Life at Conception

[GEIxBattleRifle]

1. yes I value human life more, I am human, but still value all life and think all life serves a purpose

2. But it should be tolerated because it is human and it should cut it. I mean we are humans, why should we not protect our own species when ti comes to allowing our species to live on. It just makes sense to me that we should protect the entire reproduction process. Aborting it is just going against what our species is. I'm not sure if i made sense

3. yes and you lead me to believe you consider unborn parasites.
4. dunno
5. obviously person is defined as human being, so no, but do just persons have rights? animals are not mentioned in the Constitution, but i guarantee there are state laws, covered under the 10th amendment.
6. yes but personal value when it comes to law should not matter. laws are supposed to be inclusive and non objective correct?
7. no what im saying is laws value all the same. You and i are no different int he eyes of the law. Killing me will get the same penalty as killing your adoptive mother
8. Guilty of what? and if it is guilty why is it not tried
9.what what?
10. fetuses do have brains, just not detected, then not fully developed until a certain stage.
11. Would you consider a brain dead human not technically a person. I personally think thatd be disrespecting the human that is brain dead.

1. Thanks for the honesty.

2. Imagine an alien species as intelligent as humanity but biologically different in that its normal reproductive event yields a thousand offspring at a time. These are quite small and are released “into the wild”, where they will forage for food and can grow to eventually become persons except that most of them will die in the process, eaten by other life-forms.

Humans are K-strategists we normally have very few offspring at a time and give them lots of nurturing and protection. But intelligent R-strategists will care very little about their offspring.

As long as two or three biological offspring reach adulthood for each breeding pair of R-strategist adults, no matter how many thousands of their other offspring die, the species can continue to survive. And it should be obvious that the intelligent adults must accept that situation because anything else is a recipe for an ultra-extreme overpopulation disaster.

The facts about K-strategy reproduction make it completely understandable how humans can object to killing some offspring by abortion. Caring for offspring is built-in. Nevertheless, it is usually very easy even for humans to make more and to even make more offspring fast enough to end up with an overpopulation problem. Logically therefore, humanity needs to learn that its natural tendencies to care for offspring can be over-done and it is that thing, the over-doing of caring for offspring which must be overcome. Too much of a good thing is always, always a bad thing!

3. I must not be explaining well then. I'm not saying unborn human ARE parasites. I'm saying there ACTIONS are comparable to what mosquitos and leaches do.

4. Ok??

5. Humans are not mentioned in the Constitution either. If you have read the constitution (which I'm sure you have) you will notice it uses the word ''person'' quite frequently while the word ''human'' doesn't get used at all. That opens up the possibilities for what entities could be considered persons (as in entities that have rights) and can be completely non human.

Have you ever watched the movie Avatar? If you have I bet you wouldn't deny them rights but why would that be? Talking about the Na Vi btw

6. I really don't know. All I know is that the ''law'' is incapable of valuing entities of any sort. It's seems like a majority thing for me

7. Yeah because the entities who made the law decided to give the both of you the same value that's it.

8. Guilty of committing assault on the women and a trial is not needed in this to kill. Just like if I go out in the woods and a grizzly bear decides to charge at me I have every right to kill it even though it doesn't consciously know what it is doing.

9. Read 8

10. Yes a fetus has a brain I don't deny this.

11. Yes because I think a decently developed mind is what would make a entity a person. A brain dead human has permanently lost their mind. The only thing that is left is just the human animal body. Sorry if you think it's ''disrespectful'' nothing I can do about that

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

1. GBR...

2. The values that Steve wants to exist is impossible.

3. And your right, there's no comparison...especially since 85% of the abortions occur 12 weeks and under. 61% of abortions within the 85% occur during what is still considered to be embryo stage.

4. Steve's argument is that the value of an unborn that ranges from a single cell zygote to just larger than a kidney bean...has the same value as women who conceived it.

5. A 12 week old has no brain functions that controls body functions, nor does it have a cerebral cortex that would even begin to allow it to have brain waive functions.

6. Steve's argument is....it's human.

7. Actually a conception is considered by Steve to be a human being, which is just not the case...scientifically or other wise.

