Atheists, the death penalty and abortion...

[genkaus]

Does a zygote have it's own unique human DNA? Well, it sure as Hades isn't a canine, or a fish, or a plant.

Its a zygote. I thought we'd already established that.

To deny that a zygote is NOT an individual human life form is just plain weird.

No, it's not. Individual human life is not reducible to DNA. An egg is not a chicken and a zygote is not an individual human life form.

To deny that would require you to prove to me it's something other than human

Already done that. Its a embryo - not a human.

A zygote is part of the human lifecycle.

That doesn't make it a human by default.

If you kill the zygote (or fetus), no child will be born and this you are quite aware of.

Aware of it? That's the whole fucking point.

Unlike your masturbating reference, it is unique in DNA and biology. It's gets oxygen and nutrients from it's host, it is not the host...

Thus supporting the whole parasite-host argument.

You know exactly what it(the human lifeform) is and have no problems killing it,

Yes, because I know exactly that it isn't a human lifeform.

but you find sex-selection of a living being that you don't even consider as being human morally wrong.

Yes, because sex-selection is done upon the incorrect premises of what it'll be - not what it is.

That's what is messed up...

Still don't see a problem.

[catfish]

I know you don't see a problem, that's why it is messed up...

[genkaus]

Is abortion by sex selection based on religious dogma (boys are better than girls) or is it something else?

It is a consequence of religious dogma and that of the society or culture they live in - which, as it happens, is also affected by that dogma.

Almost all religions - explicitly or implicitly - regard men as superior to women. This is usually reflected in how they are treated in the society. Apart from that there are the archaic considerations that a boy is fit for education and work while a girl is fit for raising children and doing housework, which leads the parents to assume that in their old age, their son would be the one to support them financially. Then there is the idea that a woman does not continue the family line since once married she becomes a part of her husband's family. And then there is the whole thing about the girl's family having to pay huge dowries in order to get married, which makes having girls a certain exorbitant financial burden.

These considerations are the primary reasons for both gender-selective abortions and female infanticide.

---

I know you don't see a problem, that's why it is messed up...

No, actually, the problem is that there is no problem other than one made of your own imagination.

[Mystic]

I tried to understand why being a host means the mother can do what it wants with it. I don't get it. Why is this the case? I just showed reasoning why (it's on the journey to higher life just as a baby is on a journey to higher life and we don't regard it as animal like in rights due to it's current state) that it's not ok to just kill it...and it's stated because it's a host and is dependent on the mother, you can kill it? LIKE SERIOUSLY WHAT KIND OF COLD LOGIC IS THIS?

[genkaus]

I tried to understand why being a host means the mother can do what it wants with it. I don't get it. Why is this the case? I just showed reasoning why (it's on the journey to higher life just as a baby is on a journey to higher life and we don't regard it as animal like in rights due to it's current state) that it's not ok to just kill it...and it's stated because it's a host and is dependent on the mother, you can kill it?

So, which is it? Do you understand it or not? Because here you seem to be saying that you get it but you don't get it. Let me put this as simply as I can.

The survival needs of one human being do not confer any sort of unchosen obligation upon another human being to fulfill them. If you are hungry or dying, I'm not obligated to feed you or save your life. Not unless I have consciously accepted such responsibility. Even if the fetus was considered a fully autonomic and human life-form, it still wouldn't create any obligation upon the mother to continue letting it leach off her body. If she wants it out of her body then she should be allowed to make that choice. If it cannot survive outside the mother - that's reality for you. It does not guarantee a life for every possible human being.

Furthermore, the fetus isn't a full human being to begin with. Even if the 'necessary obligation to support another human' was to be a consideration in overriding the mother's autonomy - which it most certainly isn't - this would make the argument even more worthless. If you value the potential life it could be so highly, then figure out a way to extract the fetus and support its life yourself - do not expect her to suffer for sake of your morality and your values.

Whether her choice was moral or immoral would depend upon the situation - but the negation of her agency would be an even greater immorality. Your arguments about valuing the life it could be are irrelevant unless the woman herself holds the same values. Babies and fetuses would be similar in that context - no one is obligated to support their continued existence unless they value the potentiality of higher life. The difference is that in case of babies, others are willing and able to assume responsibility (the state for example), whereas in case of the fetus, that is not possible and you'd have it forced upon someone who does not choose it.

