PRO LIFE ALERT-- the overlooked sacrifice

[Pure]

Pro-life Alert:

The tiniest of human lives.

There has been a focus, in the 'life' movement, on the one million or so abortions per year in the US.

Yet, looking at the biological facts, and the statistics about pregnancies, one sees an earlier, much more vast 'holocaust.' That which happens to fertilized eggs [zygotes, morulae].

What can be done to defend the tiniest of humans? (fertilized eggs).

Let's try to get some figures on the first great sacrifice of human life, or 'persons'. (Destruction of fertilized eggs).

http://www.ovulation-calculator.com/pregnancy/pregnancy-conception.htm


4. Implantation

Once the embryo reaches the blastocyst stage (approximately five to six days after fertilization), it hatches out of its zona pellucida (shell) and begins the process of implantation. In nature, 50% of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses. So, too, in the IVF process an embryo may begin to develop but not make it to the blastocyst stage (the first stage where those cells destined to become the fetus separate from those which will become the placenta). The blastocyst may implant but not grow or the blastocyst may grow and still cease development before the two week time at which a pregnancy can be detected. The receptivity of the uterus and the health of the embryo are important for the implantation process.


http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,5049,00.html?r=related

Fertilization
When the sperm find the egg, the first one to penetrate the egg creates a barrier to all the other sperm. The cells of the fertilized egg (zygote) begin to multiply, staying clustered together in a ball. This ball of cells, called a blastocyst, slowly makes its way down to the uterus (three or four days after ovulation) and burrows into the uterine wall (five to seven days after ovulation), a process known as implantation. Even before the placenta and umbilical cord are formed, the cells of the developing embryo start getting their nourishment from the mother-to-be's uterine wall.

======
======
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/03facts/pregbirths.htm
center for disease control, us govt.

The number of pregnancies in the United States in 1999 dropped 7 percent from the peak in 1990. There were 6.28 million U.S. pregnancies in 1999 compared with 6.78 million in 1990. The 1999 total pregnancy count includes about 3.96 million live births, 1.31 million induced abortions, and 1 million fetal losses (miscarriages and stillbirths).
=====

CONCLUSIONS: With over 6 million pregnancies in a year (counting live births, abortions, and miscarriages), the above facts suggest at least 12 million fertilized eggs. One half, or 6 million of these tiny, human-life-forms ('persons') then, are sacrificed by nature each year.

BUT THERE IS NOW A GENERAL PROBLEM OF THE FERTILIZED EGG; THE IN VITRO ONE (outside the womb):

One Jewish [pro-life] authority deals with the 'fertilized egg' problem; its conclusion--the fertilized egg outside the womb is not a 'human life' under protection of the law.

"In Vitro Fertilization: Legal and Ethical Considerations" (article)
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ide...oethics_Fertility_TO/Bioethics_IVF_Rosner.htm

Of course if the Jewish authorities are wrong, each of these fertilized eggs, outside the womb, on/in a glass container is a tiny bit of human life ('person') in dire need of protection. Yet these tiniest of 'babies'--almost invisible to the naked eye--are apparently sometimes simply discarded.

====
CONCLUSION

Human life is being destroyed on a vast scale, almost unnoticed, and no effort is being made to stop it, to go after those responsible. Time for a change?

 

[Guest]

Stupids should not have sex.

Or have anal sex.

 

[SensualCealy]

Im not going to comment on pro life or abortion, I just wanted to come back and ask your opinion on something just as big.

How do you feel about all the men and women(fighting for freedom), men and women and children residing in those areas being killed around the world for those who dont have the freedoms we are lucky enough to experience?

Just wondering,
C

 

[scheherazade_79]

OK... I'm quite prepared to be lynched for saying this, but I'm actually in favour of abortion under certain circumstances - just like I'm in favour of euthanasia under certain circumstances. Quality of life is the key. If that's not there or never likely to be there, then sometimes it's kinder to extinguish the flame.

 

[Pure]

Sensual said,

[referring to lives lost in wars and struggles for freedom around the world]
I just wanted to come back and ask your opinion on something just as big.

Well, I support US fighting men and women, and grieve their losses. As well, I recognize the human tragedy in the present war and others, where 'innocents' --women and children-- are often unintentionally killed in the so-called 'peripheral damages' inflicted during military campaigns.