1. What's that abbreviation for?

2. Well those values exist. He wants to put them in the legal standing unfortunately

3. The vast majority of abortion happen before the unborn human even get's the structures in the head that allows a mind to exist. That isn't until pass 20 weeks and before that point over 99% of abortion are done.

4. Yes he believes that all humans have about the same value. And he knows from debating with me that my valuation system is completely different than his thus we will disagree on this topic.

5. Yes there is no mind for quite a bit

6. He can tell us the unborn are human but that's not what the debate is about. It was maybe back in the early 1900's

7. Ok

 

[sangha]

Nice response

Actually, it is. You can say that X makes the difference but if you do, you should be able to justify it.

You care about DNA. I don't.

Why should I?

 

[scatt]

You can say that X makes the difference but if you do, you should be able to justify it.

The creation of the new human is the only non-arbitrary point. It can be observed and tested, and cannot vary.

 

[sangha]

The creation of the new human is the only non-arbitrary point. It can be observed and tested, and cannot vary.

How is it less arbitrary than birth?

 

[scatt]

How is it less arbitrary than birth?

It is not arbitrary at all, not just less. It cannot be debated that the creation of a human is not arbitrary.

And you can give birth to a dead child. It is arbitrary.

 

[Steve Ja]

Actually, it is. You can say that X makes the difference but if you do, you should be able to justify it.

You care about DNA. I don't.

Why should I?

/i understand your view. did you quote something from a different thread and post it in here?

 

[sangha]

It is not arbitrary at all, not just less. It cannot be debated that the creation of a human is not arbitrary.

And you can give birth to a dead child. It is arbitrary.

What isn't arbitrary about it?

 

[Removable Mind]

1. What's that abbreviation for?

2. Well those values exist. He wants to put them in the legal standing unfortunately

3. The vast majority of abortion happen before the unborn human even get's the structures in the head that allows a mind to exist. That isn't until pass 20 weeks and before that point over 99% of abortion are done.

4. Yes he believes that all humans have about the same value. And he knows from debating with me that my valuation system is completely different than his thus we will disagree on this topic.

5. Yes there is no mind for quite a bit

6. He can tell us the unborn are human but that's not what the debate is about. It was maybe back in the early 1900's

7. Ok

GBR is an abbreviation of your name...

 

[scatt]

What isn't arbitrary about it?

Observable, testable, and does not vary.

 

[Removable Mind]

It is not arbitrary at all, not just less. It cannot be debated that the creation of a human is not arbitrary.

And you can give birth to a dead child. It is arbitrary.

Biologically speaking...a conception between humans is most likely going to result in a human zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus.

But the value of these stages of development vary. How they are valued and by whom...well..that really is arbitrary.

 

[scatt]

Biologically speaking...a conception between humans is most likely going to result in a human zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus.

But the value of these stages of development vary. How they are valued and by whom...well..that really is arbitrary.

Value is subjective, I have no idea why you brought up value.

 

[sangha]

Observable, testable, and does not vary.

How is it observable, testable and invariant?

When does this creation occur?

 

[scatt]

How is it observable, testable and invariant?

When does this creation occur?

Sight, again sight (one way), and it does not differ from human to human.

Fertilization.

 

[sangha]

/i understand your view. did you quote something from a different thread and post it in here?

I'm confused or you are

You said something to the effect that the creation of a new set of DNA equates to the creation of a new human being. As I mentioned in another post, that suggests you place significance on the DNA (as a marker for the creation of a new life worthy of protection)

So while I have no problem with you placing such significance on the DNA, i'm asking why anyone else should care about it or consider it as significant as you seem to.

Basically, I'm asking you a more polite version of the "So what?" post that joko wrote.

 

[sangha]

Sight, again sight (one way), and it does not differ from human to human.

Fertilization.

How does one see into a woman's womb?

And it does differ from woman to woman.

 

[scatt]

How does one see into a woman's womb?

And it does differ from woman to woman.

Sight.

Nope.

 

[sangha]

Sight.

You can see through a woman's skin into her womb?

Nope.

Yes

 

[calamity]

I was about ready to link that article but you beat me to it.

