Life begins at conception...

[Hicup]

On Friday, June 24, a federal court temporarily suspended portions of Indiana’s House Bill 1210, which contained a provision aimed at defunding abortionist organizations, like Planned Parenthood, within the state. And although this suspension was disappointing, other aspects of the court’s decision were a boon for pro-life groups in Indiana and the whole nation. The reason is because the court upheld a key portion of the bill that requires women seeking abortions to be informed that “human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm.”

link: Federal Court affirms "human physical life" begins at conception - Page 1 - Steven Aden - Townhall Conservative

Wow, the tide may be changing in favor of the defenseless once again.


Tim-

 

[1751Texan]

link: Federal Court affirms "human physical life" begins at conception - Page 1 - Steven Aden - Townhall Conservative

Wow, the tide may be changing in favor of the defenseless once again.

Tim-

First of all, a state can place any language it wishes into law. Secondly, the state mandated phrase...“human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm.” to be recited to a woman prior to her legally terminating her pregancy...in no way restricts her right to the abortion nor establishes in any forum that life begins at conception.

 

[1Perry]

First of all, a state can place any language it wishes into law. Secondly, the state mandated phrase...“human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm.” to be recited to a woman prior to her legally terminating her pregancy...in no way restricts her right to the abortion nor establishes in any forum that life begins at conception.

Of course not. Science dictated that a long time ago.

 

[OKgrannie]

Originally Posted by 1751Texan
First of all, a state can place any language it wishes into law. Secondly, the state mandated phrase...“human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm.” to be recited to a woman prior to her legally terminating her pregancy...in no way restricts her right to the abortion nor establishes in any forum that life begins at conception.

Of course not. Science dictated that a long time ago.

"Science" is not in agreement, so even IF "science" had the authority to proclaim "what is life", there would still be disagreement.

Inconsistancy in the “life begins at conception” argument « Human Enhancement and Biopolitics

The view that human life begins at conception is a favoured view of most of the pro-life camp. By it, they do not mean that the sperm and ova were not alive and only became so at conception, but rather that ‘human life’ – in the special sense of a person who deserves protection under the law – begins at conception. Unfortunately for them, this view is logically inconsistent with that pesky thing called reality. There is absolutely no sense in which life, whatever is meant by the term, could be said to commence during the process of conception......

It is often claimed that conception should be the marker for a human life because it marks the formation of something that can grow into a thinking, feeling, reasoning human being. Apart from the fact that conception is not a distinct point, but a process, this potentiality argument has two key problems.

First, if a zygote should be protected because it can from a human being, why not also protect the sperm and eggs, for they can form a zygote which in turn can form a human being. And seeing as males can form billions of sperm but females only form thousands of ova, it follows that males are a million times more worthy of protection than females. But seeing as this conclusion is ludicrous, there must be something wrong with the potentiality argument.

The second, a major flaw, is that being potentially something isn’t the same as being something already. To see this, consider extrapolating the potential argument in the other direction: all human beings will die. And, seeing as a zygote will form a human being who will later form a corpse, it follows that we should treat both people and zygotes as if they were corpses. If we can give the right to life for an unborn baby, maybe we should give the right to a decent burial for a pre-dead corpse (i.e. a live baby). Not to mention that skin cells can replace sperm in forming a human being (see the cloning diagram above), so it follows that each skin cell destroyed is akin to destroying a human being. Unless, of course, having the potential to

 

[Hicup]

"Science" is not in agreement, so even IF "science" had the authority to proclaim "what is life", there would still be disagreement.

Inconsistancy in the “life begins at conception” argument « Human Enhancement and Biopolitics

The view that human life begins at conception is a favoured view of most of the pro-life camp. By it, they do not mean that the sperm and ova were not alive and only became so at conception, but rather that ‘human life’ – in the special sense of a person who deserves protection under the law – begins at conception. Unfortunately for them, this view is logically inconsistent with that pesky thing called reality. There is absolutely no sense in which life, whatever is meant by the term, could be said to commence during the process of conception......

It is often claimed that conception should be the marker for a human life because it marks the formation of something that can grow into a thinking, feeling, reasoning human being. Apart from the fact that conception is not a distinct point, but a process, this potentiality argument has two key problems.