But no, even the tens of thousands of Iraqi lives lost are hardly 'just as big' as the number of the tiniest preborn, lost in the US, in a single month. And even the number of Russian civilians lost in WWII, would not exceed the past 15 years' count of zygotes sacrificed in the US (15 x 6 million).

 

[SensualCealy]

So you are saying its okay to raise a child, see them grow and become a adult. Maybe have children themselves. Actually be contributing members of society and yet see them killed because they felt they needed to protect us and those they care about.

But what about the young girl lets say she is 14, walking down the street at 8:30 pm on the way home to meet her curfew. She is raped repeatedly and as a result is now pregnant, is it okay to permit her to get an abortion or seek the abortion pill?

Im not saying you are right or wrong, I can never be the judge of that I dont know you. Im just trying to see where your boundaries lay.
C

 

[oggbashan]

Abortion is a subject on which minds are not going to change. If you have strong views you are either on one side or the other.

Abortion for cause seems reasonable to me. The definition of 'cause' is the difficulty. Does cause include 'I don't want/can't afford a baby now' or 'I don't want the rapist's baby' or 'I don't want a gravely handicapped baby that won't live long' or 'This pregnancy is life-threatening to the mother' or 'My husband wants a male baby and this one is female'?

Even if you are 'for' abortion there are still moral difficulties to be considered. If you are against, are you willing to let the state support the child to adulthood if the mother can't? And are you willing to overrule the wishes of the mother in the interests of YOUR beliefs?

Og

 

[neonlyte]

Pure

Before I consider a reply to this interesting topic can I just confirm a point.

Are you talking about:

1. naturally aborted fertilised eggs
2. fertilised eggs aborted as a result of a chemical pregnancy control system
3. solely fertilised eggs discarded through the 'in vitro' implantation program

It would be helpful to be clear, each case has wildly different ethical constructs.

Neon

 

[Pure]

All of the above, Neon. Though as the Jewish source (I cited) stated, the ethical factors of the various situations, may differ, hence also one's conclusions.

Further, to your item 2, I would add, 2a)

2a) Fertilized eggs lost because of failure to implant due to presence of an IUD (one with no hormonal component, i.e., like the' copper 7').

I don't think I would use the term 'aborted', in any of your list, since the issue of when pregnancy begins is also at issue. I note you did not use it in item 3.

Pure


neon said,

Before I consider a reply to this interesting topic can I just confirm a point.

Are you talking about:

1. naturally aborted fertilised eggs
2. fertilised eggs aborted as a result of a chemical pregnancy control system
3. solely fertilised eggs discarded through the 'in vitro' implantation program

It would be helpful to be clear, each case has wildly different ethical constructs.

 

[neonlyte]

1. naturally discarded fertilised eggs
2. fertilised eggs discarded as a result of a chemical or other pregnancy control system
3. solely fertilised eggs discarded through the 'in vitro' implantation program

Pure

I've redefined my list as above.

I'd like to deal with what I would regard as the simplest first, the other two scenarios require more consideration.

MY opinion on naturally discarded eggs is they are waste product of an inefficient production system. Whether the system is designed to be less than 50% efficient to suppress population growth given 'mans' proclivity to mate (I'm talking here in the general sense, not the widely construed notion that every man wants to go down on every woman he encounters) or, poorly designed from the outset is a moot point. I believe certain research indicates mammals 'self abort' under stressful conditions such as overcrowding, I recall such research with laboratory rats or mice.

It would be of interest to know if data showing natural discarding of fertilised human eggs has any historical extension. For example, births rates in some European countries are in decline (Germany and Italy specifically come to mind), the conventional wisdom is a delayed onset in starting families, increase in the use of and improved contraception methods, but has any one recorded a increase in natural discarding of fertilised human eggs. Have successful implantation rates in these countries declined? What would be the contributing factors to a declination? And should we be bothered?

Difficult to get excitied about the natural discarding of fertilised human eggs unless one can show cause and effect.

As for the other two, now that's a whole different meat loaf.

Neon

 

[Pure]

Hi Neon,

You said, in part,

Difficult to get excitied about the natural discarding of fertilised human eggs unless one can show cause and effect.