I'm quite interested in the biology of human development. As a guy, I have little reason to be pro or anti abortion other than to follow what I think makes sense. If a fetus was thinking and feeling instead of basically unconscious and impervious to pain or its surroundings--at least up until about week 24--I would not support abortion. But, as it is, the mother's life is far more valuable, IMO, than an unborn human which has not even yet developed conscious thought.

 

[scatt]

You can see through a woman's skin into her womb?

Yes

Nope.

Nope.

 

[sangha]

Nope.

Then how can you see it?

Nope.

yes

 

[scatt]

Then how can you see it?

yes

Sight.

Nope.

 

[Removable Mind]

Value is subjective, I have no idea why you brought up value.

Sorry, Scatt...did that for the benefit of the author of the OP.

 

[Steve Ja]

I'm confused or you are

You said something to the effect that the creation of a new set of DNA equates to the creation of a new human being. As I mentioned in another post, that suggests you place significance on the DNA (as a marker for the creation of a new life worthy of protection)

So while I have no problem with you placing such significance on the DNA, i'm asking why anyone else should care about it or consider it as significant as you seem to.

Basically, I'm asking you a more polite version of the "So what?" post that joko wrote.

Ah well that is up to the individual. I was saying that DNA make up is what makes the human being a human being

 

[minnie616]

Their nervous system, all organs and even skin are there. it is not fully developed correct. brain waves start in week 6. Is there proof they don't feel pain, or is this an assumption based on development

I posted this from from: The Consciousness Meter: Sure You Want That?:

The tricky part comes when these definitions of life get applied at the beginning of life. The landmark 1973 case Roe v. Wade replaced an old marker of life — the “quickening” or first movements of the fetus — with one based on fetal viability, which typically occurs at about the 23d week.

This was a tactical move meant to provide a firmer marker for legal purposes. Law seeks clarity. Which is where a consciousness meter could be quite tempting to the courts — and discouraging to anti-abortion conservatives:

As leading neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga, a member of President Bush’s Council on Bioethics, describes in his book The Ethical Brain, current neurology suggests that a fetus doesn’t possess enough neural structure to harbor consciousness
until about 26 weeks, when it first seems to react to pain.

Before that, the fetal neural structure is about as sophisticated as that of a sea slug and its EEG as flat and unorganized as that of someone brain-dead.

The consciometer may not put the abortion issue to rest—given the deeply held religious and moral views on all sides, it’s hard to imagine that anything could.

But by adding a definitive neurophysiological marker to the historical and secular precedents allowing abortion in the first two-thirds of pregnancy, it may greatly buttress the status quo or even slightly push back the 23-week boundary.

The Consciousness Meter: Sure You Want That? - Wired Science

From the following article:

Nevertheless, the medical consensus is that while a fetus may exhibit reflexes before viability, its nervous system is not developed enough to process pain until sometime in the third trimester. In 2010, Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists reviewed the available evidence and concluded that the “fetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks because the connections in the fetal brain are not fully formed.” Further, it found, the fetus, “while in the chemical environment of the womb, is in a state of induced sleep and is unconscious.”

Even one of the pioneers of fetal anesthesia, Mark Rosen, argues that fetuses don’t feel pain. As Annie Murphy Paul reported in The New York Times, the fetal-anesthesia protocols that Rosen pioneered are used worldwide, meaning that he “may have done more to prevent fetal pain than anyone else alive—[Bexcept that he doesn’t believe that fetal pain exists.”[/B]

Rosen was the lead author of a 2005 article in The Journal of the American Medical Association reviewing over 2,000 articles on fetal pain. “Pain is an emotional and psychological experience that requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus,” Rosen and his colleagues wrote. “Consequently, the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalamocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur in the third trimester around 29 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, based on the limited data available.”

“I have every reason to want to believe that the fetus feels pain, that I’ve been treating pain all these years,” he told Paul. “But if you look at the evidence, it’s hard to conclude that that’s true.” The use of anesthesia in fetal surgery, the article concluded, serves purposes unrelated to preventing pain, including keeping the fetus from moving and preventing instinctive stress responses.

The Uncertain Science Of Fetal Pain - The Daily Beast