Do you believe that life begins at conception?

[Goobieman]

That is entirely true. He utterly refuses to be objective and will dismiss any and all evidence/proof that doesn't fit his opinions. His only case regarding whether or not a zygote is alive is that is has human DNA. Completely absurd.

Dont sing it, bring it.

Rather than whine, show me how I am wrong.

 

[tecoyah]

Let me make one thing clear on my part..............I personally could care less what a woman does with her own body but when it involves another life then that is a different matter............

As long as you are Clarifying for us NP.....I have wondered about something for some time, and perhaps you would see fit to clear it up for me:

As a member of the Military, you take an oath to do what your Government sees as required to meet its objectives, up to and including taking Life indescriminately based on orders. Thus it would seem, life becomes irrelevant in the light of a greater good, and percieved righteousness.

As a pregnant woman, unable or unwilling to care for a child you decide the life you carry is counter to your objectives, and thus is eliminated for the greater good. Do you feel one death is more justified than the Other?

 

[talloulou]

For the record I fully believe dogs are sentient.

 

[Deegan]

To answer the question raised, yes, life certainly starts at conception, I guess the real question is, do you believe this life should be protected? I think it should, but this is just my opinion, but I still would not support a law that makes any and all abortions illegal. I do support a rational law, one limiting this to a certain time frame, no more then 16 weeks IMO, that is certainly enough time in which to make this very important decision.

All the science and assumptions mean very little to me, it's my personal experience that brings me to this conclusion.

 

[Navy Pride]

As long as you are Clarifying for us NP.....I have wondered about something for some time, and perhaps you would see fit to clear it up for me:

As a member of the Military, you take an oath to do what your Government sees as required to meet its objectives, up to and including taking Life indescriminately based on orders. Thus it would seem, life becomes irrelevant in the light of a greater good, and percieved righteousness.

As a pregnant woman, unable or unwilling to care for a child you decide the life you carry is counter to your objectives, and thus is eliminated for the greater good. Do you feel one death is more justified than the Other?

Glad to help......I think the difference in a war is your trying to take a life of someone that wants to take yours.......The innocent defenseless baby in the womb is in most instances not trying to take anyones's life....

We have been over the woman unable or not wanting to take care of a child a dozen times in this very thread and the options available to her other then to kill the child.........

 

[talloulou]

To answer the question raised, yes, life certainly starts at conception, I guess the real question is, do you believe this life should be protected?

very well said. I can't believe the poll has no as the lead answer to whether life begins at conception. Talk about everyone seeing the emperors new clothes. Of course life starts at conception! And of course whether that life deserves protection is a valid argument and the idea that the mother should possibly have a say in whether that life is terminated or not is also legitimately debatable.

But the idea that life doesn't begin at conception is absurd and what has really happened is a "semantics" war. Similar to Bill Clinton belieiving "sex" and "is" are loosely defined now "life" is also loosely defined. :rofl goofiness.

 

[tecoyah]

Glad to help......I think the difference in a war is your trying to take a life of someone that wants to take yours.......The innocent defenseless baby in the womb is in most instances not trying to take anyones's life....

We have been over the woman unable or not wanting to take care of a child a dozen times in this very thread and the options available to her other then to kill the child.........

So....you are saying one ended life is indeed, justified, and the other is not?

Would this not then make your killing entirely based on a perception of Justice?
And does this then make the descision to Kill one of personal opinion?
Why is your Opinion more deserving of attention, than that of the Pregnant Mother?

 

[talloulou]

Why is your Opinion more deserving of attention, than that of the Pregnant Mother?

'Cause everyone knows pregnant women can get slightly hysterical!:rofl

 

[tecoyah]

'Cause everyone knows pregnant women can get slightly hysterical!:rofl

Damn....Can't argue that one

 

[Purple]

Of course life starts at conception!

And you can prove that how? I must have missed your post when you explained that.

But the idea that life doesn't begin at conception is absurd and what has really happened is a "semantics" war.

The idea that life does begin at conception is absurd.
See,..it works both ways.

I know it's been said but I don't believe that a couple of cells constitutes a living person. We can't even guarantee that left alone that those cells will grow into a viable human. Should we start issuing social security numbers to those with a positive pregnancy test? Oh wait,..of course not because that would be absurd.

 

[jallman]

Really.
I note that you didnt show any credible evidence in rebuttal to my argument that pain can be reacted to w/o conscious perception of same.

My bad...I didnt realize we had to get bogged down in the difference between reflexive and noxious stimuli. The way you spoke against NN with such conviction, one would have thought the difference was a given. But, here again, your conviction far outclasses your knowledge and/or your inclination to seek out that knowledge. I am left to do your google searches for you.

