Life begins at conception...

[BDBoop]

A "little girl" on abortion doesn't know anything about the subject and has no way of understanding what she is parroting. PARROTING what she has heard, too bad she hasn't been exposed to other opinions and been allowed to actually THINK!

I won't be watching that video for the same reason I won't be listening to anybody who hasn't actually ever been anywhere NEAR my shoes.

 

[prometeus]

Even at that instance when conception first happens, you instantly have one thing; life.

What you don't have is respect for that life.

Ah, so you could not address any of my post?

 

[prometeus]

YOUTUBE VIDEO

Give me a ****ing brake. Can't you come up with a single rational argument?

 

[mac]

You did and are still doing it.

Nor have i claimed it was, but I did tell you that the use of the slavery argument is a weak one and it seems that since you are unable to defend that position or refute mine, you are dodging and evading.

It has nothing to do with any supernatural ability. Human can and do recognize humans all the time and every time. I also asked you to name a single instance where that was not so and obviously you can not.

Nor id I say it was, but nice dodge again.

The diversion and dishonesty is all yours here again.

But you can not name a single instance in which that can occur.

Do you try to miss the point?

 

[prometeus]

Murder is murder, man's law not withstanding.
I don't need some pinhead in Washington to tell me what murder is.
Baby killers love to hide behind the law.

Right, you clearly need some pinhead in a robe to tell you.
Religious zealots need to hide behind dogma to mask their inability to think for themselves.

 

[prometeus]

The only discussion is whether or not that life is deserving of a legal protection.

Bingo. Is it in your opinion and why? It is not in mine.

 

[1Perry]

Bingo. Is it in your opinion and why? It is not in mine.

To decide when you want to grant protection is an opinion and I grant that you are the utmost expert on your opinion concerning that. That it is life is not opinion. I can indeed make fun of you if you state otherwise.

 

[prometeus]

To decide when you want to grant protection is an opinion and I grant that you are the utmost expert on your opinion concerning that. That it is life is not opinion. I can indeed make fun of you if you state otherwise.

Perhaps you misunderstood my question. I was asking if in your opinion the fetus should be granted legal protection and if so why? sorry if I was not clear.

 

[RamFel]

LOL, are you trying to tell us that INSTANTLY when conception happens, you THEN have life? That's what you said!!! Don't you know that life is already present before conception....don't you know eggs and sperm are alive and gasp....human?

Actually, I agree with you. Eggs and sperm are alive, but they're not human yet. Not when they're separate. It's when they join they form a live human.

Life does truly begin at conception.

 

[1Perry]

Perhaps you misunderstood my question. I was asking if in your opinion the fetus should be granted legal protection and if so why? sorry if I was not clear.

O.K. sorry.

I believe that the ultimate liberty is the freedom of life. For that reason I am against taking a human life under any circumstance other than to protect your own.

I am also a realist though and I realize it's highly unlikely that we will any time soon protect the life in question from conception.

 

[prometeus]

O.K. sorry.

I believe that the ultimate liberty is the freedom of life. For that reason I am against taking a human life under any circumstance other than to protect your own.

I am also a realist though and I realize it's highly unlikely that we will any time soon protect the life in question from conception.

OK thanks, but I must ask: What is your premise for opposing the taking of life. I do understand your stance on liberty and freedom and I share that, but I also hold that that which can not utilize, enjoy, or even recognize freedom is not significant.

 

[prometeus]

Actually, I agree with you. Eggs and sperm are alive, but they're not human yet.

right, they are ostrich and then by magic they become human. As I asked, have you ever had a biology class?

 

[RamFel]

Right, you clearly need some pinhead in a robe to tell you.
Religious zealots need to hide behind dogma to mask their inability to think for themselves.

Boy, you really don't like religion, do you.

Well, it's your soul, but I'll say a prayer for you.

 

[RamFel]

right, they are ostrich and then by magic they become human. As I asked, have you ever had a biology class?

Why? Do you mean to tell me that you found proof that human egg and sperm are really ostrich in a Biology class?

 

[1Perry]

OK thanks, but I must ask: What is your premise for opposing the taking of life.

As I stated, it's because I believe life is the ultimate liberty.

I do understand your stance on liberty and freedom and I share that, but I also hold that that which can not utilize, enjoy, or even recognize freedom is not significant.

A guy in a coma can not either. We have the hope and belief that he soon will.

 

[BayToBay]

right, they are ostrich and then by magic they become human. As I asked, have you ever had a biology class?

