Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Pale RIder You could give every man woman and child on earth 1500 square feet of living space and they all could live within the borders of Texas. I would say that the earth is mostly uninhabited. And if we were really overpopulated, our resources would be getting very scarce and expensive...just the opposite is happening. Goods and resources are getting cheaper all the time.

Uninhabited?
To sustain our lifestyle, we've overfished many seas and oceans, we've flattened alot of land and cut down a vast amounts of forests. I think you're mistaken in thinking we could just live in harmony with our 38 foot by 38 foot land. Are you saying we could get all the food and water, entertainment and equipment we're all using in the developed world if we were all allocated by only this much land? Are you saying we can fit 6.3 billion into Texas and still live the lifestyle we have now?

Are you even aware of our ecological footprint?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Pale RIder It is easy enough to find prices for minerals, etc and compare them to prices of a few decades ago. Everything is getting cheaper all the time. The point about texas is that we are not overpopulated. Perhaps in specific geographical areas, but not the world as a whole.

It's cheaper because we have better technology that enable us to mass manufacture products faster and at a lower cost. This could also mean that we'd have access to more resources that we couldn't have reached previously (depleted oil wells by microbiological add) but that does not mean our resource supply is infinite.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Pooeypants It's cheaper because we have better technology that enable us to mass manufacture products faster and at a lower cost. This could also mean that we'd have access to more resources that we couldn't have reached previously (depleted oil wells by microbiological add) but that does not mean our resource supply is infinite.

The truth is Pooeypants that because of our ever increasing developments in recycling technology, our resource supply is nearly infinite. And when you guys talk about resources, you sound as if you believe that somehow the earth has created all that it is going to produce. The earth is creating oil as we speak. Replacement minerals are forming at the core of the earth right now.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Pale RIder The truth is Pooeypants that because of our ever increasing developments in recycling technology, our resource supply is nearly infinite. And when you guys talk about resources, you sound as if you believe that somehow the earth has created all that it is going to produce. The earth is creating oil as we speak. Replacement minerals are forming at the core of the earth right now.

Pale Rider, are you saying that the Earth can regenerate resources at the same rate that we're using them up?

We have alot of recycling potential, the question is whether it is being implemented or not. Even the UK, vastly wealthy are failing quite miserably.

Maybe you need to recognise that we aren't the only species on Earth, we have to share our habitat with millions of other species and our current lifestyle needs isn't exactly allowing to be at equilibrium with the environment.

[Cephus]

Quote by: dotcoma I did not think I would be arguing about why you do not have the right to kill other humans. Do you have a point, or are you questioning the very reasoning behind not allowing murder in a social system?

You have quite a few problems with your assumptions. First off, abortion is not murder. Murder is defined as killing that is against the law. So long as abortion is legal, it cannot, by definition, be murder. To call it something that it clearly is not in hopes of eliciting an emotional response is dishonest. Secondly, we kill humans all the time. We have the death penalty. We have war. Heck, we've just killed 10,000 Iraqis and plenty of Afghanis in the two most recent wars. Nobody is going to jail for those killings, are they?

You need to rethink your over-emotional responses.

[Runa216]

Wow, a lot of good debates here. I like this, but I have to agree with Pooey here (may I ask why you made such a silly name?) we are not the only species on this planet, and we need to learn to live in harmony with everyone else.

that sounds corny, I know, but it's true. This world can only support so much of us, and we may think we're invincible, but in the end, a Tsunami can come along and kill over 200 000 of us in the course of a day. my point? this world is where we came from, we need to respect it, because no matter how big we get, the earth we live in is still bigger.

As for overpopulation, murder, Abortion and Conservationalism goes.....those are some pretty heavy hitting topics.

Abortion - Some people say that it's murder because life begins at conception. I say this is a load of bull. This is where the Chicken-egg syndrome comes into play. Technically, Life is a cycle and is neverending. To say life begins at any one time is dumb. Conception, vertilization....there was life before that in the parents, no question. that and the woman has a right to her own life, if she does not want to ruin her life by having a baby, then that's her decision. you say it's killing, but what about all the rest of the earth's creatures do we kill for our own well being? we kill cows, we kill chickens, we kill tigers, we kill elephants, we kill whales, we kill em all. why? because we consider ourselves superior. but why is a mass of cells so important? because it's a baby in development? who cares, we need to learn to make the world around us good before trying to repopulate the world. Abortion is a form of contraception, get over it. it's as preventative as using a condom or getting on the pill. obviously they were not ready for babies if they had an abortion. it's the same as the fools who tell us that contraception is wrong because every sperm cell is a possible baby. Trust me, we need less people reproducing in this world, or we're gonna screw ourselves.