LIKE SERIOUSLY WHAT KIND OF COLD LOGIC IS THIS?

Cold? Hardly. Just because I can actually justify my position using reasoned arguments and do not have to resort to appealing to emotions does not make it emotionless. Greater empathy is afforded to the woman - a fully conscious human being - whose rights you'd trample on than to the fetus - a clump of cells that shows no capacity for self-awareness.

[EGross]

In religious societies where the wife of the Faith cannot say no and, in some cases, use any form of contraceptive, it reduces the woman to a breeder who has no control of her life or her body. This is especially true for those women with 10 or more children. In this sense, there are those types of societies where women see this as a way of taking contol of their lives, by taking control of their bodies. Abortion is then seen as a post-contraceptive, which is a tough choice in any case. And that is where counseling comes into play, and outreach. And I certainly support those options.

Connected to this, in the USA, is the interference by the Christian community to force their theological prohibition down everyone else's throat. They have worked on having a political debate as to how to define life (some have gone so far to say that life begins before conception), which has gotten knocked down, and the latest success by the Religious Right is to reduce the time to be [b]before[/i] the first trimester, adding the that the life of the mother, rape, and the religious requirement, "incest" are overriding conditions.

In shore, while they will cry out that Government should not legislate morality, what they mean is "everyone elses morality". And I think that is the more interesting debate, although not for this thread.

---

I tried to understand why being a host means the mother can do what it wants with it. I don't get it. Why is this the case? I just showed reasoning why (it's on the journey to higher life just as a baby is on a journey to higher life and we don't regard it as animal like in rights due to it's current state) that it's not ok to just kill it...and it's stated because it's a host and is dependent on the mother, you can kill it? LIKE SERIOUSLY WHAT KIND OF COLD LOGIC IS THIS?

Let's say that you live in a society, where contraceptives are forbidden, and the woman is forbidden to say no to her husband. She has 10 children, has never been able to go to University, and never will, because whenever she shares her dream with her owner, he gets her pregnant, and that shuts that idea up for another year.

In other words, in some societies, the woman is the victim of her own chemistry, and then men abuse that, denying them the means to participate in moving socierty forward. And because she has no authority over her own body, she will always be at the bottom of the ladder when it comes to governmental and social reforms.

In places, such as Egypt, it is the secularlist, those who reject the dogma that the man is the owner, who are resisting and working on reforming. They can say no, and with the freedom to say no to man, sometimes that means saying no to something that will interfere with that transformation of the world.

Because when you legislate morality and command the woman that it is the man who defines her future, then it really is no different than what goes on in true Theocracies, and you get a screwed up nation, not because of dishonoring life of the unborn, but of dishonoring the woman because her choice is no longer yours, nor is it the same.

[Zen Badger]

It's funny that the "pro"-lifers never call for the banning of vasectomies.

[EGross]

Actually, in the 1950's, vasectomies in the USA were not legel everywhere, and a friend of my father who lived in Massachusetts, who just had triplets, had to drive to Canada to get one! Eventually, men were able to get contol of their bodies. On a humerous side, a friend of mine in the USA had a vasectomy, and they didn't tell him that he still needed to wear a condom for a few days. He had his 4th kid 9 months later!

[ideologue08]

It's funny that the "pro"-lifers never call for the banning of vasectomies.

I consider myself a pro-lifer because Islam forbids the killing of "babies". There is however a difference of opinion in Islam as to the maximum point up until a mother can abort a foetus. There is laxity within the first 40 days of conception, some scholars even allow up until three months. But after three months there's unanimous consensus that it is forbidden to abort.

---

It might be because vasectomies don't interfere with a fertilized sperm though?

[Zen Badger]

In order to give this conversation some context for me Mo, can you answer the following questions please?

Should apostates from Islam be put to death?

Should women be whipped or stoned as adulterers if they are raped?

Should blasphemers be put to death?

Should women be covered in public and what should their punishment be if they aren't?

Should a man be free to beat his wife for disobedience?

Should homosexuals be executed?

I wish to know what YOU think or believe, not the quaran or some mullah.

Thanks in advance.....