Replies

One could make a dozen similar arguments that the specialization of the first neural cell or the first cardiac cell is a singular event. It happens once.

What's the first one that could be called "the start"? I like to err on the side of preserving life.

Well that's the question isn't it? But the start of what? Of life? Many people would argue that an unfertilised egg is only potential life. Others would argue that it requires legal protection. Some would argue that a fertilized egg is a life. Others would argue that it is only potential life. What I was hoping is that you would explain WHY specifically YOU consider the act of fertilization to be the start of life. And so far the only answers you've seen fit to share with me are 1). You have read a lot on the topic and 2). You like to err on the side of preserving life.

But if you are willing to consider that you might be erring, then surely you might consider that if you are in error, and your error potentially has consequences for parents with genetic defects, maybe it would be worth examining your rationale more closely?

And like I said before, your first day of college is a cingular event. I guess you're just a moral relativist.

Umm....huh? I thought you said that you wanted to pick a singular event and then you gave other examples of singular events. I didn't suggest which singular event was the one after which life begins or is imbued with moral consequence, you did. I merely asked what the reasoning is for that one as opposed to the first heartbeat or the first brainwave. Why did you pick one over the other. I have not stated my opinion on the matter yet, and I'm not sure I have one yet.

But I am fairly certain that you would want to revise your definition if presented with a 3 week old fetus that was not fertilized with sperm, but which was due to be destroyed.

Go back a week or so and read what I posted on the Plan B thread. I dealt with a similar situation. I already answered that.

I don't know that the Plan B thread is. And if we are discussing the issue here, why direct me to go read something else without telling me how to find it? My question was fairly specific. Did you already answer that same question on a previous thread a week ago?

Why do you care what I think? I don't think you do. You seem to be a moral relativist just trying to play gotcha. I have a logically consistent position, whether you think so or not. You've read about 5 of my posts to you that were fairly specific to the general case, so how could you get my whole thinking about this.

So I really don't think you give a rat's ass what I think about lesbians, even though it's not a hypothetical. You read an answer to a question, then throw up more situations. Whatever. I'm tired of this.

Well you are most certainly wrong. I wouldn't have wasted either of our time if I thought you were unwilling to share your views of if I knew you would react with such ill will.

At this point the conversation has still not yielded any useful nuggets that might help create a common dialog other than that you accept preconception testing as morally OK. So I guess we'll leave it here. Thank you for your time.

Regards,

jas3