When does human life begin?

[Montalban]

When does opinion begin?

From post 314 from the thread you're referring:

So no, it doesn't look like I'm flip flopping.

It is true that on that post you stated it was an 'opinion'.

But you also stated this as 'fact'...
Post 302

Moreover, for babies, it's been proven over and over that laughter and smiles at the age are attributed to gas and not emotion.

(emphasis mine)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=563&page=31&pp=10

Thus it was before your 'opinion' which is, as I recalled, and stated above a shift in your argument from assertions of fact - which Fantasea and myself asked for 'proof' to a shifted position of 'opinion'.

I asked you in post 307 to provide evidence for this statement on babies, which is still to be forwarded - you might well be right, I've just not seen anything other than your statement - which as noted has moved from one of assertion to 'opinion'.

Further in post 308 you answered for this 'demand' (if I can be harsh on myself) for proof, and you provided your 'evidence' without a qualifier that this was only a shared opinion, and this 'evidence' as also noted didn't even agree with your assertion.

And now you offer as 'opinion' a belief that you don't know when 'life' begins (by which I assume you mean an individual human), and by not knowing when, you seem to still be arguing for abortion. Why? If you don't know, why not be safe and go against abortion?

 

[Montalban]

It is a feeling. It's an interpretation after the facts. It's intellectually dishonest to think otherwise. Sanctity of life is not a fact, it's an opinion based on emotion (based on some facts).

Sanctity of life is an opinion, I agree. Santity is a relative term that just happens to be near universal amongst humans :2wave:

 

[shuamort]

Re: When does opinion begin?

It is true that on that post you stated it was an 'opinion'.

But you also stated this as 'fact'...
Post 302

Moreover, for babies, it's been proven over and over that laughter and smiles at the age are attributed to gas and not emotion.

(emphasis mine)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=563&page=31&pp=10

Thus it was before your 'opinion' which is, as I recalled, and stated above a shift in your argument from assertions of fact - which Fantasea and myself asked for 'proof' to a shifted position of 'opinion'.

I asked you in post 307 to provide evidence for this statement on babies, which is still to be forwarded - you might well be right, I've just not seen anything other than your statement - which as noted has moved from one of assertion to 'opinion'.

Let me go back to that point I made. You were correct that that is not a fact about gassy babies. I was sure it was. I did some research and found three camps of thought about it. One was that the smiles were gas, another was that the smiles were from the babies' disposition and that they were in fact happy, the third was that the babies were simply imitating their parents. So I'l revoke my statement that it's fact and at this point, IMO, we're not completely sure but the evidence is leaning towards the latter two.

Further in post 308 you answered for this 'demand' (if I can be harsh on myself) for proof, and you provided your 'evidence' without a qualifier that this was only a shared opinion, and this 'evidence' as also noted didn't even agree with your assertion.

Actually that assertion was tangential and didn't buttress an opinion for or against abortion.

And now you offer as 'opinion' a belief that you don't know when 'life' begins (by which I assume you mean an individual human), and by not knowing when, you seem to still be arguing for abortion. Why? If you don't know, why not be safe and go against abortion?

I am against abortion.

 

[Montalban]

Re: When does opinion begin?

I am against abortion.

I apologise for misrepresenting you.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Hi all. It's my first post, so be gentile!

We'll never agree on this issue as long as we disagree on when human life begins. That's always been the fundamental question, and nobody has been able to provide a difinitive answer.

If life begins at conception, then a cockroach is more of a life than a human zygote is. Where's the movement for cockroach rights? Ban RAID now!

If a zygote is a human, then is a human also a zygote?

Abortions happen whether it's legal or not. Eleanor Roosevelt said it brilliantly, something along the lines of "it's time to get abortion out of the coat closets and into medical facilities where it belongs." She knew abortions happen regardless, and she had the brass balls to suggest that women seek medical attention instead of coat hangers.

Granted, murder and theft will happen whether it's legal or not, and that doesn't make it right. So the fact that it happens regardless of the law doesn't automatically mean it should be ok.

But what would the pro-lifers say if it were possible to grow a test tube baby by cloning the DNA of a skin graft from someone's foot? It has the SAME potential as a human zygote to become a human, should we cry murder whenever someone skins their knee on the sidewalk?

