Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Dirty Name]

And how would you know whether a fetus thinks and feels? Do you recall being a fetus and lacking the ability to think and feel?

Ah yes, the famous "unconscious people shouldn't have legal rights argument."

[fushigi]

Quote by: pikatore Well... if i did lack the ability, i wouldn't of remembered anyway...?!

Yes, and when you're dead, you won't remember anything either. So may I kill you please?

[fushigi]

Quote by: Dirty Name The fact is, the abortion industry doesn't care if you have a reason or not, they don't care what the law is. They will find you a legal loophole to abort your child regardless of the law.

Definitely. My girlfriend is from Brazil, a country where abortions are "illegal." However, they have a myriad of ways to have an abortion. Morning after pills are one thing, but she tells me the new craze is to get liposuction without telling the surgeon you're pregnant.

Why liposuction? Because if a liposuction is performed while a baby is in utero, the damage to the fetus is inherently severe enough that the baby will die, thus requiring an abortion to remove the dead or irreparably harmed fetus.

Disgusting.

[5010]

Quote by: DEEJ85 What do Pro Life advocates think about the Morning After Pill?

Normally Plan B prevents ovulation which is not a pro-life issue. If Plan B is taken just after ovulation and the egg becomes fertilized but prevented from implantation by Plan B, then it becomes a pro-life issue.

[5010]

Quote by: pikatore If I really, really, have to, for one tiny second, pretend that the little bean-shaped biological lump inside the woman's uterus is an actual living human BEING, then I would describe abortion as more of a mercy killing.

Comparing with 'mercy killing' of the born, euthanasia proponents suggest waiting until there is actual suffering before killing. They don't propose killing someone at age X just because a test shows they will start suffering from a disease at age X+1.

[Praxius]

How about when a fetus is aborted, they send them to a resturant and we eat them? Kinda like Veal..... All that healthy protien and energy..... mmmm.... they'd be like little chicken fingers..... and with no bones.... or bones you could chew... like little sardines.....

Then it wouldn't be considdered a waste of life for pro-lifers....

(Now that I struck a few nerves..... )

[pikatore]

Quote by: 5010 They don't propose killing someone at age X just because a test shows they will start suffering from a disease at age X+1.

Someone at age X is that. someone. not a lump of arteries and nerves in the uterus. You become a human being once you are capable of BEING one.

[namguy69]

Quote by: Praxius How about when a fetus is aborted, they send them to a resturant and we eat them? Kinda like Veal..... All that healthy protien and energy..... mmmm.... they'd be like little chicken fingers..... and with no bones.... or bones you could chew... like little sardines..... Then it wouldn't be considdered a waste of life for pro-lifers.... (Now that I struck a few nerves..... )

Cannibal?

[5010]

Quote by: pikatore Someone at age X is that. someone. not a lump of arteries and nerves in the uterus. You become a human being once you are capable of BEING one.

Some scientific myths and facts

The mainstream embryological position is that at fertilization, two human parts combine to become a biologically whole human individual organism.

The human embryo is being human. It cannot be any other species.

[namguy69]

Quote by: 5010 Some scientific myths and facts The mainstream embryological position is that at fertilization, two human parts combine to become a biologically whole human individual organism. The human embryo is being human. It cannot be any other species.

I agree

[pikatore]

Quote by: 5010 Some scientific myths and facts The mainstream embryological position is that at fertilization, two human parts combine to become a biologically whole human individual organism. The human embryo is being human. It cannot be any other species.

I never said it wasnt human. That's a stupid thing to say. But I'm saying that it is as human as a clump of human stem cells are, cause that's what it is.

When I say 'human', I don't just mean a member of the species, thats silly. I meant a human BEING. Conscious and sentient, an actual functioning member of the human race. For the vast part of pregnancy, it isn't any of that. It's a growing mass of cells attached to the placenta.

[fushigi]

Quote by: pikatore When I say 'human', I don't just mean a member of the species, thats silly. I meant a human BEING. Conscious and sentient, an actual functioning member of the human race. For the vast part of pregnancy, it isn't any of that. It's a growing mass of cells attached to the placenta.

So when, in your view, does that transformation magically happen?

For instance, I've never seen a one year-old infant who was a functioning member of the human race. They're totally dependent, utter sponges who - outside the sense of compassion they may evoke in their parents and some others - contribute nothing to the world but noise, urine, feces, and vomit.

Could you please specify a particular age?

[5010]

Quote by: pikatore When I say 'human', I don't just mean a member of the species, thats silly. I meant a human BEING. Conscious and sentient, an actual functioning member of the human race. For the vast part of pregnancy, it isn't any of that. It's a growing mass of cells attached to the placenta.

Yes, it is much better to actually state what you mean. So if I understand you correctly, you believe that human life is only worthy of protection while the organism is in a conscious and aware state of being?

[pikatore]

Quote by: fushigi So when, in your view, does that transformation magically happen? For instance, I've never seen a one year-old infant who was a functioning member of the human race. They're totally dependent, utter sponges who - outside the sense of compassion they may evoke in their parents and some others - contribute nothing to the world but noise, urine, feces, and vomit. Could you please specify a particular age?

The 'magical' transformation happens inside the womb at around 18 weeks.

The one-year old is biologically independent, and possesses a consciousness (is sentient). The latter is not developed until late preganancy. 18 weeks is a good time limit for this. When I say functioning, I am being purely biological. The one year old doesnt have to have a job and be smart to be a functioning member of the human race. Going by your criteria, you would be blasting all those unemployed people who live with thier parents till they are like 50.

