If a fertilized egg is stored cryogenically and a tech negligently causes the egg to be destroyed shold he or she be charged with manslaughter?

_________________

Possibly

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Well it depends on what definition of liberty we're talking about. I'll grant you that if a state were to pass a law outlawing abortion and a pregnant woman obeyed the law by carrying the child to term then her liberty was not taken away in that sense because she wasn't jailed.

However her liberty of personal choice is being curbed by the state's looming threat to remove her liberty of movement under the auspicious of protecting the life of an unborn child. And yes, we're starting to talk in circles now.

_________________

Why?

_________________

I'm a parent.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

The wife and I are parents now. But as we where trying we aborted one of our pregnancies. Reason being is that the baby had a chromosome disorder. This disorder which is in the tricemy family causes deformities and all sorts of problems involving the heart etc. The pregnancy rarely makes it full term. Something like a 5% chance. Than if the baby makes it full term their chance of living passed 30 days is less than 1%.

The wife and I had a hell of a time making a decision seen all sorts of doctors and genetic specialists and finally came to the decision that we are not going to put my wife through the mental and physical stress of trying to bring the baby full term. We also thought about what type of life would the baby live with a disorder like that be it a very short one. We aborted the baby at 15 weeks after all the testing etc. If you think my wife and I are murderers so be it.

Obviously I am pro choice. But I do question abortions on perfectly healthy children. I would point more towards contraception.

That is not apparent to everyone.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

I think we need to get back to the idea that the "science is settled" in regards to life starting at conception. For the sake of discussion, I'm going to first ignore the idea of plants and how they reproduce(though it opens up even more questions about the idea of life beginning at conception) and concentrate on the way animals are "alive". Now, keep in mind, this isn't an attack on the idea that life begins at conception. There is a science based case to be made that it does. The issue is that there are multiple other answers and some of them to me at least seem more plausible. It all comes down to how we define what makes someone alive. If I had no brain function, had no lung function, and had no heart beat you would say that I was not alive. This describes the early months of pregnancy too. If I did not have a brain, lungs, or heart you would not say that I was alive. Therefore, there is a strong scientific basis to say that life immediately after conception does not constitute life either. As I believe Seacrest mentioned earlier, you have DNA after conception but you also still have DNA after you are dead and sometimes for many years or decades and yet you would never be considered alive simply because you have DNA. I could freeze my DNA today but that doesn't mean that I would live until that was destroyed.

So, then we go to the idea that the cells after conception are "living". Another problem with that is that this describes the conditions of both the egg and sperm prior to conception and yet no one is willing to say that those are "living". It gets even more problematic with the idea that after your own death your organs can be placed in someone else and live on even after I no longer am. No one would say that I am alive because my kidney is still living and yet we are to believe I was living because my first cells were living?

This also doesn't even take into account the fact that every egg is present at birth for women and men create sperm constantly and yet neither of those are considered to be "alive".

Now, let me make it clear so it doesn't get twisted around. This is simply refuting the idea that the science is settled. A case can be made for life beginning at conception. In my opinion, there are better but still imperfect answers to that question but we just don't know enough to rule out all but life at conception. That's why I believe "viability" is the proper discussion point and hopefully one day "viability" can happen virtually at conception and the whole discussion is moot.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

alive really isn't the word or standard you are looking for

I don't think you can deny there is life at conception considering all the life it presents to you. Also, we kill alive things all the time without regret, illegality or moral dilemma.

You are looking for the point the life becomes human.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

If I knew for certain you were going to have brain function, lung function, and a heart beat again within a few months if we didn't interfere, then you are wrong and yes I would consider you alive. This is why I can't entertain this analogy.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

It's not an analogy. We have to have a definition of what being alive is. It has to make sense throughout the life cycle. As I said though, this is about the "Science being settled".

