Life begins at conception...

[1Perry]

OK. Is that a reason to make them illegal?

For me it is.

 

[1Perry]

No, this was in response to whether you think it is okay to unplug the brain dead. You said unplug and then implied that the vast majority of abortions occur after brain function is established. That is not true.

What we learn is changing all the time. We know that the brain is forming very early on. 7 weeks I believe. It's somewhere around 50% that are performed after that.

 

[mac]

What we learn is changing all the time. We know that the brain is forming very early on. 7 weeks I believe. It's somewhere around 50% that are performed after that.

actually, the brain begins to form as early as 3 weeks..

 

[BayToBay]

Many types of B.C. do just that but yet they are legl. Few make the point that they shouldn't be. Is this a position that one should hold? I dunno but it has about as much of a chance as making circumcision illegal so it's not worth discussing.

If you do not believe the idea that life begins at conception is worth discussing then why are you discussing it?

It's certain relevant to the "it's only a zygote" arguement.

See thread title.

So they could in no way support themselves.

Much like an infant. Not like a fertilized egg. Again, the support that a fertilized egg needs goes WAY beyond a feeding tube. It does not require simply burdening a machine, but rather a fully functional human being.

If you are in a coma you are in nothing but in extraordinary care. Without it you are dead.

A feeding tube is not extraordinary care. NOTHING we can technologically provide as life support is extraordinary as the support given by the mother.

Elective abortions do not occur at this point. Why do I continually have to bring up that point?

Thread title. If you don't support the position that life begins at conception then why are you bothering with this? Are you saying life begins at conception, but it should not be protected until sometime later? I don't know what the point of that argument would be. Apparently, then pro-lifers want to kill babies.

 

[Thunder]

if life begins at conception, does that mean that animal cruelty laws should be applied to 1-day old kitty eggs?

 

[BayToBay]

What we learn is changing all the time. We know that the brain is forming very early on. 7 weeks I believe. It's somewhere around 50% that are performed after that.

So? Why you continue to return to your estimates on when most abortions occur is beyond me. If you don't support the idea that life begins at conception and therefroe all abortions are death and possibly murder then what's your point? If you do, then when most abortions occur has no relevance.

 

[stelz]

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-

That's retarded. Life has no beginning, sperm is alive.

Wouldn't surprise me to see the fanatic wingnuts running around with "MASTURBATION IS MURDER" signs, though. Complete with misspellings and Cheetoh stains.

 

[CriticalThought]

That's retarded. Life has no beginning, sperm is alive.

Wouldn't surprise me to see the fanatic wingnuts running around with "MASTURBATION IS MURDER" signs, though. Complete with misspellings and Cheetoh stains.

I think their notion is that it isn't "human" life until the egg and sperm combine.

 

[stelz]

I think their notion is that it isn't "human" life until the egg and sperm combine.

That's because they have zygote brains.

 

[RamFel]

Since you have yet to define what exactly you mean by life it is only your opinion and in the light of the fact that you have not been able to show why that is significant it is an irrelevant opinion.

Life? You need me to define life? OK, I’ll humor you:

The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

Go ahead and respond to that, so I can tear it apart.

Has anyone asked you to change? However it is imperative for you to stay out of other people's lives.

Read it again. I never actually said that anyone asked me to change my views. Stay out of people’s live? What on Earth are you talking about?

Is that relevant? (I asked if you if you could offer me proof that human life doesn’t exist at conception).

You never answered the question. Would you care to do that now?

Oh, and yes, it’s relevant.

You thinking and truth are not necessarily the same.

Prove it.

Yea but they also realize that that life has no significance beyond that accorded to it by the woman making that life possible.

That’s only your irrelevant opinion.

Please spare us the ignorant emotional crap.

Hundreds of thousands of babies die each year, and this is the only response you can come up with? Please spare us you dictatorial bloodthirsty crap.

So now you know what I believe too. Why don't you concentrate on making sense first?

I make perfect sense. Do you know how to think?

It is apparent that you actually know very little. The best you can claim is that you believe, which does not give you the right to meddle.

I know when life begins. You pretend not to know in order to support abortion, and only to support abortion. You’re a sell out to the human race.

AGAIN, SO WHAT?

So what? For the lives lost at the hands of you maniacs. That’s so what.

 

[Thunder]

Life does not begin at conception.

Sperm is a live. Eggs are alive.

but sperm nor eggs are human beings.

and neither is a day-old fertilized egg.

 

[Hicup]

We don't have the technology yet. Wait until we can actually identify what most genes do and then tell me whether or not it catches on in a rational society.



I'm not sure what you mean. Natural selection has to do with anything that affects reproductive fitness. Abortion would fit within that category.



Indeed. And yet infanticide is still commonly practiced in the world today, particularly in countries like China.