Most biological definitions of life do not include sperm. There is no growth within the sperm or egg and they are not able to reproduce on their own. But who cares?

Why should we apply a definition that SOME find useful in a biological context to the legal, medical and ethical contexts? Somebody without brain function and on life support is human and still biologically alive. They are not considered to be alive for legal, medical and/or ethical purposes.

How many pro lifers check to make sure that menstrual discharge did not include one of their "living" "children" that died prior to implantation? Do you cry over these tampons or pads and hold a funeral? Or do you just not bother and throw it out with the trash?

The biological definition is not relevant and never was.

 

[prometeus]

Boy, you really don't like religion, do you.

Well, it's your soul, but I'll say a prayer for you.

What i do not like is self righteous assholes attempting to impose their vies, religious or otherwise on others. religion as such is fine. Thanks for the prayer, but somehow I do not believe that that would be the determining factor. My fate, from a "religious" perspective, will rest solely on my deeds and sincerity. I am comfortable with that.

 

[prometeus]

As I stated, it's because I believe life is the ultimate liberty.

OK

A guy in a coma can not either. We have the hope and belief that he soon will.

The guy in coma, often is disconnected.

 

[prometeus]

Most biological definitions of life do not include sperm.

Most and it is incorrect to state that sperm is NOT alive especially in the context of the post I responded to.

Why should we apply a definition that SOME find useful in a biological context to the legal, medical and ethical contexts? Somebody without brain function and on life support is human and still biologically alive. They are not considered to be alive for legal, medical and/or ethical purposes.

Agreed

The biological definition is not relevant and never was.

Also true.

 

[BDBoop]

Boy, you really don't like religion, do you.

Well, it's your soul, but I'll say a prayer for you.

Ah, yes. The Fundy version of "Bless your little pea-pickin heart!"

 

[mac]

Ah, yes. The Fundy version of "Bless your little pea-pickin heart!"

Country people say funny ****, boy.

 

[BayToBay]

Most and it is incorrect to state that sperm is NOT alive especially in the context of the post I responded to.

We mostly agree which I realized before.

Still, according to most biological definitions sperm is not alive. It does not meet the usual criteria. Like I said, who cares? There are other definitions of life used in biology, other fields of science or elswhere that would say sperm is alive. That's my point, the biological definition is not controlling, written in stone or more accurate than any other definition. If it works in biology then it is a good definition in biology.

It does not work in the legal, medical and ethical realms for the reasons I noted. Most would disagree with applying the biological definition of life to the brain dead in the legal, medical or ethical context. Even most pro-lifers do not use the definition as evidenced by the point that they do not mourn those who "die" as a result of spontaneous abortion. Some will claim this absurd, but it's absurd because NO ONE really believes that a fertilized egg is equivalent to the born or a "viable" fetus. At that point, if it died on its own most would mourn it. If it were killed most would find the act distasteful and unsettling. Our response is based on the fact that we place great value in the born or "viable" fetus and virtually none in the fertilized egg that dies spontaneously. We don't even bother to take note of the fertilized egg that dies.

There is no point in arguing the biological definition of life unless you are a biologist or you are dealing with a biological question. Whether or not abortion should be legal is NOT a question for biology. It can inform, but it is totally inadequate for answering the question.

 

[mac]

Most and it is incorrect to state that sperm is NOT alive especially in the context of the post I responded to.

A sperm is a living cell. I will not develop further than being a single cell, and it does not contain unique DNA. A ZEF will grow and develop through its lifespan and contains unique human DNA. Sperm is a specialized single cell, and though alive, is not an individual life.

 

[BayToBay]

A guy in a coma can not either. We have the hope and belief that he soon will.

A person in a coma has adequate brain function to enjoy freedom. They are just unconscious not dead. It has been a long time since we confused those two. A persons heart could even stop and they should not be termed dead for medical or legal purpsoes. IMO, it is fairly clear that brain function is the necessary condition for life in questions of legal, medical and ethical purposes.

 

[1Perry]

What i do not like is self righteous assholes attempting to impose their vies, religious or otherwise on others. religion as such is fine. Thanks for the prayer, but somehow I do not believe that that would be the determining factor. My fate, from a "religious" perspective, will rest solely on my deeds and sincerity. I am comfortable with that.

Just to note. Everyone tries to impose their values on others in all sorts of things. Any sort of law or regulation is someone imposing their views on others.