, she is NO better than the rapist. She is a murderer. Plain and simple.
[/quote]Okay, if we stick to your definition that fetus and baby are same, then ofcourse it would amount to murder. Though I do not quite agree with it, I will accept that definition for a moment. In that case, only way I see is if a technology exists to remove the fetus from the uterus and transfer it to an artifical incubator even as early as 2 or 3 months of pregnancy, so that the woman doesn't have to endure pain for prolonged period. But right now we don't have the technology. The NICU equipments in hospitals don't have that kind of sophistication.

I like that idea a lot, svsg.

No period of pregnancy to speak of, no abortions necessary, put the baby up for adoption, and everyone's happy.

Altho I guess there will be some objectors among the "that's not the way God intended it to happen - it's unnatural" crowd, your idea makes sense.

Thanks Plaw, I believe that technology may be able to solve this problem before any of the various (pro/anti) groups come to a consensus.