Do you believe that life begins at conception?

[CoffeeSaint]

Don't gamble if you don't want to lose money bud. And yes I am.

See, now that's interesting to me. Because if you are adamant that life begins at conception, and a human is a human, no matter how small, and that the right to life is inherent in all things human, then how can you support the morning after pill? It can, potentially, be used to exterminate a fertilized ovum.
As for the money/gambling analogy, there is a bit of a difference: if I go to Vegas and lay my money down on Blackjack, and then I lose, I am not then required by your morality to give up my freedom for nine months. Do you believe that men should be held responsible for pregnancy, as well, or is it the woman's responsibility only?

Then why were you trying to drum up sympathy for them? It boils down to the fact that humans aren't bacteria, cows, dogs, vegetables, they're humans regardless of how young they are.

My god, man, I think you've had this argument too many times. I wasn't trying to drum up sympathy for anyone. I'm not even sure where in my posts you've gotten this idea that we should spare the lives of cockroaches and bacteria.
Maybe I should just withdraw my questions and let this one go. I think you need more sleep.

 

[Goobieman]

Three things here cannot be questioned:

-Conception results in something living, as the product of conception is alive;
-Conception results in a human, as it can be nothing else;
-Conceptiion results in something distinct from its parents, as it has DNA disticnt from each.

So, yes -- human life begins at conception. Any talk about it not really being a 'person' or a 'human being' X until weeks after conception is just a path to a guilt-free rationalizion for the desire to voluntarily and deliberately take an innocent human life.

 

[Goobieman]

According to our government and our justice system, citizenship begins at birth, and the rights of citizenship begin then, as well. The courts have agreed to give a certain window of opportunity for unborn fetuses after six months, that they have a sort of limited status and limited protection under the law. But they are not citizens until birth. The two above scenarios, as ridiculous as they may seem, are part of the reason for that decision. I'm sorry if it seems callous, but that is the way it is.

It seems your argument here is based on current law - as the law stands, so does your position.

You then agree with the numerous laws dictating that someome that kills a pregenant woman and her unborn baby, regardless of how far along she is, can be (and usually is) held legally accountable for the deaths of 2 people -- right?

Doesnt this necessitate that the unborn baby, at -any- point, is protected by the law, and therefore, by your argument, has some degree of 'personhood'?

And has been pointed out -- you dont need to be a citizen to be protected by law.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

It seems your argument here is based on current law - as the law stands, so does your position.

You then agree with the numerous laws dictating that someome that kills a pregenant woman and her unborn baby, regardless of how far along she is, can be (and usually is) held legally accountable for the deaths of 2 people -- right?

Doesnt this necessitate that the unborn baby, at -any- point, is protected by the law, and therefore, by your argument, has some degree of 'personhood'?

And has been pointed out -- you dont need to be a citizen to be protected by law.

My argument is based on my own ideas; it happens to be congruent with the law, but it is not based on the law. I think that if a person kills a pregnant woman, he has killed one person, not two. I do not think a human being becomes a person until after birth, and thus cannot be a victim of murder, which is the killing of a person, and not a human being -- and that is my own defintion of homicide, so please don't bring up some dictionary definition that states homicide is the killing of a human being. I think that as long as the fetus depends on the mother for its life, and cannot be removed from the mother and survive, then it is not a person, even if it is a human being, and it does not deserve the protection of the law. The mother is protected, and that is enough; the fetus is protected by the mother's status, because the two are inseparable.

I would normally support the protection of the fetus's life after it is viable, but in the case of murder of a pregnant woman in, say, the eighth month, I think you would have to prove viability, and I'm not sure you could do that. If there is an unquestionable bright line, after which every fetus is viable, then that could be a minimum age for the fetus to be murdered, but I doubt such a line exists -- especially since some fetuses suffer from defects that would kill them immediately after birth. If a fetus has no potential to become a person, it cannot be killed as if it were a person; it is only a part of its mother.

 

[southern_liberal]

No, the potential for life begins in the ovaries and testicles.

Prove that a small clump of cells, no bigger than a grain of salt is alive.

 

[talloulou]

At conception an organism starts to form that ultimately will be capable of reproducing. That is life. Up until that point the sperm and ovum are merely the essential ingredients of life, not life itself.
So this really isn't a poll because this not a matter of opinion, because by definition, life begins at conception and that's a fact.

Excellent and true. After conception a new indvidual living human organism comes into existence.

 

[southern_liberal]

If you prefer the term "person," we can use that as well -- though if that's the caser, I'd like to refer you to FutureIncoming, and see if you and he can agree on a definition of "person."
And I'll tell you what: the very next time an illegal alien crawls into your abdomen, connects itself to your bloodstream and begins stealing oxygen from your lungs and nutrients from your digestive system, and causes your body to instinctually sacrifice yourself in order to protect him, for nine months before he comes tearing out from between your legs, I promise I'll let you kill him.
Unless, of course, you spread your legs for him. Then it's all your fault.