 

[Montalban]

Hi all. It's my first post, so be gentile! (sic)

I will be a Gentile

If life begins at conception, then a cockroach is more of a life than a human zygote is. Where's the movement for cockroach rights? Ban RAID now!

This doesn't make sense, unless you meant that a cockroach is closer to its development as an adult at the conception stage than a human is.

If a zygote is a human, then is a human also a zygote?

Zygote is just the name we give a human being at one stage of his/her life. Just like we also use the terms 'babies', 'todlers', 'children', 'adolescents'/'teenagers', 'adults', and 'wrinkly old f*rts' (or just 'wrinklies')
For some the term is used in such a way as if to pretend that its a state we go through (and we all go through it) in which somehow we aren't a human being at that stage; which begs the question 'what are we then?', when at that stage. For all intents and purposes a zygote is different from every other human insofar as it has different DNA to ID it as an individual. It may not be able to walk and talk, but these attributes don't prevent us from viewing someone as less than a human.

Abortions happen whether it's legal or not. Eleanor Roosevelt said it brilliantly, something along the lines of "it's time to get abortion out of the coat closets and into medical facilities where it belongs." She knew abortions happen regardless, and she had the brass balls to suggest that women seek medical attention instead of coat hangers.

Invalid argument. Murders happen whether they are legal or not. People driver over the speed limit too. You are advocating here the removal of all laws on the basis that some people break the laws.

Granted, murder and theft will happen whether it's legal or not, and that doesn't make it right. So the fact that it happens regardless of the law doesn't automatically mean it should be ok.

Indeed, this undermines your previous statement

But what would the pro-lifers say if it were possible to grow a test tube baby by cloning the DNA of a skin graft from someone's foot? It has the SAME potential as a human zygote to become a human, should we cry murder whenever someone skins their knee on the sidewalk?

Another invalid argument. A zygote is not 'part of a human' in the same sense as a finger or knee-skin is. Left to its natural outcome knee-skin will never develop into another knee, let alone an entire human being. A zygote will. It will because it contains within it everything to be an adult human - all that is required is time, and a place to develop.
Your hair contains your DNA, but it is not you. A zygote is a human being at one stage of his/her development.

 

[Montalban]

Addendum to my previous post above

zygote
(Science: biology, genetics) A single diploid cell resulting from the fusion of male and female gametes at fertilization (sperm and ovum).
The cell resulting from the union of an ovum and a spermatozoon (including the organism that develops from that cell).
The fusion of two haploid gametes with the consequential creation of a diploid zygote cell, which can raplidy multiply after this fertilisation of fusion of genetic material occurs.
http://www.biology-online.org/term.php?do=search&search=zygote&submit=Go

This doesn't tell me much. However in thinking about this, I believe that those who believe that a zygote isn't a human being need to say what happens to make a zygote human. How is the zygote magically infused with a human-ness?

Maybe the zygote transforms into a human foetus by some as yet unknown process.

I would be interested in learning what this process is.

From the same site....
foetus

(Science: biology, embryology, obstetrics) A developing unborn offspring of an animal that gives birth to its young (as opposed to laying eggs).

From approximately three months after conception the offspring take on a recognisable form (all parts in place, etc.). In human development, the period after the seventh or eighth week of pregnancy is the foetal period.


An unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal.
http://www.biology-online.org/term.php?do=search&search=fetus&submit=Go

It seems to me, from this definition a zygote becomes a foetus when it begins to 'look' like something other than an amaglam of dividing cells.

 

[Binary_Digit]

This doesn't make sense, unless you meant that a cockroach is closer to its development as an adult at the conception stage than a human is.

What I meant was, a cockroach is a more complex organism than a zygote in the early stages. Human zygotes don't develop a nervous system until the 4th week, for example.

Zygote is just the name we give a human being at one stage of his/her life. Just like we also use the terms 'babies', 'todlers', 'children'...

That's fair enough.

Invalid argument. Murders happen whether they are legal or not. People driver over the speed limit too. You are advocating here the removal of all laws on the basis that some people break the laws. ... Indeed, this undermines your previous statement.

No, I'm not advocating the removal of any law just because people are going to break it anyway. I only wanted to address an argument I've often seen (abortions happen regardless), which I believe is invalid. Which is why I invalidated it myself.