First, if a zygote should be protected because it can from a human being, why not also protect the sperm and eggs, for they can form a zygote which in turn can form a human being. And seeing as males can form billions of sperm but females only form thousands of ova, it follows that males are a million times more worthy of protection than females. But seeing as this conclusion is ludicrous, there must be something wrong with the potentiality argument.

The second, a major flaw, is that being potentially something isn’t the same as being something already. To see this, consider extrapolating the potential argument in the other direction: all human beings will die. And, seeing as a zygote will form a human being who will later form a corpse, it follows that we should treat both people and zygotes as if they were corpses. If we can give the right to life for an unborn baby, maybe we should give the right to a decent burial for a pre-dead corpse (i.e. a live baby). Not to mention that skin cells can replace sperm in forming a human being (see the cloning diagram above), so it follows that each skin cell destroyed is akin to destroying a human being. Unless, of course, having the potential to

Disagreement is fine. Clearly you do not agree. Well, problem is that we have that pesky little thing called reality on our side of the debate as well.

Tim-

 

[1Perry]

"Science" is not in agreement, so even IF "science" had the authority to proclaim "what is life", there would still be disagreement.

No, you changed the arguement. Perhaps you didn't mean to but you did. It is a it of a peeve with me when this happens. Just so you are aware.

Life begins at conception. There is no arguement there. Can't be. Whether it's "human" life is a semantics arguement and something entirely different.

 

[atrasicarius]

Oh look, I need this once again:

 

[1751Texan]

Disagreement is fine. Clearly you do not agree. Well, problem is that we have that pesky little thing called reality on our side of the debate as well.

Tim-

There is your reality and the law. Currently the law allows abortions until viability[24weeks], abortions under strict conditions and regulations after 24 wks.

 

[mac]

"Science" is not in agreement, so even IF "science" had the authority to proclaim "what is life", there would still be disagreement.

Inconsistancy in the “life begins at conception” argument « Human Enhancement and Biopolitics

The view that human life begins at conception is a favoured view of most of the pro-life camp. By it, they do not mean that the sperm and ova were not alive and only became so at conception, but rather that ‘human life’ – in the special sense of a person who deserves protection under the law – begins at conception. Unfortunately for them, this view is logically inconsistent with that pesky thing called reality. There is absolutely no sense in which life, whatever is meant by the term, could be said to commence during the process of conception......

It is often claimed that conception should be the marker for a human life because it marks the formation of something that can grow into a thinking, feeling, reasoning human being. Apart from the fact that conception is not a distinct point, but a process, this potentiality argument has two key problems.

First, if a zygote should be protected because it can from a human being, why not also protect the sperm and eggs, for they can form a zygote which in turn can form a human being. And seeing as males can form billions of sperm but females only form thousands of ova, it follows that males are a million times more worthy of protection than females. But seeing as this conclusion is ludicrous, there must be something wrong with the potentiality argument.

The second, a major flaw, is that being potentially something isn’t the same as being something already. To see this, consider extrapolating the potential argument in the other direction: all human beings will die. And, seeing as a zygote will form a human being who will later form a corpse, it follows that we should treat both people and zygotes as if they were corpses. If we can give the right to life for an unborn baby, maybe we should give the right to a decent burial for a pre-dead corpse (i.e. a live baby). Not to mention that skin cells can replace sperm in forming a human being (see the cloning diagram above), so it follows that each skin cell destroyed is akin to destroying a human being. Unless, of course, having the potential to

You use a blog as a counterpoint?

 

[mac]

There is your reality and the law. Currently the law allows abortions until viability[24weeks], abortions under strict conditions and regulations after 24 wks.

Viability and human life are not the same thing.

 

[Bodi]

There is your reality and the law. Currently the law allows abortions until viability[24weeks], abortions under strict conditions and regulations after 24 wks.

And the law is always a reflection or reality... huh? Nice argument. FAIL.

 

[Occam's Razor]

link: Federal Court affirms "human physical life" begins at conception - Page 1 - Steven Aden - Townhall Conservative

Wow, the tide may be changing in favor of the defenseless once again.


Tim-

Let me explain to you why this will never happen....

The problem with the left is that for several decades they have been lacking a single get out the base issue that vast majorities of them can get behind. The right has religion and right to life. Two huge issues that motivate the base voters and inflames passions.