You said that the potential for life begins in the ovaries and testes; but where was the life before that? It was in the organs that made the gametes. And before that, it was in the gametes that made the person that made the new generation of gametes. And before that, it was . . .
Southern liberal started the line of thinking, but you seemed to be continuing it. I just wanted to take it quickly to its natural conclusion: life only began once. It is passed on, but never created from a lack of life. We can only talk about an individual's life, and that begins at conception. Sorry for the confusion.

I agree with much of what your saying, but how does a clump of cell qualify as alive?

 

[talloulou]

Three things here cannot be questioned:

-Conception results in something living, as the product of conception is alive;
-Conception results in a human, as it can be nothing else;
-Conceptiion results in something distinct from its parents, as it has DNA disticnt from each.

So, yes -- human life begins at conception. Any talk about it not really being a 'person' or a 'human being' X until weeks after conception is just a path to a guilt-free rationalizion for the desire to voluntarily and deliberately take an innocent human life.

Personhood is just a political construct. It's all just a means to justify why not all living members of the species homosapiens deserve to be protected.

Even this poll is rather absurd. Anyone with a grasp of biology 101 understands what happens at conception.

 

[southern_liberal]

At conception an organism starts to form that ultimately will be capable of reproducing. That is life. Up until that point the sperm and ovum are merely the essential ingredients of life, not life itself.
So this really isn't a poll because this not a matter of opinion, because by definition, life begins at conception and that's a fact.

But it's not capable of reproducing when it starts to form. So again, it has the potential for life, it is not alive.

 

[talloulou]

But it's not capable of reproducing when it starts to form. So again, it has the potential for life, it is not alive.

How retarded is that? My 5 year old is not currently capable of reproducing but she's clearly alive! As Napolean Dynamite would say "GEEZ":roll:

 

[mpg]

Three things here cannot be questioned:

-Conception results in something living, as the product of conception is alive;
-Conception results in a human, as it can be nothing else;
-Conceptiion results in something distinct from its parents, as it has DNA disticnt from each.

So, yes -- human life begins at conception. Any talk about it not really being a 'person' or a 'human being' X until weeks after conception is just a path to a guilt-free rationalizion for the desire to voluntarily and deliberately take an innocent human life.

excellent post

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

I said no. Human life requires sentience which requires sense perception which requires a brain. A zygote doesn't have a brain therefore it is not human life.

 

[Indy]

Three things here cannot be questioned:

-Conception results in something living, as the product of conception is alive;
-Conception results in a human, as it can be nothing else;
-Conceptiion results in something distinct from its parents, as it has DNA disticnt from each.

So, yes -- human life begins at conception. Any talk about it not really being a 'person' or a 'human being' X until weeks after conception is just a path to a guilt-free rationalizion for the desire to voluntarily and deliberately take an innocent human life.

Just being Devil's Advocate here but one can argue that conception does not result in something that is living anymore than you can say that a heart or liver is living. Since at that point it is only part of the mother and in no way can survive on its own or has any brain activity or control. Now removing sombody's heart or liver isn't murder so neither would removing this lump of cells. Also, conception does not always result in a human. If a miscarriage were to occur then the clump of cells would not be a human (not recognizable, breathing, living, or even self sufficient). Conception also only results as something distinct from the parents as soon as it is capable of surviving on its own. Until then it is only part of the mother so it is in no way disctinct from her. In fact you could argue that she then takes of characteristics of her mate until she breaks away from the fetus. So as you can see your "black and white" scenario is in no way undebatable. Sorry.

 

[talloulou]

Just being Devil's Advocate here but one can argue that conception does not result in something that is living anymore than you can say that a heart or liver is living.

Well you can't really say an embryo is living like a heart or a liver. A heart and liver are not seperate living "organisms" while an embryo or fetus is.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Prove that a small clump of cells, no bigger than a grain of salt is alive.

It's ridiculous to say they aren't alive, they're growing so they're alive. The argument isn't really whether they are alive or not (despite the title of this thread) it's whether or not mothers should be allowed to kill them and whether or not they can be classified as a person.

 

[RightOfCenter]

See, now that's interesting to me. Because if you are adamant that life begins at conception, and a human is a human, no matter how small, and that the right to life is inherent in all things human, then how can you support the morning after pill? It can, potentially, be used to exterminate a fertilized ovum.
As for the money/gambling analogy, there is a bit of a difference: if I go to Vegas and lay my money down on Blackjack, and then I lose, I am not then required by your morality to give up my freedom for nine months. Do you believe that men should be held responsible for pregnancy, as well, or is it the woman's responsibility only?