18 weeks is generally accepted to be a fair time limit, since around that time is where the foetus develops a working, conscious brain. Until that point, its a seething mass of arteries, nerves, and stem cells. Hardly a human being, and hardly deserving of the rights of a human being. Notice I used the word BEING.

Quote by: 5010 Yes, it is much better to actually state what you mean. So if I understand you correctly, you believe that human life is only worthy of protection while the organism is in a conscious and aware state of being?

Dont patronise me please.

Firstly, I define human LIFE in a much more meaningful way than you do. You define a growing embryo as human life, whereas I see it for what it actually is: a collection of stem cells undergoing development, and differentiating into thier own roles. At that point, there is hardly a 'brain' to speak of: just a tiny clump of nerves, that aren't actually being stimulated. So 'it's' alive in a biological sense, but to be 'alive' as an actual human being, it need to possess the abilty to do the most basic of things that would qualify it to be an actual human. One of those things is think. Even braindead patients that are kept alive by machine still think, though it may be in a more basic sense.

So my answer is no. Conscious and aware is quite a misleading way to describe what I mean. Must i go into even more detail? I'm assuming you have picked up where I'm coming from by now.

[5010]

Pikatore, the best way to avoid misleading or deceiving is to stick to the common terminology. If you want to make up a criteria for a term, then make up a new term. It would be less confusing if you said 'I define foobler as any member of the human species capable of thinking in it's current developmental stage'. Then you can claim 'No embryo is a foobler' and I'll agree with you.

Or, you can simply say: embryo's can't think yet, so they don't deserve any rights. I'll agree with the first part and disagree that the latter follows.

But to say they are not alive because you have your own definition for 'alive' is misleading and deceptive.

[pikatore]

Quote by: 5010 Pikatore, the best way to avoid misleading or deceiving is to stick to the common terminology. If you want to make up a criteria for a term, then make up a new term. It would be less confusing if you said 'I define foobler as any member of the human species capable of thinking in it's current developmental stage'. Then you can claim 'No embryo is a foobler' and I'll agree with you.

The word 'alive' is not 'common terminology', as that word itself has various definitions. Don't just hijack one of those definitions and claim that to use the word in any other way is misleading. That 'foobler' rant isn't comparable to this, don't insult me.

I haven't gone and created a completely different definition of the word 'alive', a word like that is in itself context sensitive. I'd prefer if you tried to make this a more productive debate. If you wanted me to explain it further, you just could of asked nicely, instead of hurling accusations at me.

Quote by: 5010 But to say they are not alive because you have your own definition for 'alive' is misleading and deceptive.

I didn't use my own defintion for alive. I never said an embryo or foetus wasn't alive. Your problem is, your concept of 'alive' is not flexible enough.

Something can be alive on one level, and non-living on another.

If I chopped off your arm, would it be alive (for a brief period of time)? Yes. Would it be composed of human tissue that was based on human DNA? Yes. Is it a actual, living human being? No. Why isn't it a human being? There are undifferentiated cells in the bone marrow, so technically, it has the potential to sprout another human being (or be used for in-the-tube cloning), seeing as stem cells are present.

A bacterial colony consists of countless bacteria cells living amongst each other, and they are very much alive. Is the colony itself a living entity? No.

This same principle of 'alive' i apply to an embryo, and early to mid-stage foetus. As it is incapable of thinking, and is still in the process of being 'built' via nourishment through the placenta and cord, it is not a human being, it is therefore not alive as a human being.

Quote by: 5010 Or, you can simply say: embryo's can't think yet, so they don't deserve any rights. I'll agree with the first part and disagree that the latter follows.

Well... I actually have said that. Read up a bit.

And if you think an embryo should have the same rights as a proper human being, you're going to have to do some convincing. As you have seen, I've said plently counter-wise.

[5010]

"I define human LIFE in a much more meaningful way than you do."
...
"So 'it's' alive in a biological sense, but to be 'alive' as an actual human being, it need to possess the abilty to do the most basic of things that would qualify it to be an actual human. One of those things is think."
...
"I didn't use my own defintion for alive."

okay...

Now, addressing the arm scenario: A human arm is made of human cells but is only part of a human being. Looking at dictionary.com, none of the definitions for 'human being' require life. If a human being dies, they remain a human being.

Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree on whether or not the term 'human being' should include the human embryo.

Rights... a whole different can-o-worms.

[pikatore]

Quote by: 5010 Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree on whether or not the term 'human being' should include the human embryo.

If you are going to cherry pick your rebuttals, then i guess this is useless.

[namguy69]

Quote by: pikatore If you are going to cherry pick your rebuttals, then i guess this is useless.

We have to get a grip on this forum, most of the subjects are an endless abess with no real answers. Everyone goes round-n-round as is on going this debate on pro life, pro choice....there's no finally, so it goes on and on. What's the point?

[fushigi]

Quote by: pikatore 18 weeks is generally accepted to be a fair time limit, since around that time is where the foetus develops a working, conscious brain. Until that point, its a seething mass of arteries, nerves, and stem cells. Hardly a human being, and hardly deserving of the rights of a human being. Notice I used the word BEING.

So, in your view, there is a precise moment when an organism's humanity begins. Before that moment - even one second before - that organism lacks human rights and can be justifiably killed.

Let's take a theoretical example. A woman is pregnant with a male fetus. Let's call the fetus Jack. Jack has a mass of neural tissue that is almost completely functional, but not quite. However, tonight is a special night for Jack, because in the morning full cognition will begin. Tomorrow, his brain will be fully working and fully conscious. But today Jack's chooses to kill him. In your view, this isn't murder, right? Because he's still a few hours away from full consciousness.