Another invalid argument. A zygote is not 'part of a human' in the same sense as a finger or knee-skin is. Left to its natural outcome knee-skin will never develop into another knee, let alone an entire human being. A zygote will. It will because it contains within it everything to be an adult human - all that is required is time, and a place to develop.

That's a good point. If nature is allowed to take its course, a zygote will develop into a human, but a skin graft will not. But I think "nature taking its course" could be a slippery slope. Other mammals (like hamsters) are known to euthanize their young if they aren't comfortable with the circumstances. Who is to say that nature is taking its course when a mother hamster eats her babies, but nature is not taking its course when a human mother does a similar thing?

I guess one difference is that the hamster would be responding to biological pressures, while a human would be responding to social pressures (good girls don't get pregnant, etc). The other obviious difference is that humans are better than animals, and should hold themselves to higher ethical standards. Human behavior should not be validated by animal behavior, even though we are still animals at the end of the day.

I believe that those who believe that a zygote isn't a human being need to say what happens to make a zygote human. How is the zygote magically infused with a human-ness?

The most common argument I've seen is that if a zygote is not viable outside the woman's body, then it is still part of the woman's body, not yet a separate individual being. I'll concede that it's a very subjective definition though. I disagree with abortions after the 3rd trimester, and especially partial-birth abortions, for this very reason.

On one end of the spectrum, immediately after conception, the embryo consists of only two cells. No one can deny that it has the potential to become a human at this point, but the argument is whether it IS a human. Or at least enough of a human that it should be considered a totally separate being from its mother. In my view, I just don't see the logic in equating two cells with the billions and billions of cells that actually make up an individual human being.

On the other extreme, a 6-month-old fetus has a heartbeat, has brain waves, has a central nervous system, and most importantly, is capable of surviving outside the mother's body. No rational person should deny that the fetus is a human being at that point. At least in my opinion.

Somewhere in between is the point at which human life begins (IMO), but it's a huge gray area. The easiest and most consistent answer is that those two origional cells are in fact an individual human, effectively no different than the 6-month-old fetus. But they are very different.

Bah, my quotes aren't working like other PhP forums do. I'll figure it out, I think...

Thanks shuamort, I must be lisdexic.

 

[shuamort]

Just change the \ to a / in [/quote] and you'll be good.

 

[Montalban]

That's a good point. If nature is allowed to take its course, a zygote will develop into a human, but a skin graft will not. But I think "nature taking its course" could be a slippery slope. Other mammals (like hamsters) are known to euthanize their young if they aren't comfortable with the circumstances. Who is to say that nature is taking its course when a mother hamster eats her babies, but nature is not taking its course when a human mother does a similar thing?

I don't say that what is natural is necessarily good. What I'm saying is that left unmolested a zygote will most likely become a human, knee skin will not. That is the reason I raise what is 'natural'.
However...
When does a hamster do this? (Also, does it do so in a clinic?). I think the intervention of the human mother is not natural, but 'artifical', anyway. We are of nature, but we are also more than instinct, we can transcend out natures.

The most common argument I've seen is that if a zygote is not viable outside the woman's body, then it is still part of the woman's body, not yet a separate individual being. I'll concede that it's a very subjective definition though. I disagree with abortions after the 3rd trimester, and especially partial-birth abortions, for this very reason.

A new born baby left to its own devices is also not viable. A woman's blood type, her DNA are not the same as a baby, whether it's in her womb or not (though she may share the same blood type).
Your own analogy would mean that a Siamese twin, dependent on being attached to it's twin is not 'viable'.

On one end of the spectrum, immediately after conception, the embryo consists of only two cells. No one can deny that it has the potential to become a human at this point, but the argument is whether it IS a human. Or at least enough of a human that it should be considered a totally separate being from its mother. In my view, I just don't see the logic in equating two cells with the billions and billions of cells that actually make up an individual human being.

It is human (though it may develop into twins or more), it is from that point of cell division distinct from either parent. What you are proposing is that we unilaterally demark when it is human based on number of cells. So when it's 10,000 cells, instead of 9,999 cells, it's human.

On the other extreme, a 6-month-old fetus has a heartbeat, has brain waves, has a central nervous system, and most importantly, is capable of surviving outside the mother's body. No rational person should deny that the fetus is a human being at that point. At least in my opinion.

