Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Dirty Name Do it then. Include quotes.

I don't think you quite get it. IT. ISNT. EVIDENCE.

IT IS WORTHLESS IN THIS DEBATE.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: pikatore I can give you countless names of professors that state otherwise. That isn't evidence.

Agreed with Dirty Name.

Evidence can serve to discredit the evidence presented by another person. Dirty Name chose to post names and quotes that mention "conception." To discredit that, it's your responsibility to post names and quotes that somehow say that conception is not a turning point.

Per the quote, by the way, it was written that brainwaves indicate consciousness, not life.

According to the characteristics of life, life begins at conception. The forming fetus just isn't capable of enacting all fo the characteristics.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Dirty Name And when technology enables us to detect an ever fainter brainwave, does the line move?

Fainter brainwave?! Do you know what you are talking about?

Quote by: Dirty Name Further, you are suggesting that human beings don't exist until a doctor, using brainwave scanning equipment can confirm it to be so.

pff... i didnt say that.

I said that they should be considered worthy of conventoinal human rights when they have a consciousness, and ARE human beings. It is useless and unfair to consider them as human beings when those very rights aren't applicable.

[Captain Chaos]

Life began several billion years ago.

An individual human beings life begins at conception. Of course it does. That is when the unique genetic identity if formed.

The question is...
At what point do we value that life enough that we will force a mother to keep carrying it, even if she does not want to do so?

Or, to state it another way...

At what point do we say that the child has enough value that we do not permit the mother to kill it, just to get out of carrying a baby that she is probably carrying because she could not be bothered to either refrain from sex, or practice decent birth control.



This valuation is subjective. No amount of reasoning will lead to a firm conclusion on this topic, because the premises will always be debatable.

[Dirty Name]

The question is... At what point do we value that life enough that we will force a mother to keep carrying it, even if she does not want to do so?

At what point do we say that the child has enough value that we do not permit the mother to kill it, just to get out of carrying a baby that she is probably carrying because she could not be bothered to either refrain from sex, or practice decent birth control.

Sorry, but the questions aren't quite as simple as you have stated them here.

This valuation is subjective.

No, your valuation as stated above is subjective. But as a society we need to seek a larger truth, and we need to look at the big picture.

Looking at individual circumstances is, of course, very subjective. That is why we have courts and judges and juries to hear the evidence of those individual cases.

But government policy, and the values and laws of society need to set the bar a bit higher, don't you think?

[Dirty Name]

Fainter brainwave?! Do you know what you are talking about?

Yes. Do you?

I can give you countless names of professors that state otherwise. That isn't evidence.

Then why are professors called to testify in countless trials across this country every day? They aren't testifying as witnesses to the actual incident - they are EXPERT witnesses who present their experience and observations as evidence.

Sorry, but you've lost this one.

[pikatore]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Evidence can serve to discredit the evidence presented by another person. Dirty Name chose to post names and quotes that mention "conception." To discredit that, it's your responsibility to post names and quotes that somehow say that conception is not a turning point.

Completely idiotic. I'm don't play that game, sorry. I don't regard posting a bunch of professors saying 'this is A' as evidence. They don't even give reasons for thier statements. In a word, pathetic. Try using your own brain.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Per the quote, by the way, it was written that brainwaves indicate consciousness, not life.

'Life' can be defined on multiple levels. As a mass of differentiating cells, an embryo/feotus is alive. As a functioning, conscious, organism, they aren't.

Quote by: ZNFYRH According to the characteristics of life, life begins at conception. The forming fetus just isn't capable of enacting all fo the characteristics.

Consciousness is a pretty damn important 'characteristic'. That is what sets animals apart from all other organisms. And rights are only applicable to conscious entities. That's why ARists have thier viewpoint. If it lacks a consciousness, it doesn't deserve the rights we all have.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: pikatore 'Life' can be defined on multiple levels. As a mass of differentiating cells, an embryo/feotus is alive. As a functioning, conscious, organism, they aren't.

Is someone in a coma alive?

They are neither functioning, nor conscious.

What your quote basically verifies is that you think life beings at conception. If you disagree, maybe you should phrase your statement better?

Quote by: pikatore Consciousness is a pretty damn important 'characteristic'. That is what sets animals apart from all other organisms.

But those animals are alive, right?

Quote by: pikatore If it lacks a consciousness, it doesn't deserve the rights we all have.

So is it illegal to rape a woman in a coma?

Is it illegal to steal from a person in a coma?

Sorry, but "consciousness" does not define life.

[pikatore]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Is someone in a coma alive? They are neither functioning, nor conscious. What your quote basically verifies is that you think life beings at conception. If you disagree, maybe you should phrase your statement better?

'Life' in that sense begins BEFORE conception. Human sentience, the birth of a thinking human being, happens late in conception.