The morning after pill is essentially the birth control pill only taken after sex before fertilization occurs, the child has not been conceived yet. Gambling with sex has much higher stakes than gambling with your money. Of course men should be held responsible for pregnancy and the law thinks so as well. It is just as much the mans fault as it is the womans.

My god, man, I think you've had this argument too many times. I wasn't trying to drum up sympathy for anyone. I'm not even sure where in my posts you've gotten this idea that we should spare the lives of cockroaches and bacteria.
Maybe I should just withdraw my questions and let this one go. I think you need more sleep.

It was you who had the analogy about brushing your teeth and washing your hands wasn't it? If it wasn't all I can say is, my bad. And yeah, I've had a little insomnia lately, it sucks.

 

[RightOfCenter]

But it's not capable of reproducing when it starts to form. So again, it has the potential for life, it is not alive.

So by this logic a man who has testiclular cancer and has them removed is fair game for murder?

 

[Indy]

Well you can't really say an embryo is living like a heart or a liver. A heart and liver are not seperate living "organisms" while an embryo or fetus is.

Well I would argue that it in fact ISN'T a seperate organism until it is able to sustain itself on its own. Before that its just part of the greater living organism which is the mother.

 

[Indy]

It's ridiculous to say they aren't alive, they're growing so they're alive. The argument isn't really whether they are alive or not (despite the title of this thread) it's whether or not mothers should be allowed to kill them and whether or not they can be classified as a person.

A heart grows therefore its alive, a liver grows therefore it is alive. Your use of the word "alive" does not lend itself to make one believe that the fetus/embryo is anymore than an organ until it can sustain itself on its own. If its just an organ then the woman has every right to do with it what she wants.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I believe the egg and sperm are human cells but not essentially different from any other human cells and no particular courtesy or respect is due them any more than any other human cells.

Neither is an acorn an oak tree nor an egg a chicken.

But let the acorn sprout and push that first twig above the surface of the earth, it is no longer an acorn. It is an oak tree. Not an extension of the old oak tree but brand new life.

And crack a fertilized chicken egg that has been kept at 100 degrees farenheight and 64% humidity for a few days and an egg doesn't fall out. A forming chick falls out. Not part of the mother hen. A new chick. New life.

And once the human egg and sperm join in a hospitable environment and attach to the wall of the uterus, they are no longer egg and sperm but they are a forming human being. They are human life. Not part of the mother, but a wholly different person that the mother will need to nurture and protect until he or she can live outside the womb and for a long time after birth as well.

I don't hold to the theory that it isn't a person until he or she can live outside the womb. For some time even outside the womb, s/he can't without somebody protecting and providing warmth, food, hydration, love as was the case before birth.

Life begins at conception because there is simply no other time to identify when life begins.

 

[26 X World Champs]

If they don't want to have kids they'll use protection, and if they really don't want to have kids they won't have sex. They know the risks when they spread their legs.

It's this type of "reasoning" that I find so offensive. Telling people to not have sex is a ridiculous suggestion that has no possible way of being effective.

If it is not effective why bother suggesting such an impossible method? Why not suggest that by doing lots of excercise one's sex drive will diminish etc.?

Absurd an impractical....

 

[talloulou]

Well I would argue that it in fact ISN'T a seperate organism until it is able to sustain itself on its own. Before that its just part of the greater living organism which is the mother.

Yes well that's all fine and good but try finding a scientist or dr. to agree with you.

 

[talloulou]

A heart grows therefore its alive, a liver grows therefore it is alive. Your use of the word "alive" does not lend itself to make one believe that the fetus/embryo is anymore than an organ until it can sustain itself on its own. If its just an organ then the woman has every right to do with it what she wants.

Scientifically and technically it's not an organ. It's an organism. A member of the species homosapiens at a particular stage of development and it will continue to develop until death.

 

[Indy]

Yes well that's all fine and good but try finding a scientist or dr. to agree with you.

Oh I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I was responding to a post in the "Do you believe life begins at conception, unless you disagree with me then you need a doctor to back you up" thread. If I had known then maybe I wouldn't have even bothered to come in. :roll:

 

[Indy]

Scientifically and technically it's not an organ. It's an organism. A member of the species homosapiens at a particular stage of development and it will continue to develop until death.

Them's alot of fancy talk ther mam', I aint notin more than a country boy.

Well there are plenty of people who disagree that it is a separate entity from the mother at that point. I'm sorry, do you want me to let you keep sticking your head in the sand and not realize that? The fact of the matter is that unless you have enough people in this country that agree with you than it doesn't matter. Right now there are enough people who feel that it isn't a protected human being that is a separate entity from the mother, that's why abortion is legal. If that weren't the case then I'm sure it would have already been pushed through as a constitutional amendment by now, we all know that politicians LOVE sending those guys through.