The potential to be a viable human does not necessarily mean you are alive.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

The post I quoted is literally an analogy.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

It's not an analogy because it is literally the same thing. It's the definition of the life of a human. The same definition of life at conception should match the definition of life at or right after death if the "Science is settled". If I said "When I was 20, I was a human, and when I was 30, I was a human" would that be an analogy?

Anyways, concentrate on the major point here. In your opinion, is saying "The science is settled that life begins at conception" an accurate statement? If so, how do you justify the conflicting concepts of life?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I dont think it's an accurate statement. It is something I believe.

You're wrong on the analogy part. You should at least admit that.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

So what are you arguing about?

Is "When I was 20, I was a human, and when I was 30, I was a human" an analogy?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Here is a basic article about the science of when human life begins. It really does not make a pronouncement and I also do not post a conclusion here. It is just interesting from the aspect of is the science settled.

https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-c ... fe-begins/

Here, modern science offers no clarity. If anything, the past century of scientific advances have only made the answer more complicated. As scientists have peered into wombs with ultrasound and looked directly at sperm entering an egg, they’ve found that all the bright lines they thought existed dissolving.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

No, it's not. The following quote is definitely an analogy.



This isn't really debatable Rick. If you keep arguing this you simply lose credibility. You are comparing a fetus in a womb to a 30 something year old adult. I get what you're saying - that we are talking about human life forms and therefore they are too similar to be analogous. But you are wrong. Nobody is arguing that a fetus is a fully functioning human being so it is clearly an analogy. Move on.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

What? If we are to assume that life has "begun" then the same standard for life needs to be used throughout the life. A newborn is not a "fully functioning human being" either. Making that distinction actually makes the growing evidence against "life at conception is settled" even larger.

When you are defining "life" then you need to have a definition that gets as close as possible to being consistent across the whole life cycle.

I still don't know why are you are arguing here. This is about the science being settled and you seem to agree that it is not anywhere close to settled.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I agree it's not settled. My only argument is that you seem to think it's not an analogy to compare a fetus to yourself.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

I can't believe an argument between FF and Rick diverged into an argument over whether something is or is not an analogy.

_________________

It is comparing two different times of me "living". Your definition of analogy basically makes every comparison an analogy.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

What FF and Brick are arguing about now is what I was starting to wax philosophical about last night. And the end of the day the whole debate boils down to where a line is drawn.

_________________

No my definition of analogy is everybody's definition of analogy. You seem to be the only one confused on it.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Oh, the classic "everyone agrees with me!" post.
This is why I think "viability" is the common sense approach and the courts and politicians mostly seem to agree. It is likely that some time in the future that viability approaches conception and the whole thing is moot.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

It's amusing that you won't admit that you clearly misspoke by saying it's not an analogy. You created a hypothetical in which you couldn't breath or think and compared it to that of a life which will certainly gain those abilities without interference. Find a definition of analogy that doesn't apply to that.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Doesn't all of this show that the "pro-choice" label is fairly disingenuous? Since literally almost no one thinks aborting an hour before birth should be legal (unless the mother's life is in danger), then it seems at best it's "pro-choice up until the point I feel life begins", so it's more a matter that almost everyone is pro life, and it's just a debate on what is considered alive.

Take Spiral Stairs, for example - I believe you said in this thread or the shoutout thread that it's none of your business what a woman does with her body. I have to imagine that feeling changes at some point during the pregnancy, no?

Pro choice is definitely a euphemism, which tells you a lot about the entire debate, imo.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Yikes, this got boring

_________________

As a 1 year old, I could not read. As a 30 year old, I can read. Is that an analogy?
Once the fetus becomes "viable" then the idea is that the calculation changes since the baby could live without the support of one specific person. The mom and baby could be separated and both have a good chance of survival. Now, obviously there are other issues about a forced delivery at 24 weeks but that is the major difference.

If I was pro-firearms(this is an analogy FF) but I wanted to ban private ownership of tanks that wouldn't mean that I would be disingenuous. It means that everything doesn't have only two options.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!