Runa

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Pooeypants Pale Rider, are you saying that the Earth can regenerate resources at the same rate that we're using them up?

It has a 6 billion year head start on us. Don't worry, we aren't going to be running out of anything we need for a billion years or so and by then the sun will be threatening us anyway so it is a pointless worry.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Cephus ... Secondly, we kill humans all the time. We have the death penalty. We have war. Heck, we've just killed 10,000 Iraqis and plenty of Afghanis in the two most recent wars. Nobody is going to jail for those killings, are they? You need to rethink your over-emotional responses.

Are you suggesting that it is ok to kill the most helpless and innocent among us? And actually, there are some folks who have violated the rules of engagement who are sitting in fort levenworth right this moment.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Runa216 Technically, Life is a cycle and is neverending. To say life begins at any one time is dumb.

You can trace your life back to a singular moment in time. One second further back and you simply don't exist. From that moment forward your life has continued in an unbroken line. You have grown and changed in innumerable ways, and you will continue to change until you die. But you have been a human since that first moment and you will die human.

Quote by: Runa216 ...why is a mass of cells so important?

Tell me Runa, which part of this 14 week old human being are you describing as a "mass of cells"?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder You can trace your life back to a singular moment in time. One second further back and you simply don't exist. From that moment forward your life has continued in an unbroken line. You have grown and changed in innumerable ways, and you will continue to change until you die. But you have been a human since that first moment and you will die human.

You keep saying that but exactly when is that supposed moment? And can you honestly say that most people recall that as the moment they realized they were human?

Starboy

[Cephus]

Quote by: Pale RIder Are you suggesting that it is ok to kill the most helpless and innocent among us? And actually, there are some folks who have violated the rules of engagement who are sitting in fort levenworth right this moment.

Methinks you have a vastly overblown concept of the importance of the human race, sorry. If you want to look at things that way though, the 'rules of engagement' for abortion spell out when and under what circumstances abortions may be performed. So long as they are performed under those 'rules', you really have no room to complain. Certainly you can try to change the laws, but until you do, where do you get off telling other people what they can and can't do?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy You keep saying that but exactly when is that supposed moment? And can you honestly say that most people recall that as the moment they realized they were human? Starboy

Can you remember the moment that you were born? Having a memory of a moment is irrelavent to the reality of that moment. In fact, memory has nothing to do with reality. This may come as a surprise to you, but you are not the center of the universe. You personally don't have to remember a thing, or even know a thing for it to be real none the less.

If you are unable to trace your life back to a singlular moment, then I suggest that you brush up on your very basic biology.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Cephus Methinks you have a vastly overblown concept of the importance of the human race, sorry. If you want to look at things that way though, the 'rules of engagement' for abortion spell out when and under what circumstances abortions may be performed. So long as they are performed under those 'rules', you really have no room to complain. Certainly you can try to change the laws, but until you do, where do you get off telling other people what they can and can't do?

It is through complaining that things change. Do you believe that we all just woke up one day and decided that blacks were indeed human beings and not chattel to be owned and sold?

And I am not telling you that you can't get an abortion. Just like I wouldn't have been able to tell you that you couldn't own a slave back before the Civil War. I could however tell you that it was wrong, just as I can tell you that having an abortion is killing another human being.

And if I think the rules are wrong the I have all the room to complain that I wish. In fact, that is how the rules get changed, and exactly the reason that Roe will be struck down next time it is heard. It missed falling by one vote last time, and that vote was in question until the 11th hour. Next time the law will be struck down. Do you believe that when the rules are changed, by the rules, that you will have no room to complain?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder You can trace your life back to a singular moment in time. One second further back and you simply don't exist. From that moment forward your life has continued in an unbroken line. You have grown and changed in innumerable ways, and you will continue to change until you die. But you have been a human since that first moment and you will die human.[ Quote by: Starboy You keep saying that but exactly when is that supposed moment? And can you honestly say that most people recall that as the moment they realized they were human? Starboy

Quote by: Pale RIder Can you remember the moment that you were born? Having a memory of a moment is irrelavent to the reality of that moment. In fact, memory has nothing to do with reality. This may come as a surprise to you, but you are not the center of the universe. You personally don't have to remember a thing, or even know a thing for it to be real none the less.

