Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

DEath penalty, abortion, euthanasia watch

Announcements
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    it doesn't matter from the point of conception onwards we know it has the full complement of chromosomes and genetically is human except maybe in the case of that woman who gave birth to a frog but that was because she went swimming in a river
    A question posed on another website:

    what is conception? When does it happen?

    - at ejaculation?
    - when the sperm first reach the egg?
    - when the sperm first penetrates the cell wall?
    - when the sperm stimulates the egg cell to produce calcium ions to block the entry of further sperm cells?
    - at formation of the male and female pronuclei?
    - formation of the segmentation nucleus?
    - first cell division of the zygote within the zona pellucida?
    - formation of the blastocyst?
    - attachment to the wall of the uterus?
    - subsumation in the endometrial wall?

    As with most things conception isn't a cut and dried event it's a continuous process...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    A question posed on another website:

    what is conception? When does it happen?

    - at ejaculation?
    - when the sperm first reach the egg?
    - when the sperm first penetrates the cell wall?
    - when the sperm stimulates the egg cell to produce calcium ions to block the entry of further sperm cells?
    - at formation of the male and female pronuclei?
    - formation of the segmentation nucleus?
    - first cell division of the zygote within the zona pellucida?
    - formation of the blastocyst?
    - attachment to the wall of the uterus?
    - subsumation in the endometrial wall?

    As with most things conception isn't a cut and dried event it's a continuous process...
    gah you've brought all of AS biology back to me and i can't remember any of this but personally i would say when the sperm first penetrates the egg
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    gah you've brought all of AS biology back to me and i can't remember any of this but personally i would say when the sperm first penetrates the egg
    hehehe - I dropped biology like a stone at the first opportunity

    Congratulations on picking a point - however the real point is that any individual moment selected as the "point of conception" is an arbitrary moment decided based on instict/gut feeling and not really based on proovable scientific evidence.

    Shades of grey not black and white
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    hehehe - I dropped biology like a stone at the first opportunity

    Congratulations on picking a point - however the real point is that any individual moment selected as the "point of conception" is an arbitrary moment decided based on instict/gut feeling and not really based on proovable scientific evidence.

    Shades of grey not black and white
    true however from my slightly sketchy knowledge of biology one the sperm enters the ovum the two nuclei fuse together ending up with a 2n diploid cell at this point a life form which can reproduce mitotically (grow basically) is formed so therefore i think that should be the point of conception since you don't always end up with a zygote (baaaaaaaaaaah) post ejaculation whereas
    as long as you don't do anything to the cell you do end up with one. really need some help from other biologists here since i suspect what i put down is quite dodgy
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    And because Hoo puts these things so much better than I ever could

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabas...kip=564&show=1

    And for people who don't want to follow the link here is the "point"
    what is conception? When does it happen?

    - at ejaculation?
    - when the sperm first reach the egg?
    - when the sperm first penetrates the cell wall?
    - when the sperm stimulates the egg cell to produce calcium ions to block the entry of further sperm cells?
    - at formation of the male and female pronuclei?
    - formation of the segmentation nucleus?
    - first cell division of the zygote within the zona pellucida?
    - formation of the blastocyst?
    - attachment to the wall of the uterus?
    - subsumation in the endometrial wall?

    Which ONE of those events is the moment of "conception" as you define it?"

    Nice try, by the way, attempting to turn the question round and saying "What point do YOU think life begins? Birth?". Unfortunately for you, that reductio ad absurdum merely points out the weakness in YOUR argument, not mine.

    The point is - there is no point. Life does not begin at a point. The beginning of life is a process. The fact that you stubbornly continue to refuse to understand that merely highlights how little you know and understand.

    Your problem here is something called the Sorites paradox. I suggest you add that to the long list of things you should research. I can make it easy for you though. If you have a single penny, you're not rich, right? And if you're not rich, and I GIVE you an additional penny, just one, that's not going to make you rich, is it?

    The problem with that is - rich people exist. But at what "point" does being rich start? Answer: there is no "point". There is no magic figure at which you can say "one more penny, just one, and I'll be a rich man". And in EXACTLY the same way, there's no "point" at which you went from being a blob of protoplasm to being a human.

    Of course, because you are a human, you have a tendency to look for a point, which is fine. And you can, if you wish, choose a point. The important thing to realise is that WHEREVER YOU DRAW THE LINE, YOU ARE WRONG.