I'm not sure what this means as to 'cause'. Perhaps you mean, for example, Would taking bc pills cause more fertilized eggs to be discarded? I suspect so, in that the lining of the womb is affected, iirc, for some formulations (so as to be less amenable to implanting of the blastocyst). I have no idea as to other causes, such as late starting of family; but I can *imagine that certain lifestyles like staying out late and drinking *might affect the rate of zygote loss.

As to your general point:

MY opinion on naturally discarded eggs is they are waste product of an inefficient production system. Whether the system is designed to be less than 50% efficient to suppress population growth given 'mans' proclivity to mate (I'm talking here in the general sense, not the widely construed notion that every man wants to go down on every woman he encounters) or, poorly designed from the outset is a moot point.

I assume we're talking of 'naturally discarded' _fertilized_ eggs.

Surely the issue of 'inefficiency' or 'design' to suppress population is hardly a sufficient argument for either approving or NOT intervening.

Consider. In many of the 'developing' countries, you have 50-100 deaths per 100,000 of women in childbirth. In the worst cases in those areas, it's ten times that. In the best cases worldwide, i.e., Europe, Sweden in particular, we see a rate 1/10 as high, i.e., 5 per 100,000.

So would it not be safe to assume that for much of human history, last milliennia or so, you had probably at least 50 maternal deaths per 100,000-- i.e, that things weren't better than the developing countries now?

Yet surely looking at so many million deaths, at a rate of 50/100,000 one just doesn't say, "inefficient system" or "nature's mechanism of population control." One decides to intervene and *change* the 'natural' course of things.

It used to be the 'course of nature' that heart attacks were far more deadly, but again, we intervene to alter this 'natural' course. We don't simply say, "Well, that's nature's way of culling the older adults [like us!]"

 

[neonlyte]

Difficult to get excitied about the natural discarding of fertilised human eggs unless one can show cause and effect.

No, I'm thinking factors other than bc pills. Is there some other process going on about which we know naught that 'attempts to regulate' births within a population.

Difficult to be precise here. The type of arguement you seek requires facts and figures, but I'm going to shuck that and go with instinct. Why, apart from the obvious social reasons (education, access to bc, etc) do developing countries have high birth rates than developed countries? Why do cities in the developed world have lower birth rates? Is there an agent regulating implantation? It strikes me that historical data of natural discarding of fertilised human eggs might be revealing in this respect.

Pure posted

As to your general point:

MY opinion on naturally discarded eggs is they are waste product of an inefficient production system. Whether the system is designed to be less than 50% efficient to suppress population growth given 'mans' proclivity to mate (I'm talking here in the general sense, not the widely construed notion that every man wants to go down on every woman he encounters) or, poorly designed from the outset is a moot point.

I assume we're talking of 'naturally discarded' _fertilized_ eggs.

Yes.

Pure posted

Surely the issue of 'inefficiency' or 'design' to suppress population is hardly a sufficient argument for either approving or NOT intervening.

Consider. In many of the 'developing' countries, you have 50-100 deaths per 100,000 of women in childbirth. In the worst cases in those areas, it's ten times that. In the best cases worldwide, i.e., Europe, Sweden in particular, we see a rate 1/10 as high, i.e., 5 per 100,000.

Yet surely looking at so many million deaths, at a rate of 50/100,000 one just doesn't say, "inefficient system" or "nature's mechanism of population control." One decides to intervene and *change* the 'natural' course of things.

It used to be the 'course of nature' that heart attacks were far more deadly, but again, we intervene to alter this 'natural' course. We don't simply say, "Well, that's nature's way of culling the older adults [like us!]"

Leaving aside entirely for the moment whether society actually wants to find a way of rapidly doubling it's numbers AND how this would be achieved (eliminating flaws in the reproductive system).

You raise two issues in my mind that overlap the topics we've not yet approached.

The first is the supposition that the blastocyst is a 'person', I'm not prepared to argue on this, it's a black or white issue for those who support each side. My own viewpoint, since I'm bothering to contribute, is that the embryo becomes a 'person' at the point when it passes from the inert to a sentient state. I say again I'm not prepared to argue on this so I won't respond if asked to justify MY position.

For the purpose of my arguement, the blastocyst performs a programmed proceedure and tries to implant, failure is 'natural wastage'.
Why the failure rate should be so high is of interest as is in which direction it is moving.

The second point of interest you raise for me is how desirable it would be to improve the efficiency of the machinery of reproduction - any females reading this please excuse the terseness of this description, it is in no way intended to be derogatory.