Such a being is only capable of surviving with intervention, and only because the intervention we have now allows it. Again, by your analogy the same baby, 40 years ago is not human, because at that time such a baby (at that stage of growth) was not 'viable'. Given that, in another 10 years time, perhaps an even younger child will be 'viable'

Somewhere in between is the point at which human life begins (IMO), but it's a huge gray area. The easiest and most consistent answer is that those two origional cells are in fact an individual human, effectively no different than the 6-month-old fetus. But they are very different.

I think that because it is distinct from its parents it is a human being.

 

[craigfarmer]

(quote) What I'm saying is that left unmolested a zygote will most likely become a human,


=============


There's one problem. That's not true. It is a medical fact that the human body naturally aborts many if not most fertilized eggs.

Were people who honestly believe "human life" begins at conception to live out the meaning of their words, they would mourn the 3+ times on average every fertile woman becomes pregnant, but her body aborts the pregnancy, and the "person" is washed out in a normal menstrual cycle (often with the woman not knowing any change has occurred) . Is there anyone who actually believes each one of these natural abortions are "deaths" of a person?

If so, name the "baby" at conception if you can figure out when it happened, give them a Social Security Number and other benefits (equal protection) like the rest of us, and extend the power of the law to them as we do born people. We should make sure they aren't being poisoned or harmed by their mother's or people in their environment's activity:

We wouldn't allow a mom to give a 4 year old a beer. So, we must make sure any pregnant woman can't drink a beer because the "baby" would drink it also. But , wait, with all of these conceptions, how will we know when a fertile woman is pregnant? Well, we can't take the chance, and let her body abort a "human being" or allow she/he to be damaged by alcohol. We have a duty to be preemptive, and allow the state design ways that ensures every conceived person has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The government would need to control (laws, regulation, enforcement, mandates) a fertile woman's body or else we'd be consigning numerous "babies" to death in the womb w/o trying to save them.


You may think this is down the road, but we are traveling that way aren't we?

Or is the pro-life movement really a political hoax?



The fact is "life" as a biological process begins at conception. "Human life" which is part biological, part intellectual, and part spiritual must begin at birth where there is no longer one person, but two people a mom and a child.


Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Isn't there a difference between the natural dying off of the zygote and a doctor using tongs/scraper/vaccum?

 

[craigfarmer]

Isn't there a difference between the natural dying off of the zygote and a doctor using tongs/scraper/vaccum?

Not to pro-life forces.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

People who are pro-life say that from conception, a human being deserving CONSTITUTIONAL protection is born. They equate the killing of unborn children with the evil of slavery. In other words, the unborn children are a class of humans who are not treated not as such.

That being the case, the manner of death is irrelevant. Doctors, law enforcement, public policy people etc. all have a MORAL duty to prevent the death of a human being no matter how weak.

Imagine your argument for we "born people". Think if a disease like sickle anemia, or pneumonia or some other disease was "naturally" causing us to die off, and we as a people through our government or healthcare field didn't do everything from searching for cures, trying to save them before they passed, finding vacines to prevent it in the first place, etc.


The point is: if a human being exists from day one of fertilization, then we have to treat all humans equal according to our constitution.

That these ideas are not thought about often is because pro-lifers know that an embryo, zygote, and even a fetus isn't a human being until they are born and there are two people.


The list of laws, and societal changes that would need to occur were pro-lifers serious would be unacceptable in a free society


Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

 

[Stinger]

Simple question with most likely a complex set of answers.

Of course it begins at conception. Every life that has ever existed began at the same point, when the sperm and egg completed the joining the unique DNA sequence and the process of life began. You began that way, I began that way, everyone reading this began that way and everyone who doesn't read this began that way. Any other answer is merely one of convenience. Can you explain with any rational argument how you began at some other time in your life?

And if we are free to make such a choice, without any basis other than it makes other choices convenient, then we can never be wrong can we. We can simply declare when life begins and we are correct. We could say it is when the umbilical cord is cut and we'd be right, therefore anything we do to children still attached with an umbilical cord would be morally and legally justified since they are "not alive" and therefore "not human".

Is that the kind of society you want to live in?

 

[Stinger]

More Fantasea genius....Would anyone expect them to advocate abortion 40 years ago when it was illegal?

It's so absurd to use that quote, but of course you've used it several times before...can't you come up with anything newer than 40 years ago and a quote you've repeated....repeatedly?