Indeed. It seems our general solution is to ignore that they exist until they become criminals, mentally ill, or substance abusers at which point we pay to imprison them. Often they become impoverished or homeless and we blame them for not overcoming their suffering because a tiny minority of lucky individuals have managed to do so. So perhaps killing them would have been kinder but if we can cast the blame entirely on them we can justify it in our own minds that we did them some sort of favor by letting them live.

Boy, you sound like Darwin, CT. A lot of people don't even know that Darwin was a huge fan of Eurgenics.. So was Shaw, and many other progressives..

Not to change the subject but I feel I must point out that if homosexuality was indeed found to be genetic; in your later fantasy world where eugenics is the norm, I suspect you'd be aborted yourself. Not a very bright future for homosexuals.




Tim-

 

[1Perry]

So? Why you continue to return to your estimates on when most abortions occur is beyond me. If you don't support the idea that life begins at conception and therefroe all abortions are death and possibly murder then what's your point? If you do, then when most abortions occur has no relevance.

They all are clearly a death. How anyone can state otherwise is simply saying that they do not actually want to defend their positions. I've said many times that murder is simply a legal definition.

 

[1Perry]

Life does not begin at conception.

Sperm is a live. Eggs are alive.

but sperm nor eggs are human beings.

and neither is a day-old fertilized egg.

Irrelevant to the discussion. Abortions do not happen at this point. But in the end you are simply left with opinion as to where a seperate life begins.

 

[Hicup]

Life does not begin at conception.

Sperm is a live. Eggs are alive.

but sperm nor eggs are human beings.

and neither is a day-old fertilized egg.

You're a little late with that argument. Didn't read the thread did ya?

Tim-

 

[winston53660]

They all are clearly a death. How anyone can state otherwise is simply saying that they do not actually want to defend their positions. I've said many times that murder is simply a legal definition.

Murder is codified that way for a good reason.

 

[Hicup]

To, prometeus.

Listen, you can't get away with arguments that essentially say you're right, just because.. We take debate a little more seriously around here. At least some of us do. What does life mean to you, when does life begin for you, and do you have anything remotely empirical to back you up?


Tim-

 

[Alyssa]

Human life begins at conception. At birth, by law, they are considered persons. Only persons are protected by the law.

/Thread

 

[Hicup]

Human life begins at conception. At birth, by law, they are considered persons. Only persons are protected by the law.

/Thread

The legal definition is suspect, and that's kinda what we're debating here, Evanscence.

What is a person Evan?

/thread continues..


Tim-

 

[Alyssa]

The legal definition is suspect, and that's kinda what we're debating here, Evanscence.

What is a person Evan?

/thread continues..


Tim-

Well mac seemed to like your argument that personhood is an intricate part of the abortion debate, and yet he claims personhood is irrelevant in another thread. :roll:

Tell me the truth about your position here: Do you believe that all human life is sacred?

 

[Thunder]

Tell me the truth about your position here: Do you believe that all human life is sacred?

sacred, as in holy...endowed with a spirit and soul by God?

 

[digsbe]

Human life begins at conception. At birth, by law, they are considered persons. Only persons are protected by the law.

/Thread

There are laws against fetal homicide. Regardless, under past laws slaves were not considered people and were not fully protected. Laws on the books don't always equate with justice. Just because something is law doesn't mean it's right and cannot be changed to properly reflect true justice and equality.

 

[Alyssa]

There are laws against fetal homicide. Regardless, under past laws slaves were not considered people and were not protected. Laws on the books don't always equate with justice. Just because something is law doesn't mean it's right and cannot be changed to properly reflect true justice and equality.

True, but current law protects persons, and a ZEF is not a person, nor can it be compared with enslaved people.

 

[digsbe]

True, but current law protects persons, and a ZEF is not a person, nor can it be compared with enslaved people.

The comparison is that personal definitions of personhood allow for atrocities (abortion and slavery) to be legal under the law. A ZEF is a human life, and that much should be enough reason to protect it.

 

[Hicup]

Any society that places any bearing on virtue, must first posses the ability to recognize how it came to be. Moreover, it is beholden on these virtuous societies to protect above all, those that are unable to protect themselves. What some here are doing is simply moving the goal posts. It makes them feel more comfortable, and for that, I do not immediately admonish, but I am able to question why. It appears as though some are confusing life, with sentient life. Our pressence here as evidence that we are much more than those little clump of cells, however, I argue that we are not more, we are merely more advanced, experienced, well established human beings with thoughts and feelings, and anything else one might ascribe to what constitutes a developed human being; but we are not different.

I think that my only compromise would be a society that would only ever have laws that place restictions on abortion except due to the most sever, and exceptional cases. I can deal with that, and I understand, but what we do here in the USA is not that, and we should be ashamed of it.


Tim-