If females became aware that each blastocyst would successfully implant because 'we' had found a way to improve the efficiency, I suspect either the scientists responsible would be lynched or the take up of birth control services and the increase in abortion rates would spiral beyond our wildest imaginings. We might even see the population drop.

Unprotected sex is a gamble. Unprotected sex in a stable relationship with a woman passing through menopause is a thrill, especially when she was born when her Mother was forty-eight. I wouldn't recommend it for everyone, but we'd have missed some major excitement if we KNEW each implantation would hit it's mark.

Neon

 

[Guest]

Pure -

there ya go, stirring up da shit again!

Gentlemen, I must make one small comment about daily birth control pills.

They suppress ovulation; that is their specific function. Therefore there is no fertilized egg to be naturally discarded.

With an IUD (not used much in this day and age) ovulation and fertilization can occur but the clump of cells will not implant.

The morning after pill contains extra-high doses of hormones which will either suppress ovulation or prevent implantation in the uterus.

 

[Pure]

Hi Neon,

The second point of interest you raise for me is how desirable it would be to improve the efficiency of the machinery of reproduction - any females reading this please excuse the terseness of this description, it is in no way intended to be derogatory.

If females became aware that each blastocyst would successfully implant because 'we' had found a way to improve the efficiency, I suspect either the scientists responsible would be lynched or the take up of birth control services and the increase in abortion rates would spiral beyond our wildest imaginings. We might even see the population drop.

That's a very interesting point, neon. I echo your trepidation about speculating on this 'female' issue in a way that may look as if it's intended to be authoritative. I don't pretend to be an authority on anyone's morals. But I feel free to tease out some of the lines of thought we've already mentioned.

IF a way were found to better insure that fertilized eggs would implant, that would be a 'fertility drug', just a little different from those at present that cause release of (extra) eggs.

IIRC, one act of unprotected intercourse in a fertile period generally has a substantial, maybe, on average, 30%, chance of leading to pregnancy. A zygote-preserving fertility drug, let's say, would increase that to 90%. Would it not be the duty of every Catholic woman to take the drug to help insure against the loss of fertilized eggs?

This bring me to your point
Unprotected sex is a gamble.

I think you can see that, from a moral pov that is dedicated to preserving all human life, and to dissuading from fornication, this is a less than satisfactory situation. Like a bank's robbery alarm system that works only half the time. Consistent with that view, if each woman fulfilled the duty of preserving life, as discussed above--i.e., rendered herself exceptionally fertile-- it would be a far greater encouragement to moral behavior (by man and woman) of the sort envisioned. It can be seen that this parallels the Catholic argument against teaching about and providing condoms.

In fact, then, one *might arrive at the opposite conclusion than that you suggest--increased abortions. Given the near certain consequences there might be more abstaining (young males for instance could not afford to be gamblers)-- if humans (both sexes) were rational and prudent about the future!

======



Hi Sweet,

Small note: The 'morning after pill' is just a couple of the regular b.c. pills (taken on two occasions), so its effects are not different in kind from the regular (combination) one, except that there is no suppression of release of the egg if it's already been released.

I intentionally was vague in saying bc pills, since there are several types, including 'minipill' (progestin only), which iirc does indeed affect the uterus.

In any event, I assume it's agreed that *some pills/drugs --prescribed chemical agents--affect the uterine lining and make it less hospitable, which increases the proportion of fertilized eggs--the tiniest of human life forms--that are discarded.

 

[SensualCealy]

I don't think anyone can judge a woman for having an abortion or using the morning after pill any more than the woman herself.

She will have to live with the decision she made for the rest of her life. The guilt, pain, and what if's, Im sure haunt them constantly. If the decision has to be made due to health reasons child/ mother, the what if's come into play much more profusely.

Having suffered a miscarriage in the first trimester I can just imagine what could go though the minds of women who 'choose' the outcome of their pregnancy.

Sex will never go away, I doubt it would or could be governed. The modern society has opened the doors of exploration making sex a non-taboo subject. Who ever would have heard their parents talk openly about some areas of sex in the 50's or 60's. My inlaws drop their jaws when they hear my kids joke about us being noisy! lol

Responsiblity is the key, if you can't afford to raise a child, Protect, protect, protect, or don't have vaginal intercourse. If you are forced to have sex against your will, you should be able to have a choice in outcome without being condoaned for making it.