Noxious Stimulus
A noxious stimulus is one that is potentially or actually damaging to body tissue. In the true Sherringtonian sense, a noxious stimulus is defined as "one of intensity and quality which are adequate to trigger a nociceptive reaction of an animal, including the feeling of pain in humans." In some instances there is no lasting tissue damage (e.g., muscle pain due to excessive exercise).

Reflexive stimulus
A reflexive stimulus is one that is of sufficient magnitude to elicit an involuntary reaction. The stimulus is adequate to guarantee long term tissue damage, forcing the body to instinctually react in such a way as to end the stimulus.

Now I am not quite sure what you are playing at, but I am not interested in bogging down the discussion with repetitions of the obvious just so you can keep up.

LOL
The issue us sentience.
Sentience requires consciousness.
The definition of consciousness as applied to the definition of sentence is ABSOLUTELY relevant.

So wait...are you changing your own emphasis from conciousness to sentience or are you focusing on sentience as a part of conciousness or are we discussing conciousness applied as a component of awareness. Do you even know what you are discussing anymore? Like I said, I think you are nothing more than a linguistic gymnast. :mrgreen:

You;re just trying to avoid the point that "consciousness" means exactly what I stated, thereby proving though lack of same that newborns are not sentent.

That would be convenient for you, but alas, it is nothing more than another one of your wild opinions. Sentience in the philosphical sense does not equate to sentience in the medical sense, as I have clearly demonstrated despite your opinion.

No. We're talking about Nappy's definition of human -- sentience.
BY his definition, and your common definition of 'conscious' the only logical conlclusion is that because dogs are also sentient, he is wrong.

Whoa...simmer down there, sport. Sentience as it relates to personhood of the fetus is a whole different ballgame and has nothing to do with the vernacular sentience you use to apply to your family pet. It goes back to that whole maintaining intellectual honesty thing you were spouting off about.

 

[Saboteur]

Well we have a lot of new members and have not done this one for quite a while so lets see how it comes out...

Oh and I am not going to let you cop out with "Not Sure"

Going to have to vote no because life begins before conception... Unless the egg did come first or was it the chicken?

 

[Navy Pride]

So....you are saying one ended life is indeed, justified, and the other is not?

Would this not then make your killing entirely based on a perception of Justice?
And does this then make the descision to Kill one of personal opinion?
Why is your Opinion more deserving of attention, than that of the Pregnant Mother?

I am saying your example is flawed and irrelevent because some wars and justified and if someone is trying to kill you then you have to try and kill them before they do it........Pacifism does not work when someone is trying to kill you...........

I have said this before, I believe the only justified abortion is when the mothers liefe is endangered or possibly in the case of rape and incest although I would argue against those types of abortions.

A pregnant mother who is having and abortion as a means of birth control or convenience is a very selfish person who is taking a human life........That is what I believe..

 

[tecoyah]

........That is what I believe..

This is the only part worth discussion, as it leads to the Jist of this debate:

Why is what YOU believe more important then what SHE believes?

 

[Navy Pride]

This is the only part worth discussion, as it leads to the Jist of this debate:

Why is what YOU believe more important then what SHE believes?

Becasue she is killing the innocent and I am not..........

 

[tecoyah]

Becasue she is killing the innocent and I am not..........

In your Opinion....yes she is.

The question stands, unless you are seriously so Daft as to miss my point (this is a possibility), I can only hope you actually do understand me....still to clarify the intent:

Your opinion on this life, and what it is differs from my own, and lets just assume hers as well. Yet you, having no association with her, and no contact with the individual, let alone any intent of supporting this forced descision monitarily or emotionally will arbitrarily change a law because you have an ...Opinion?

 

[CoffeeSaint]

You havent actually read Roe v Wade, have you? You need to do that.

Actually, yes, I have, but not for several months. Tell me where I'm wrong, and I'll go refresh my memory.

It may make "sense" but that doesnt mean it wasnt created from whole cloth.

The court created the "right" here from bits and peices of other rights, and semi-logical extensions of same. The court istelf said that "[the] Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy", but that said right (the one that isn't mentioned) was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy".

In other words, it was made up.

There are very large differences between "made up," "created from whole cloth," and "reasonably inferred though not explicitly stated." If something makes sense, which you admit the right to privacy does, and there are several rights explicitly defined that imply a right to privacy, then it can be reasonably inferred, though it is not explicitly stated. Now, a right to, say, own a shiny toaster instead of a rusty one -- that would be "made up" or "created out of whole cloth." The right to privacy is not.