Rider you are such a dishonest toad. You claimed that it can be traced and yet if life is traced there is not clear moment as to when it began. During the entire process for countless generations back to the primordial ooze everything was alive. There was no stage in which something dead became alive. But for some reason you want to then say that life begins at the moment of conception. So I give you the benefit of the doubt and add to your term "life" the term "human" and consider your claims against "human life". But then again, human life also goes back countless generations. Okay so then I will change it to "my human life". Since "my" is now in the mix we are talking about my personhood since it is well accepted that even if my body is alive if my personhood ceases to be then I am dead. But as I have said, no one can personally trace their personhood back to conception. A single cell can't be a person. A single cell cannot conceive of itself even if it is a human cell. There are not enough cells there to do that. It will take billions and billions more connected in the correct way and mostly all operational in order to get to that point.

If you are unable to trace your life back to a singlular moment, then I suggest that you brush up on your very basic biology.

What biology is that? Christian dentist biology? You are unable to trace your life back to a singular moment either. You cannot show me a point in time where your life started from a point that was not alive.

Your entire argument is based on deliberately sloppy language and reason. You conflate so many things. It would be one thing if this had not been pointed out to you so many times before. You could then at least claim an honest ignorance. But you continue on with this same dishonest argument. As I have said before, you are clearly in the dishonest sack of shit category.

Starboy

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy Rider you are such a dishonest toad. You claimed that it can be traced and yet if life is traced there is not clear moment as to when it began. During the entire process for countless generations back to the primordial ooze everything was alive. There was no stage in which something dead became alive. But for some reason you want to then say that life begins at the moment of conception. So I give you the benefit of the doubt and add to your term "life" the term "human" and consider your claims against "human life". But then again, human life also goes back countless generations. Okay so then I will change it to "my human life". Since "my" is now in the mix we are talking about my personhood since it is well accepted that even if my body is alive if my personhood ceases to be then I am dead. But as I have said, no one can personally trace their personhood back to conception. A single cell can't be a person. A single cell cannot conceive of itself even if it is a human cell. There are not enough cells there to do that. It will take billions and billions more connected in the correct way and mostly all operational in order to get to that point.

You are so wrapped up in your distortions that you are no longer addressing reality. You know quite well that all along I am referring to individual human lives. If you didn't grasp that simple fact, then I severely overestimated your intelligence. Are you one who must have each and every detail explained ad nausem in order to grasp a concept?

And your attempt to cloud the issue with "personhood" is pointless. The word person, at its root describes the body of a human. If that human is only one cell, then that cell comprises the person. When you attempt to play games with words you inherently become dishonest; and then you call me dishonest.

An infant can not conceive of itself either, are you saying that newborns are also not persons? The reality is that your argument falls apart if it is not applied in a very specific way and all other reality is ignored. Such is the fate of a falicious argument.

Quote by: Starboy What biology is that? Christian dentist biology? You are unable to trace your life back to a singular moment either. You cannot show me a point in time where your life started from a point that was not alive. Your entire argument is based on deliberately sloppy language and reason. You conflate so many things. It would be one thing if this had not been pointed out to you so many times before. You could then at least claim an honest ignorance. But you continue on with this same dishonest argument. As I have said before, you are clearly in the dishonest sack of shit category. Starboy

Sloppy language? Are you kidding? My language is precice, without conflict, factual, and impervious to reinterpretation. There is not one single sentence in my argument that you can refute. (or at least you haven't so far, nor have any other pro choicers) Perhaps you would like to try and refute any part of it. It is all basic biology that any 6th grader could understand. I can't, on the other hand, find any fact in your argument at all? Is there any part of your argument that you can substantiate via any scientific text? I have asked before, but you, so far, have failed to deliver. Is this to be a repeat performance?

Unless you are prepared to offer up some fact to reinforce your opinion, I would suggest that you look in the mirror if you are looking for a sack.