What's changed about basic biology in 40 years?

 

[Stinger]

Wait, aren't your arguments based on emotion and opinion too? You feel that life has value. You feel that abortion is killing a life. Thems opinions and emotions. Not facts. You've decided to want to have legislation based on these opinions and emotions. You can paint it any color you want, it's still just opinion.

Abortion is the killing of a life, that is biological fact, not opinion. Now it may be your opinion that that is OK to do, but it does not change the basic fundimental biological fact. You can paint it any color you want, but that is a fact. It is alive, it is living, it is a life.

 

[shuamort]

Abortion is the killing of a life, that is biological fact, not opinion. Now it may be your opinion that that is OK to do, but it does not change the basic fundimental biological fact. You can paint it any color you want, but that is a fact. It is alive, it is living, it is a life.

So is ejaculation or having a period. Those are biological facts too.

 

[Fantasea]

Re: When does opinion begin?

I am against abortion.

This comes as a shock. Unless, of course, you are one of those who says, "While I would never do it, I really don't care if you do.", in which case, one cannot be against something which one condones.

 

[ShamMol]

Re: When does opinion begin?

This comes as a shock. Unless, of course, you are one of those who says, "While I would never do it, I really don't care if you do.", in which case, one cannot be against something which one condones.

See, I would do it, but I don't have any need for it because I practice safe sex.

 

[Fantasea]

(quote) The fact is "life" as a biological process begins at conception. "Human life" which is part biological, part intellectual, and part spiritual must begin at birth where there is no longer one person, but two people a mom and a child.

Why part spiritual?

Consider that Scott Peterson was convicted by a California jury of second degree murder in the death of his unborn child.

Consider that whenever a pregnant woman is hospitalized for any condition, two charts are maintained because two patients are being monitored. One chart for the mother and her doctor and one for the child and its obstetrician.

 

[GetVictd]

It would be wrong to force her to observe someone else's religious belief.

Dear Planned Parenthood,

I never knew that murder was a religious belief. I know it's a Bible commandment but if I did not know that to deny someone the right to not kill/take a life I would be shoving my religious beliefs down their throat. I guess in your beautiful blue world killers/rapist walk free...oh yeah they do.

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Abortion is the killing of a life, that is biological fact, not opinion. Now it may be your opinion that that is OK to do, but it does not change the basic fundimental biological fact. You can paint it any color you want, but that is a fact. It is alive, it is living, it is a life.

So is ejaculation or having a period. Those are biological facts too.

ROFL no it's not, you need to take a basic course in biology. And egg without a sperm combining it's part of the DNA molecule starting the life process will never be a life nor will a sperm swimming around ever be a life. Only when they successfilly combine their halfs of the DNA molecule they carry is a life created and from that point on that life progresses through every stage every life has ever gone through. It needs nothing else other than mere sustenance just as you need even in your particular stage of life. Everything else is there and proceeds it's natural course.

 

[Stinger]

Re: When does opinion begin?

shuamort says

I am against abortion.

Why are you against abortion?

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

How can a man be convicted of a double homicide for killing his wife & unborn child but she could have killed that same unborn child without punishment or persecution...? Seems a bit inconsistent: don't you think?

Does everyone remember the Peterson story...?...it started out as his pregnant wife...then it was his wife & unborn child...then it became Lacy & Conner...amazing how the media played on the heart-strings of America...BUT, had Lacy gone to an abortion clinic that same media would have called IT a fetus/choice & would have applauded Lacy's courage. It's disgusting.

 

[shuamort]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Abortion is the killing of a life, that is biological fact, not opinion. Now it may be your opinion that that is OK to do, but it does not change the basic fundimental biological fact. You can paint it any color you want, but that is a fact. It is alive, it is living, it is a life.



ROFL no it's not, you need to take a basic course in biology. And egg without a sperm combining it's part of the DNA molecule starting the life process will never be a life nor will a sperm swimming around ever be a life. Only when they successfilly combine their halfs of the DNA molecule they carry is a life created and from that point on that life progresses through every stage every life has ever gone through. It needs nothing else other than mere sustenance just as you need even in your particular stage of life. Everything else is there and proceeds it's natural course.

You're telling me that an egg and sperm are dead? I, and the scientific community, beg to differ.