If Roe v Wade is overturned or some similar right to life triumph, this base issue ceases to play to republican voters and becomes a unifying left issue. Politics... gotta love it.

Clear evidence of this would be the first six years of the Bush admin, with a rubber stamp congress and a sympathetic Supreme Court... not one thing on the issue was done. Not one.

The reality is political strategy. For forty years it has been playing out this way. The reality is... republicans had a chance to do something about it for six years... and chose not to. Think about that.

 

[Paschendale]

The little blurb that must be recited to women to guilt them about an already difficult decision (end opinion portion and begin objective portion) has no actual bearing on law. No federal court (they also neglected to mention which court and what its authority is) actually made a legal decision about when life begins. The title of the article is entirely misleading.

 

[digsbe]

"Science" is not in agreement, so even IF "science" had the authority to proclaim "what is life", there would still be disagreement.

Science is in agreement. Please quote one scientist who doesn't believe that when egg and sperm fuse that their chromosomes don't mix to form a full human genome that is unique. Biology is a discipline of science. Biology is the study of life. Biologically, a fertilized egg is a new human life and conception is when this new life begins. This is scientific fact.

 

[OKgrannie]

Science is in agreement. Please quote one scientist who doesn't believe that when egg and sperm fuse that their chromosomes don't mix to form a full human genome that is unique. Biology is a discipline of science. Biology is the study of life. Biologically, a fertilized egg is a new human life and conception is when this new life begins. This is scientific fact.

All true except....this is not NEW life.

Life does not begin at conception » Ziztur.com: Finding joy in being wrong

let’s restate the obvoius: Life does not begin at conception. Conception, in us sexually reproducing animals, consists of the fusion of gametes—the sperm fertilises the ovum. But, and this should be painfully obvious to everyone, the gametes are alive. You are the product of a living spermatozoon and a living ovum. Fertilisation did not mark the creation of life, only the fusion of two living cells into a single living cell.

This fusion is certainly a defining moment in your life. Barring mutation so unlikely that I expect it can be discounted, and excepting rare conditions like chimerism and mosaicism, it is the last event that defines your genetic makeup, when the chromosomes you inherit from your parents merge. It is, in a very real sense, a defining moment. It is not, however, the defining moment, because there are many.....

What, then, is so magical about conception? Nothing, really. It’s a defining moment in making you who you are, but it’s really just one of billions upon billions of defining moments. Causing the death of a zygote does exactly as much in preventing a particular potential person from coming about as does causing the death of a spermatozoon (e.g. by masturbating, by ejaculating outside a woman, by using a condom, or by doing nothing and letting the spermatozoon die and get reabsorbed into the body); as does wasting the life of an ovum (by menstruating, in the luteal or ischemic phase). But removing the possibility of a specific human being is even more ubiquitous; after all, every human alive represents millions of potential people lost, as the ones produced by the spermatozoa who lost the race would undoubtedly have been different.

 

[Hicup]

I fail to see how wasting sperm, or ovum, or shedding skin, or whatever else you think is a logical connection to make you feel comfortable with your feelings, has to do with when life begins? When the substance of a man, and a woman get together, they produce, and replicate only one thing. It cannot become anything else, it can only ever become a completely unique new human being.


Tim-

 

[1Perry]

only the fusion of two living cells into a single living cell.

 

[mac]

All true except....this is not NEW life.

Life does not begin at conception » Ziztur.com: Finding joy in being wrong

let’s restate the obvoius: Life does not begin at conception. Conception, in us sexually reproducing animals, consists of the fusion of gametes—the sperm fertilises the ovum. But, and this should be painfully obvious to everyone, the gametes are alive. You are the product of a living spermatozoon and a living ovum. Fertilisation did not mark the creation of life, only the fusion of two living cells into a single living cell.

This fusion is certainly a defining moment in your life. Barring mutation so unlikely that I expect it can be discounted, and excepting rare conditions like chimerism and mosaicism, it is the last event that defines your genetic makeup, when the chromosomes you inherit from your parents merge. It is, in a very real sense, a defining moment. It is not, however, the defining moment, because there are many.....