And why do pro choicers retreat to death in order to attempt to make a point? I have never been dead. One doesn't have to come alive from the dead in order to be alive. Where would you get such an idea. Do you think that we all somehow come back from the dead in order to be born? Do you think we are dead while in utero? Do you even understand what you are saying any more? I can trace my existence...my life, back to a singular moment in time, and if you understood basic biology, you could trace yours as well. The fact that you can't doesn't in any way change the line of your life.

At the moment that the half set of chromosomes that were contributed by my father's sperm and the half set of chromosomes contributed by my mother's egg combined, they both ceased to exist and something new was created. Their potential was realized. The moment is called conception. I became, at that very moment a new individual; unique, alive, and my life has continued, unbroken until this very moment.

I am sorry that you can't form a coherent argument to defeat me. I am sorry that you are frustrated to the point of incoherence If you were dealing in fact, perhaps you could, but then if you were dealing in fact, you would be making the same argument as I.

So do you have any actual science to bolster your position?

The whole abortion issue is a human rights issue and unless you are able to somehow prove that the offspring of two humans is anything other than human, even at its earliest stages, you are doomed to lose the argument.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder You are so wrapped up in your distortions that you are no longer addressing reality. You know quite well that all along I am referring to individual human lives. If you didn't grasp that simple fact, then I severely overestimated your intelligence. Are you one who must have each and every detail explained ad nausem in order to grasp a concept?

You lie even more. Your entire argument has been a conflation of life, human life and personhood. When people try to nail you down you shift from one to the other.

And your attempt to cloud the issue with "personhood" is pointless. The word person, at its root describes the body of a human. If that human is only one cell, then that cell comprises the person. When you attempt to play games with words you inherently become dishonest; and then you call me dishonest.

Now that is funny. I am attempting to "cloud the issue"? When I ask about "human life" you are the one that wants to conflate personhood with a human cell. I am trying to make clear the distinctions and you accuse me of being dishonest. It would be one thing if personhood was not germane to the discussion. This is a very lame and dishonest attempt on your part to exclude from the discussion points that are crucial but completely blow your lame arguments out of the water. It is yet more evidence of how dishonest you are.

An infant can not conceive of itself either, are you saying that newborns are also not persons? The reality is that your argument falls apart if it is not applied in a very specific way and all other reality is ignored. Such is the fate of a falicious argument.

I never said they were not persons. What dishonest tactic are you up to now. What I have said over and over again and what you completely ignore over and over again is that a single cell is not a person. That sometime after conception could the collection of cells be considered as a person. I have made no claims on what that point is but have said that the ruling in Roe v. Wade is fine with me.

Sloppy language? Are you kidding? My language is precice, without conflict, factual, and impervious to reinterpretation. There is not one single sentence in my argument that you can refute. (or at least you haven't so far, nor have any other pro choicers)

The mere fact that you claim such perfection should be enough for anyone to see that you are a lying sack of shit.

Perhaps you would like to try and refute any part of it. It is all basic biology that any 6th grader could understand. I can't, on the other hand, find any fact in your argument at all? Is there any part of your argument that you can substantiate via any scientific text? I have asked before, but you, so far, have failed to deliver. Is this to be a repeat performance?

Your points have nothing to do with biology. Your claim is simple. You want to make a single cell into a human being. We have been over this. Just as a sixth grader knows that a chicken egg is not a chicken they know that a human cell is not a human. A sixth grader knows how to at least count. They know that there must be at least billions of cells present for the possibility of it to be a human being. This is so rudimentary that the only way that it could be possible for you to ignore this blatant fact is if you are deliberately lying.

Unless you are prepared to offer up some fact to reinforce your opinion, I would suggest that you look in the mirror if you are looking for a sack.

Or people could just look at your posts.

And why do pro choicers retreat to death in order to attempt to make a point? I have never been dead. One doesn't have to come alive from the dead in order to be alive. Where would you get such an idea. Do you think that we all somehow come back from the dead in order to be born? Do you think we are dead while in utero? Do you even understand what you are saying any more?

And you claim that you are not conflating life with personhood? In the end this entire abortion conflict boils down to a legal issue. If what is in the womb is a legal person then aborting it would be killing a person and that would be murder. Just saying that it is alive or even that it has human life is not enough since in surgery we remove parts of humans that are living human cells and kill those parts all the time. We do this because the parts removed are not considered to be persons. So there is no legal problem with doing it. Unless you are going to tell me that the cells removed were not human life the mere presence of human life is not sufficient to say it is a human being.