When I say consciousness, I don't mean CONSCIOUS as such. Someone in a coma is alive, and has a consciousness. Even a braindead person is sentient, as thier brain still operates in the most basic of ways. If it was totally dead, then they would then die.

So the presence of sentience is the perfect line to draw for determining whether or not it deserves rights.

Quote by: ZNFYRH But those animals are alive, right? Yes, and they are sentient as well. Plants are alive, but don't have any rights, since you can't 'hurt' a plant in the same way you can hurt an animal.

Quote by: ZNFYRH So is it illegal to rape a woman in a coma?

Yes.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Is it illegal to steal from a person in a coma?

Yes.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Sorry, but "consciousness" does not define life.

I agree, but im not talking about life! I'm talking about human rights. Two very different things.

[brien]

Is someone in a coma alive?

Absolutely.

They are neither functioning, nor conscious

Not true at all. They have a heartbeat and their body does function. Some comatose people even awaken to resume normal lives.

COMA RECOVERY

Recovery from Coma Is a Reality for Many Patients - is the title of an article by Liz Townsend in National Right to Life News, October 2001. The author reports on the work of Dr. Mihai Dimancescu, chairman of the board of the Coma Recovery Association. He defines coma as "a state of unresponsiveness from which an individual has not yet been aroused." He asserts that many patients emerge from comas, even after months in that condition. Some patients in a coma are totally unaware while others may be partially or even totally aware of their environment but unable to communicate it to others - called a "locked in state". Dr. Dimancescu says that medical science cannot determine why most comas occur or predict which patients will recover

So is it illegal to rape a woman in a coma?

Absolutely.

Is it illegal to steal from a person in a coma?

Absolutely.

Sorry, but "consciousness" does not define life.

Neither does it define death as well.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: pikatore I agree, but im not talking about life! I'm talking about human rights. Two very different things.

They are absolutely not different.

Simple question...

When fertilization occurs, is that new double-celled creature human?

Think carefully before you answer, because since you seem to want to turn this to "Do human rights begin at conception" then now you have to tell me at what point the fetus becomes human.

[pikatore]

Quote by: ZNFYRH They are absolutely not different.

No, they are. Life is something that many things on this planet possess, we are just one species in a massive evolutionary tree.

Human rights are only applicable to living humans. A dead person can't have the RIGHT to live. An embryo or foetus doesn't have the RIGHT to live as a human being in the sense that is relevant to our existance.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Simple question... When fertilization occurs, is that new double-celled creature human? Think carefully before you answer, because since you seem to want to turn this to "Do human rights begin at conception" then now you have to tell me at what point the fetus becomes human.

It's as human as one of your skin cells, as a million of your stem cells. But it doesn't automatically have access to rights that we enjoy, because they aren't applicable to it. Trying to apply the right to life to an undeveloped fetus voids the mother of her choice at the time, voids the father of his choice at the time, and passes the choice to the law. How utterly wrong.

[brien]

The question is... At what point do we value that life enough that we will force a mother to keep carrying it, even if she does not want to do so?

This is the heart of the matter. At what point do Judges and politicians allow the termination of a life form carried in a human being.

The assignment of any point in a gestation period of the "viability" of a life form is a decision that is made by the government for legal purposes only. Since the SCOTUS has permitted "late term" abortions, I assume they have determined that a woman has the right to choose up until this time no matter how well developed a baby might be at this time. Since a 5 month old baby can live independent of its mother, I assume the SCOTUS agrees with terminating viable children who can live outside the uterous. Therefore, one can draw their own conclusions with regard to the morality of the law.

Since this issue has been decided by the courts and is laid to rest, I would suggest that people live by their own moral standards. Since the government sees fit to allow members of society to decide for themselves what is viability and what is moral when making a decision with regard to abortion, it is not the right of another to dictate what is moral for another in this instance, particularly when the courts will protect that decision.

The important message that the anti abortion segment of society should follow is to work to change the hearts and minds of those who are considering abortion rather than attempting to deal with a government which seems so indecisive and intractable with regard to the status of a fetus . The government will protect the right of a mother to terminate a fetus at 5 months yet when another 5 month old fetus can live outside the uterous, that same government will protect the rights of that child to live. Seems like a conflict of reasoning to me.

I am not against choice. I am against stupid choice and I don't for one minute think I must support a law that forces a woman to bear a child since the law states otherwise. The law may be wrong, but it is the law. The intelligent action is to work to change the hearts and minds of those considering abortion. Screw the government, it's useless anyway.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: pikatore Human rights are only applicable to living humans.

I advise you to read about the legality of necrophilia. Times are changing.
Necrophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I advise you to read any of the links on the following page.
"negligence during pregnancy" - Google Search
It would appear that unborn children do have rights.