What, then, is so magical about conception? Nothing, really. It’s a defining moment in making you who you are, but it’s really just one of billions upon billions of defining moments. Causing the death of a zygote does exactly as much in preventing a particular potential person from coming about as does causing the death of a spermatozoon (e.g. by masturbating, by ejaculating outside a woman, by using a condom, or by doing nothing and letting the spermatozoon die and get reabsorbed into the body); as does wasting the life of an ovum (by menstruating, in the luteal or ischemic phase). But removing the possibility of a specific human being is even more ubiquitous; after all, every human alive represents millions of potential people lost, as the ones produced by the spermatozoa who lost the race would undoubtedly have been different.

Another blog....good lord grannie. Anyways, there is one obvious problem with the conclusion in your highly biased source....sperm and ovum are both specialized cells that are indeed alive, but do not develop and grow beyond their only stage of existence. They are cells, nothing more. Once they "combine", they create a life form which grows and develops through many stages of life. They do indeed create a new life through reproduction.

And it is indeed, new life. A unique life, with unique DNA.


I can't wait till you start quoting the enquirer............

 

[RamFel]

"Science" is not in agreement, so even IF "science" had the authority to proclaim "what is life", there would still be disagreement.

Inconsistancy in the “life begins at conception” argument « Human Enhancement and Biopolitics

The view that human life begins at conception is a favoured view of most of the pro-life camp. By it, they do not mean that the sperm and ova were not alive and only became so at conception, but rather that ‘human life’ – in the special sense of a person who deserves protection under the law – begins at conception. Unfortunately for them, this view is logically inconsistent with that pesky thing called reality. There is absolutely no sense in which life, whatever is meant by the term, could be said to commence during the process of conception......

It is often claimed that conception should be the marker for a human life because it marks the formation of something that can grow into a thinking, feeling, reasoning human being. Apart from the fact that conception is not a distinct point, but a process, this potentiality argument has two key problems.

First, if a zygote should be protected because it can from a human being, why not also protect the sperm and eggs, for they can form a zygote which in turn can form a human being. And seeing as males can form billions of sperm but females only form thousands of ova, it follows that males are a million times more worthy of protection than females. But seeing as this conclusion is ludicrous, there must be something wrong with the potentiality argument.

The second, a major flaw, is that being potentially something isn’t the same as being something already. To see this, consider extrapolating the potential argument in the other direction: all human beings will die. And, seeing as a zygote will form a human being who will later form a corpse, it follows that we should treat both people and zygotes as if they were corpses. If we can give the right to life for an unborn baby, maybe we should give the right to a decent burial for a pre-dead corpse (i.e. a live baby). Not to mention that skin cells can replace sperm in forming a human being (see the cloning diagram above), so it follows that each skin cell destroyed is akin to destroying a human being. Unless, of course, having the potential to

Remember the old saying about the thousand mile journey starting with a single step?

Well, it seems to me that the same thing applies to human beings as well. The forming of a human being begins with two things, egg and sperm, followed by cell division. It may not look like much, but even at that small first step, the cells are very much alive, and is in fact a human being at the earliest stage of development.

This is a truth that gets in the way of a political stand. And the solution for the left is to convince the public that life begins at some other point in the development of the fetus, resulting in thousands of human deaths every year.

Nice try.

 

[RamFel]

Oh look, I need this once again:

Yawn...

That's getting a little old.

 

[digsbe]

All true except....this is not NEW life.

Life does not begin at conception » Ziztur.com: Finding joy in being wrong

let’s restate the obvoius: Life does not begin at conception. Conception, in us sexually reproducing animals, consists of the fusion of gametes—the sperm fertilises the ovum. But, and this should be painfully obvious to everyone, the gametes are alive. You are the product of a living spermatozoon and a living ovum. Fertilisation did not mark the creation of life, only the fusion of two living cells into a single living cell.

This fusion is certainly a defining moment in your life. Barring mutation so unlikely that I expect it can be discounted, and excepting rare conditions like chimerism and mosaicism, it is the last event that defines your genetic makeup, when the chromosomes you inherit from your parents merge. It is, in a very real sense, a defining moment. It is not, however, the defining moment, because there are many.....