I can trace my existence...my life, back to a singular moment in time, and if you understood basic biology, you could trace yours as well. The fact that you can't doesn't in any way change the line of your life. At the moment that the half set of chromosomes that were contributed by my father's sperm and the half set of chromosomes contributed by my mother's egg combined, they both ceased to exist and something new was created. Their potential was realized. The moment is called conception. I became, at that very moment a new individual; unique, alive, and my life has continued, unbroken until this very moment.

You keep saying this as if you actually understood something about biology. Okay dental biologist, when twins are born or triplets or quintuplets or quadruplets and so on, how many people exist at conception? They all came from the same genetic information are they all the same person? Is a single twin half a person? Is a single triplet one third of a person? Gee, how do they trace their human life back to that moment? Or are you indeed conflating life, human life and personhood?

I am sorry that you can't form a coherent argument to defeat me. I am sorry that you are frustrated to the point of incoherence If you were dealing in fact, perhaps you could, but then if you were dealing in fact, you would be making the same argument as I.

Oh great and perfect Rider. You are so perfect. Everyone should think that you are right because you so perfect. You make me want to vomit.

So do you have any actual science to bolster your position?

I keep posting it and you keep ignoring it. Most of it is common knowledge but you just ignore it and conflate terms so that you can repeat your mantra that "human life begins at conception".

The whole abortion issue is a human rights issue and unless you are able to somehow prove that the offspring of two humans is anything other than human, even at its earliest stages, you are doomed to lose the argument.

Now you change your mind? It is not a matter of science? It is a human rights issue? And then you do your conflation yet again. No one is saying that what is in the womb is not human. As usual you use the term human and conflate it with personhood. A single human cell is a human cell. You can call it human because that is the kind of cell it is. It is not a canine cell or an elephant cell, it is a human cell. But, it is not a human being. It is just a cell. At conception all you get is a human cell. It will take some time later before what results from that cell could be considered a human being. Nobody thinks a chicken egg is a chicken. Even sixth graders know this. But Christian anti-abortion dentists are clueless.

Starboy

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Pale RIder It has a 6 billion year head start on us. Don't worry, we aren't going to be running out of anything we need for a billion years or so and by then the sun will be threatening us anyway so it is a pointless worry.

Our current population levels and its need for resources are already driving hundreds and thousands of species of other organisms to extinction, just how much more human do you think we can sustain before we cause the greatest mass extinction ever known? You seem to have no idea just how big an ecological effect we have right now.

You seem so adamant to protect the life of an embryo, yet you show no regard of other species that perishing because of our numbers and our drive for consumption.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Pooeypants Our current population levels and its need for resources are already driving hundreds and thousands of species of other organisms to extinction, just how much more human do you think we can sustain before we cause the greatest mass extinction ever known? You seem to have no idea just how big an ecological effect we have right now. You seem so adamant to protect the life of an embryo, yet you show no regard of other species that perishing because of our numbers and our drive for consumption.

Hundreds of thousands...no...millions of species went extinct before we ever stepped out of the jungle. It happens all the time with us, or without us.

And you seem to over estimate our effect on the world.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy You lie even more. Your entire argument has been a conflation of life, human life and personhood. When people try to nail you down you shift from one to the other.

I see you didn't provide any factual evidence again. No reference to any actual science...nothing. Just a misunderstanding of the subject of the discussion.

How about describing the difference between a human being and a person.

Abortion is a human rights issue. The science proves the humanity of an unborn, the law is missapplied.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder I see you didn't provide any factual evidence again. No reference to any actual science...nothing. Just a misunderstanding of the subject of the discussion.

You idiot, if my claim is that you conflate life, human life and personhood then the evidence is in your posts. And it is there in abundance for all to see.

How about describing the difference between a human being and a person.

I often use human being when I am referring to a person but the adjective human can be used to describe all sorts of things that are not human beings or persons. A human tooth is not a human being nor a human leg. A human cell is not a human being either. Just is the adjective chicken does not turn a chicken egg into a chicken.

Abortion is a human rights issue. The science proves the humanity of an unborn, the law is missapplied.

Only if you conflate human cell with human being. But then that is exactly what you have been doing. But for some reason not only does biology and arithmetic escape you but basic english also appears to elude you.

Starboy