Roe v Wade doesnt make a staement regarding personhood:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer

And since fetuses are not granted the status of personhood by our Constitution, and their status was unchanged by the decision, they remain non-persons.

Roe v Wade also does not mean that all laws banning abortions are unconstitutional -- under the decision, states can regulate 2nd and 3rd trimerster abortions:

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.


Again:
Regulation/bans on 2nd/3rd trimester abortions are allowed under RvW.

Really? You were talking about second and third trimester abortions when you said that Roe v. Wade "very certainly says that states very certainly can deny women abortions"? I find that intellectually dishonest, that you left out the most important qualifier when you made that statement originally. Late term abortions have not been the issue under discussion; since this is a thread about when life begins, they are not especially relevant, and if you are going to talk about them, you need to state that clearly.

Already done.

And yet I still have questions. It's like you weaseled a lot and didn't actually prove any points, but that can't be true. Surely a person wouldn't make a statement this arrogant, as if you have solved a problem and ended a debate that has gone on for better than three decades, without at least having made his case so that it couldn't easily be argued with.

Well, no, apparently you'll make that statement anyway. Let me try:

You lose.

 

[Navy Pride]

In your Opinion....yes she is.

The question stands, unless you are seriously so Daft as to miss my point (this is a possibility), I can only hope you actually do understand me....still to clarify the intent:

Your opinion on this life, and what it is differs from my own, and lets just assume hers as well. Yet you, having no association with her, and no contact with the individual, let alone any intent of supporting this forced descision monitarily or emotionally will arbitrarily change a law because you have an ...Opinion?

I don't have to walk in anyones shoes to know that abortions performed for convenience or as a means of birth control are wrong...................

Like I have said to many of you liberals I believe that life begins at conception......If I am erong then the only thing being destroyed is a clump of cells.....If your wrong its a life............Why not error on the side of life?

 

[AlbqOwl]

I don't have to walk in anyones shoes to know that abortions performed for convenience or as a means of birth control are wrong...................

Like I have said to many of you liberals I believe that life begins at conception......If I am erong then the only thing being destroyed is a clump of cells.....If your wrong its a life............Why not error on the side of life?

That's the thing isn't it? On that Visembryo site I posted, you can click along the path and see the miracle of a devleoping human being. Once the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus and becomes viable as a developing human life, at what precise point along that path does it become expendable? Mere birth does not stop the human being from developing--the skull is not yet complete, there are internal organs and sexual organs yet to devellop, growth and strength and mental capacity yet to be fulfilled.

If you go backwards from the moment of birth into the womb, what is substantially different from the baby in the hours before birth and the hour after birth? And going back and back and back, which day makes the baby substantially different than a day later?

Much MUCH better to err on the side of life.

 

[jallman]

And yet I still have questions. It's like you weaseled a lot and didn't actually prove any points, but that can't be true. Surely a person wouldn't make a statement this arrogant, as if you have solved a problem and ended a debate that has gone on for better than three decades, without at least having made his case so that it couldn't easily be argued with.

That just about sums it up!!! :2wave:

 

[Purple]

I don't have to walk in anyones shoes to know that abortions performed for convenience or as a means of birth control are wrong...................

Like I have said to many of you liberals I believe that life begins at conception......If I am erong then the only thing being destroyed is a clump of cells.....If your wrong its a life............Why not error on the side of life?

But it's not a life. It's a clump of cells,..and that's not an error.

Why should a woman give up her right to privacy just because you think that you know what is best?

 

[Navy Pride]

But it's not a life. It's a clump of cells,..and that's not an error.

Why should a woman give up her right to privacy just because you think that you know what is best?

Did you read the results of the poll so far? Its almost 50-50 so how do you know that?............Like I said if us pro life people are wrong then its no biggie..........Just a lump of cells beign destroyed..........What if we are right and your wrong? Then its murder in the womb........

Why not error on the side of life?

 

[Purple]

Did you read the results of the poll so far? Its almost 50-50 so how do you know that?............Like I said if us pro life people are wrong then its no biggie..........Just a lump of cells beign destroyed..........What if we are right and your wrong? Then its murder in the womb........

Why not error on the side of life?

Yep I read the results, I even voted.

What if you're not right, I don't believe that it's murder. Why should a woman give up her rights for something that can't be proven?

 

[Navy Pride]

Yep I read the results, I even voted.

What if you're not right, I don't believe that it's murder. Why should a woman give up her rights for something that can't be proven?

To maybe give and innocent defenseless baby the chance for life that you and I got.........

 

[Purple]

To maybe give and innocent defenseless baby the chance for life that you and I got.........

Nope. As long as you are using the word "maybe" the answer doesn't change.