Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
You can though, at least in principle. It might require extra effort from some technology, but we already do that with artificial insemination, this would just be one extra step of either convincing the skin cell that it's a different kind of cell, or merging it with a fertilized egg that has had its DNA removed, or whatever.
A skin cell has the DNA to produce a full human, so the potential is still there.
|
No, a skin cell doesn't have the same potential as a fertilized egg. After you've modified the skin cell to turn it into an embryo and implanted that into a womb, sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
But what is the difference? The end result is the same (no child), the amount of harm done is the same, I can't think of a way to measure it where there is a difference, other than future potential, but I don't think the future potential argument works for the same reason you don't think it works (since you agree that contraception is ok).
|
You've harmed the potential the fertilized egg had when you abort it. You've maybe harmed the potential the sperm had to fertilize an egg when you introduce a condom, but that's different as the sperm - when left alone - wouldn't turn into a human.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Maybe more complicated, but I don't see how unfulfilled potential is immoral.
|
Unfulfilled potential in general isn't immoral. I think actively snuffing out the potential of a fertilized egg to turn into a human is more of a grey area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
I was thinking more of the common arguments made by the pro-life group in general, not Calgaryborn's arguments specifically (though Calgaryborn's arguments ultimately are based on if they align with his interpretation of the Bible, nothing more or less, so all other arguments are merely arguments of convenience.. that is arguments that support a desired conclusion, rather than arguments that have merit on their own)
|
Yes, there is no way somebody with Calgaryborn's faith would be pro-choice and I can see how he comes at this with his mind made up. As an atheist/areligious person from the day I was born I don't have that bias yet I still think some of the pro-life arguments are valid. Primarily the question of when does a life start. Calgaryborn said he believes that happens when the embryo implants into the wall of the uterus. That makes a degree of sense to me completely independent of what the bible or any church says.
Still, if I put myself into my 16-24 year-old self's shoes and had a pregnant girlfriend I'm pretty sure I would be very pro-choice.