My son is 13 and Ive discussed the topic with him, he wants a life for himself, a productive one at that. I told him it is safer and okay to use his hand when the urge arises, its a hell of alot easier then living with a stupid decision that will take away from so many lives.

As you can likely tell from my psycho- babble I am pro choice, however I do agree, abortion as birthcontrol isn't a solution.

Cealy
edited to add: Pure, you didn't upset me at all, I was just interested in your views. Interesting subject I may add.

 

[Pure]

I'm not sure if this 'guilt, pain, what ifs' is intrinsic to abortion or just a feature of our culture, esp. now. Similar to the idea that if, as a child you were ever sexually touched by an adult, you're traumatized, ruined, incapable of sexual and emotional connection.

The reactions in the two case are according to social expectations.

 

[cantdog]

I'm no Jain. Life is not sacred. I evict ants from my home, and kill them in the process. In cases of infection, I kill the invading organisms without compunction. I no longer shoot squirrels around my camp (One got in for a half hour once and caused incredible damage.) because it doesn't actually stop anything from happening (it opens up a squirrel territory to a new squirrel, of which there are myriads). Human life is just life.

As with the squirrels, humans reproduce, and the system for it is redundant and designed to compensate for incidental losses at the various points detailed by Pure, but also at various other points during the extrauterine portion of existence. Because, from the POV of a gene, no reproduction is of any consequence until the new life engendered has itself succeeded in reproducing. A spinster or a childless male has not done the gene any good, since it has not propagated it.

The reproductive frequency of the organism thus has to be large enough to compensate for infant mortality, accidents and diseases which terminate life before another reproductive cycle was initiated. Frogs hatch and die by the millions to keep levels even, humans waste fewer lives in the post-uterine phase, but there's still a lot of slop in the process.

Given this cavalier attitude toward life on the part of the natural systems, where is the sacredness of life? It is not a matter of reason to draw a big bold line between human life and other kinds of it. It is merely chauvinism.

Humans have killed one another for cause and without cause. Corporations pump poisons into the water and air and soil, for the cause of profit. The republican party has no beef with that. People place their children on ATVs despite the evidence that they die when you do this. There are laws against it. Parents are not charged with violations of these laws when they have in fact killed their children by violating them. Allowing a minor child under whatever age to operate an ATV is a pretty lightweight plea to be able to cop to, when it ought to have been deliberate child endangerment or neglectful homicide, but the position of the prosecutors is "they've lost a child; they've suffered enough." You can't even get them on the grounds of child abuse, and make them justify being allowed to keep any other children.

The "cause" for which those lives are thrown away is fun, the fun of speed and digging up the dirt.

So don't give me this life is sacred shit. Most people have no idea of the kind in their hearts, and maintain a lengthy list of people and groups and classes of people who ought to be killed. A better-dead list.

A man was elected, in a red state, the other day, who said that all persons who perform abortions ought to be killed, summarily. They made him a representative in the federal government. A man was elected president who devised a shock and awe attack on a populous city, killing indisciminately because the people there were brown muslims and of no account. No one seems to be bothering him in a clear case of mass murder of noncombatant unarmed civilians. He used depleted uranium.

So I think we can allow a woman, with or without consultation with anyone, to swat flies and have an abortion.

When and if it is my turn to decide whether or not to spare a fly, a squirrel, or a zygote, I hope people will leave me alone to do that.

But they won't. Because I have less power than the president. And a poor woman has less power than a preacher on a television show. The power is the real determinant of who is prosecuted and who is not.

Rich and poor are forbidden to steal bread. Rich people, oddly, do steal bread, but it's kleptomania, not thievery. Kleptomania is what you call it when a rich person steals.

I know the Law is Majestic and Impartial and I know that Murder is a Heinous Crime, but until I see an even handed application of the law and a consistent position on what constitutes a murder, I'm going to give people the benefit of the doubt and side with the person over the law in every case.

cantdog

 

[lewdandlicentious]

Jesus fucking christ people, you'll want to stop us wanking next: "Oooh the waste of potential life!!!!"

For fucks sake, personal choice.

You have yours, let others have theirs!

 

[Goldie Munro]

Abortion as it is today is a new thing - but abortion has been with us since the beginning of time - and worse infanticide has been a part of many civilisations. Do we go back to that? Or do the poor sell to the rich?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Um...