What, then, is so magical about conception? Nothing, really. It’s a defining moment in making you who you are, but it’s really just one of billions upon billions of defining moments. Causing the death of a zygote does exactly as much in preventing a particular potential person from coming about as does causing the death of a spermatozoon (e.g. by masturbating, by ejaculating outside a woman, by using a condom, or by doing nothing and letting the spermatozoon die and get reabsorbed into the body); as does wasting the life of an ovum (by menstruating, in the luteal or ischemic phase). But removing the possibility of a specific human being is even more ubiquitous; after all, every human alive represents millions of potential people lost, as the ones produced by the spermatozoa who lost the race would undoubtedly have been different.

That's a very weak argument. It's arguing that because gametes are alive, that life does not begin at conception. when gametes fuse they cease to be gametes and the resulting cell is a human zygote. With this action the chromosomal information from both parents joins to create a unique human genome. At that point the resulting cell is neither part of the woman's body or the father's body, but is it's own cell and it's own body. New human lives begin at conception. At conception a unique human genome is created and the resulting cell begins to develop into a mature human being.

 

[Paschendale]

In what way are we defining life, here? We get rid of plenty of living cells every day. Is it murder to kill e-coli? Is a woman killing a baby every time she has her period? Life requires there to be some life functions. Independent movement, a repertory system, a cardiovascular system, brain function... something! When a human embryo can do things that a tree can't, then it gets to be a living human. Until then, it's just a whole lot of maybe.

Besides, plenty of fertilized eggs are lost in menstruation all the time, anyway. Many fertilized eggs never grow beyond fertilization.

 

[NGNM85]

Again; the question is not; 'Is a zygote alive?' The question is ; 'Does a zygote meet the sufficient conditions of a human being?'

 

[RamFel]

All true except....this is not NEW life.

Life does not begin at conception » Ziztur.com: Finding joy in being wrong

let’s restate the obvoius: Life does not begin at conception. Conception, in us sexually reproducing animals, consists of the fusion of gametes—the sperm fertilises the ovum. But, and this should be painfully obvious to everyone, the gametes are alive. You are the product of a living spermatozoon and a living ovum. Fertilisation did not mark the creation of life, only the fusion of two living cells into a single living cell.

This fusion is certainly a defining moment in your life. Barring mutation so unlikely that I expect it can be discounted, and excepting rare conditions like chimerism and mosaicism, it is the last event that defines your genetic makeup, when the chromosomes you inherit from your parents merge. It is, in a very real sense, a defining moment. It is not, however, the defining moment, because there are many.....

What, then, is so magical about conception? Nothing, really. It’s a defining moment in making you who you are, but it’s really just one of billions upon billions of defining moments. Causing the death of a zygote does exactly as much in preventing a particular potential person from coming about as does causing the death of a spermatozoon (e.g. by masturbating, by ejaculating outside a woman, by using a condom, or by doing nothing and letting the spermatozoon die and get reabsorbed into the body); as does wasting the life of an ovum (by menstruating, in the luteal or ischemic phase). But removing the possibility of a specific human being is even more ubiquitous; after all, every human alive represents millions of potential people lost, as the ones produced by the spermatozoa who lost the race would undoubtedly have been different.

Now, come on! You know that life begins at conception, don't you?

Yeah, you do! You're not fooling anyone!

 

[RamFel]

It occurred to me that either OKGrannie, or someone else, went to a lot of trouble researching this information. But the question is why? Was it to satisfy a casual interest in knowing when life begins? Most people don’t go through that much trouble for just a casual interest. They believe either one side or the other.

Or was his purpose something else? Maybe to advance a cause he believes in. He sees abortion constantly under attack by the right, and being a good leftist, determined to fend off these attacks, he probably researched until he had what he wanted. A seemingly plausible theory that showed that life really begins at some other point in time, and when that is … well, it’s anybody’s guess. I think currently it’s arbitrarily set at 24 weeks.

But there is only one truth. Life begins either at conception, or at 24 weeks, or at some other point. The conclusion that life begins at conception comes naturally. It makes sense. But why would someone want to put it somewhere else? Why would it occur to someone that life doesn’t begin not where instinct tells us, but at some other arbitrary point?

When it threatens, or prevents the advancement of a program that you believe in, that’s when.

So he, or someone else, concocted what at first seems like a well researched paper. Until we ask ourselves why? Abortion is a valuable political prize. It was won, it’s under attack, and it must be defended, even at the cost of the truth. And believe me, OKGrannie knows the real truth.

Life begins at conception.