    Facetiously, you asked ""What point do YOU think life begins? Birth?". The lovely thing about that example is that it's obviously ridiculous. The problem for you is, EVERY OTHER POSSIBLE POINT is EXACTLY as ridiculous.
    (note: Hoo is a self confessed troll and bigot baiter - the post referred to is in response to someone who posted a "challenge" and then ignored responses to that challenge over a wopping 1747 replies - if you've got the time it's an amazingly interesting read)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    it doesn't matter from the point of conception onwards we know it has the full complement of chromosomes and genetically is human except maybe in the case of that woman who gave birth to a frog but that was because she went swimming in a river
    This was my point, if it's genetically human you surely cannot deny it is human at all like some people have in the abortion debate.

    Wasn't that woman dead though when this happened? j/w
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    My mum is in the same situation at the moment. She has sever MS and she knows that all she wants has in the future is deterioration. She has often told me that there is a stage in the future where she thinks she will want to die. She gets very depressed about how her life is. I think that it is horrible that she can't decide to legally die when she wants to. I don't understand why people are again euthanasia as a principle.
    My sympathies mate. My personal views on those who are against euthanasia aren't even polite I'm afraid. My mother was lucky that her illness wasn't a very painful one, with the exception of having a pinched nerve once or twice a weak as her bones lost their strength. The fact is that euthanasia is the only thing she wanted. Not to be comforted by family, not the DVD and CD players carted up three flights of stairs for her benefit. Simply to end her suffering. If a person in their right mind is willing to sign a form stating they wish to have a lethal injection or what have you, then by all means they should be allowed to. There should not be police questioning my self, brother and father for not asking the nurses to revive my mother when she stopped breathing three weeks ago tomorrow.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Sire)
    There should not be police questioning my self, brother and father for not asking the nurses to revive my mother when she stopped breathing three weeks ago tomorrow.


    I'm sorry to hear that she's gone, no matter how much someone wants to leave it's still hard and painful to let them go.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    This was my point, if it's genetically human you surely cannot deny it is human at all like some people have in the abortion debate.

    Wasn't that woman dead though when this happened? j/w
    nope she gave birth to this frog and it had developed some slightly human caracteristics no idea what happened to the frog though i do know the woman survived and is fine
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    nope she gave birth to this frog and it had developed some slightly human caracteristics no idea what happened to the frog though i do know the woman survived and is fine
    You see legally if this happened in England, despite what you may think, I believe this frog will be classified as human. The main reason is because she has been expelled by a human (via birth). Need to check this one. Damn holidays.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)


    I'm sorry to hear that she's gone, no matter how much someone wants to leave it's still hard and painful to let them go.
    *nods* Too true.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Death penalty only. I may sound harsh but its simple really.
    The rules on abortion are fine as they are so in the case of a woman getting pregnant from rape she would quite easily get an abortion. Every one else and its there own fault and instead of changing abortion laws they should provide much better sex ed.
    Euthanasia is unethical and morally unsound and legalising it would give rise to legalised murder with people killing rich old relatives after conning them into signing an agreement for it. Another objection is that to ask a family member to kill you is completely selfish because whether your paralysed or have a degenerative disease your family are just happy your alive.
    I don't wholly agree with the death penalty but for serious cases I agree completely. The criminal deserves it and the victims or victims families would feel a lot better knowing that they can never do it again and they aren't paying for the person to live pretty comfortably.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chellie)
    The criminal deserves it and the victims or victims families would feel a lot better knowing that they can never do it again and they aren't paying for the person to live pretty comfortably.
    And if it turns out it's the wrong person what next?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    And if it turns out it's the wrong person what next?
    I only agree if they can prove they had the right person, if there is any doubt then i don't agree.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chellie)
    I only agree if they can prove they had the right person, if there is any doubt then i don't agree.
    If there is any doubt of the right person isn't that more to do with an acquittal rather than the death penalty?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    If there is any doubt of the right person isn't that more to do with an acquittal rather than the death penalty?
    Maybe but if there was loads of circumstantial evidence but no solid proof then the person should get life just in case instead of the death penalty.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chellie)
    Maybe but if there was loads of circumstantial evidence but no solid proof then the person should get life just in case instead of the death penalty.
    And the burden of proof of a criminal trial is what exactly?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    And the burden of proof of a criminal trial is what exactly?
    Generally DNA evidence in such a place that it could only belong to criminal not to mention the victims statement and identification (if they are still alive of course). Its just my personal opinion and I shouldn't really have to justify it this much.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chellie)
    Generally DNA evidence in such a place that it could only belong to criminal not to mention the victims statement and identification (if they are still alive of course).
    No the onus is beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt you must acquit.

    (Original post by chellie)
    Its just my personal opinion and I shouldn't really have to justify it this much.
    I respect that but look at the name of the subforum, you will have to expect this.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.