I think it's pretty apparent that Pure is having a go at us. He's (as far as I'm seeing it) mocking the pro-life position by showing how much further they would need to take it in order to be truly pro-life and that doesn't include the amount of potential life lost due to male masturbation and female periods.

And it's correct that all life is not sacred. No one weeps for virii and cancer cells. No one bemoans the genocide of epidermal (skin) cells that occurs from taking a shower. Few cry for the death of fire ants and people actively kill bacteria every day. We do not truly hold an equal view of the sanctity of life.

I'd get into my scientific viewpoint on the issue now, but i'll refrain.

 

[fifty5]

Pro-life Alert:

The tiniest of human lives. ...

Pure (though I'm sure your intensions were), I don't think you went quite to first principles.

Surely, there are 3 classes. In reverse order:

1 "Post-natal abortion" - like exposing new-born infants, or sending adolescents out into the wild to die or survive (or any other kind of 'cull')

2 "Pre-natal abortion" - taking steps to expell/remove a foetus (tiniest of human lives) from the womb before it is independently viable

3 "Pre-implantation abortion" - failing to take steps to ensure that each potential foetus (tiniest of human lives) achieves that status.

The first case is now considerably less common than in times of yore. Opinion is still divided: many modern humans can identify other individuals who, in their opinion at least, would have been improved by this practice.

The second case is (and this, I think, is behind your post) is hotly debated.

It is in the third class, which your post seems to be addressing, that I feel you may have missed the point: not merely every unimplanted blastocyst, but every ovum, and also every spermatozoon is potentially part of a foetus (tiniest of human lives).

To address this issue is a far bigger challenge than you seem to imply. The first problem is that males produce spermatozoa in far larger numbers than females produce ova. It will be necessary to use genetic selection (or whatever techniques seem necessary) to increase the ratio of females to males in order to achieve a balance.

Next, it will be necessary for each male to service the relevant number of females - this will be a demanding task!

And finally - awesomely - it will be necessary to devise some technique that ensures that each male orgasm releases a single spermatozoon (or should that be two, my human biology isn't what it used to be), so that each act of service produces the correct 1-to-1 ratio of sperm-to-ova.

Only then will it be worthwhile addressing a 'wastage' rate of 50%. Current wastage rates of sperm are several orders of magnitude greater - and thus, accordingly, must male copulation rates increase to match.

THERE MUST BE A FERTILE FEMALE READY AND WAITING FOR EVERY SPERM PRODUCED FROM EARLIEST ADOLESCENCE OF EACH AND EVERY MALE!

Can humanity meet the challenge?

Scientists, can you develope the requisite techniques?

Men, can you cope?

Women, will you play your part?

Eff

(Whose cheek seems rather over-full with tongue)

 

[Pure]

Well, fifty, the 'save the spermatazoa' shtick is pretty old and in many comedy routines, so I leave it to the funsters.

Save the egg, however, has a lot more to be said for it, for generation of a life by parthenogenesis (from an egg) is clearly possible, and wasn't it done for sheep?

Here, however, I must follow neon and cant; it simply doesn't seem to be nature's plan for every egg to become a life; a woman is born with (iirc) a few thousand, and only 'issues' {matures and ovulate} a few hundred. Yet even the most active woman is not going to produce more than 20-30 children. (how many conceptions does that represent, in 'nature'--50? 100?)

{{Added 11/19: Some better numbers are these from pdrhealth.com

The ovaries are a woman's storehouse of egg cells. They are among the first organs to be formed as a female baby develops in the uterus. At the 20-week mark, the structures that will become the ovaries house roughly 6 to 7 million potential egg cells. From that point on, the number begins to decrease rapidly. A newborn infant has between 1 million to 2 million egg cells.

By puberty the number has plummeted to 300,000. For every egg that matures and undergoes ovulation, roughly a thousand will fail, so that by menopause, only a few thousand remain.

During the course of an average reproductive lifespan, roughly 300 mature eggs are produced for potential conception.

Thus well over 200,000 'fail' or disappear in the reproductive life period, while about 300 are matured and produced.}}


I think cant has summed things up rather well, in that nature takes a huge toll on all species, at many points of life. That is 'natural law.' At the same time, we humans don't hesitate to try to improve survival, e.g., stop the flu, which back in 1918-19 killed a 20-40 million world wide, and more US soldiers than had died in WWI.

Yet the pure 'culture of life' is hard to conceive-- excuse the pun. It's insane to maximize the human rate of reproduction, just as to do it for, say, bees, flies, crows, cows or wolves.

 

[fifty5]

Well, fifty, the 'save the spermatazoa' shtick is pretty old and in many comedy routines, so I leave it to the funsters.

Hey, can I put that in my sig? That Pure thinks I'm a "funster"?

Yay!

Eff

Oops! Sorry. You're pretending to be serious here, aren't you?

Must write out 50 times, "Keep the face straight!"

 

[amicus]

It is 1am...in my neck of the woods...I have just sent off a 70,000 word novel to my publisher....I have a carton of smokes...and just added an ice cube and topped off my peppermint schnapps and have some jazz...soft jazz...in the background...and sat before the screen for a good hour...reading all the posts on this thread and looking at the screen...blankly...

I thought to just say, 'amicus is lurking...' and leave it at that.

But...I thought...to try...perhaps one more time...to present a question...

God is dead...the modern world, (however you define that) the rational world...knows with certainty, that religion, all religion that once provided an ethical and moral basis for human action, has failed.

Those conversant enough with philosophy also know that an acceptable moral and ethical system vis a vie philosophy has failed to take root.

One of those destested Ayn Rand axioms, that man must have a sense of 'rightness' in his actions comes to mind as I read that '...human life is no different than any other life...' neither more nor less than squirrels or pond scum....I wonder if you really believe that....

The late Carl Sagan prophesied that 'billions and billions' of life forms, equal to and surpassing homo sapiens surely inhabited the universe.

The latest astronomical science suggests otherwise...that star systems, solar systems....as so far observed...seem not, I repeat, not...to develope in such a manner as to support life...as we know it....

Gas giants close in to a star seem to sweep away all earth sized planets...so that our solar system...may indeed be an anomaly..rare...in natures planet building scheme....

Now...you can use a coat hanger to perform an abortion, or some yellow weed steeped in boiling water, aka Jean Auel, Ayla...clan of the cave bear...or a later story....or ru486 or some other chemical and as a practical matter, I personally could care less. You don't want a baby...don't have a baby...

However...

If perchance homo sapiens...humanity...is to be unique in this galaxy...and is, by mutual agreement the only 'sentient life' on this planet...then perhaps we might, philosophically, view it in a special way...

We have a billion years to play with before Sol warms us up to the intolerable...and a few million after that if we terraform and inhabit Mars and Titan...but eventually...humanity must look for a new home...

Long before any of that...we must have something more...something that defines us as a species...

I have tried to say...many times and in many different ways, that 'human life' is the fundamental value, and the only basis upon which to create an ethical and moral philosophy to guide our actions...

I am usually laughed off the stage...I ascribe it to the shallow political views of most and doubt more than a handful even comprehend the question.

Faith and the 10 commandments have guided mankind, in one way or another...throughout most of our recorded history.

We need something more. Some means by which we can decide right and wrong, moral and immoral, something to guide us, intellectually in our actions...day by day...and long term.

I suggest that now is a good time to start looking.

amicus...

 

[cantdog]

Since we're human, Mr. Leek

I think most characteristics of our lives here make more sense, amicus, when human life is considered in its mammalian context, in its primate context, and so forth. It would be inhuman indeed not to feel the house ape social drives which cause us both to cherish human life and to wish to destroy it.

Since we have these conflicting drives, and since we are human and thus capable of placing our instinctual heritage on interrupt, let us by all means discuss the development of a morality.

Humans need not give in to many of their impulses. Competition can be fierce; it is the law of the jungle, as we were told. This does not ennoble it, in my mind. I prefer to associate with people who have arisen from the jungle and can abrogate its law. Rand I find objectionable for that reason, among others. For if competiton is the law of the jungle, surely co-operation is the law of civilization.

Competiton does indeed result in murder, and in wars and what-have-you. Civilizing influences are characterized by the way they deplore that kind of unbridled competition. Are you with me so far, without, as you see, committing to any specifics? I do hope so, else our own competition of ideas here may otherwise seem to license you to find my house and slit my throat in furtherance of the noble principle of Competiton.

cantdog