The fact of the matter is that at the time of conception the fetus is just like a 1 year old child with its relation to its mother; the mother is the guardian. She is responsible for the development and survival of the fetus. Others who cause damage to that fetus are also legally accountable for their actions.

Quote by: pikatore It's as human as one of your skin cells, as a million of your stem cells.

Incorrect. Those skins cells don't grow into a human being.

Quote by: pikatore Trying to apply the right to life to an undeveloped fetus voids the mother of her choice at the time, voids the father of his choice at the time, and passes the choice to the law. How utterly wrong.

Utterly wrong?

When a braindead coma patient has their plug pulled, how is that different than an abortion?

Legally, the designated guardian or authority of that person can decide to terminate the life if they and they alone deem that they are no longer able to provide the necessary support to continue the person's life.

A woman can choose to have an abortion because the determines that she is not physically, emotionally, and/or financially able to take care of a child.

A person can choose to "pull the plug" for the exact same reasons.

By being the sole source of support for the fetus, or by being designated the legal authority over the adult, both the fetus and the coma patient have their human rights and also have the legal means to have their life terminated.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: DirtyName But government policy, and the values and laws of society need to set the bar a bit higher, don't you think?

I think that the process by which each person determines the point in a child's life by which its value is above a certain level is subjective.

There is not a clear set of reasoning that will lead to a firm conclusion on this issue, because the premises for each argument will always be highly debatable.

If you believe otherwise, please give me an example of an argument supporting either side in which the premises are not highly debatable.

[pikatore]

Quote by: ZNFYRH I advise you to read about the legality of necrophilia. Times are changing. Necrophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dead people don't have the right to not be bonked. Laws aren't all dictated by rights and morals. Don't bring legality into this, rights are different.

Quote by: ZNFYRH I advise you to read any of the links on the following page. "negligence during pregnancy" - Google Search It would appear that unborn children do have rights.

Well, if a child is to be born with a highly increased chance of being born retarded or whatever, then that is fair enough. You are sidetracking.

Quote by: ZNFYRH The fact of the matter is that at the time of conception the fetus is just like a 1 year old child with its relation to its mother; the mother is the guardian. She is responsible for the development and survival of the fetus. Others who cause damage to that fetus are also legally accountable for their actions.

The fetus is NOT JUST LIKE A 1 YEAR OLD CHILD. That paragraph is just plain stupid. I'm not answering it. Feel free to push me to answer it, you won't like it.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Incorrect. Those skins cells don't grow into a human being.

But the stem cells in your bone marrow can. Give them a chemical signal in a test tube, and they will begin to proliferate. That's how organs can be grown on scaffolding. An actual human can also be grown. But the potential lies within, the same way it lies within a growing embryo or foetus, it isn't a human being yet.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Utterly wrong? When a braindead coma patient has their plug pulled, how is that different than an abortion?

You mean euthanasia? It's very different to an abortion. The most similar way it can compared to abortions is if the baby were to be born with a dehabilitating illness, but that's as close as you get. I don't accept your parallel.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: pikatore Dead people don't have the right to not be bonked. Laws aren't all dictated by rights and morals. Don't bring legality into this, rights are different.

Some states disagree with you. So does the U.K. And China.

I like your issue with legality and rights, that one is definitely quotable elsewhere.

Quote by: pikatore Well, if a child is to be born with a highly increased chance of being born retarded or whatever, then that is fair enough. You are sidetracking.

Not at all, just stick with the theme.

If the child is going to be born retarded or with some other severe disability, the mother can decide that she is not capable of emotionally, financially, or physically supporting that child. Same as the coma patient.

Which means that the unborn child still has rights, but those rights can be circumnavigated through legal means.

Quote by: pikatore The fetus is NOT JUST LIKE A 1 YEAR OLD CHILD. That paragraph is just plain stupid. I'm not answering it. Feel free to push me to answer it, you won't like it.

I'm pushing. Answer it. Both rely on care, right?

Abusing either means there are legal repercussions, right?

The only difference is that the level of dependence and legality required is slightly altered at birth.

Unborn changes at birth to child.
Child changes at 18 to adult.

That's all there is to it.

Quote by: pikatore Give them a chemical signal in a test tube, and they will begin to proliferate. That's how organs can be grown on scaffolding. An actual human can also be grown.

So now it's illegal for me to harm my dead skin cells? You're reaching. But okay.

Quote by: pikatore I don't accept your parallel.

Your acceptance is irrelevant. You need to explain the difference.

I stated that determining you can't support a child is the same as determining you can no longer support a person on life support. Tell me how it's different. With both, they have a legal right to life. And with both, there are legal ways to sidestep that right.

I'm using all of this to show that life does indeed being at conception.

You're the one who mentioned brainwaves being the starting point for human rights. I need to you to show me how brainwaves apply at all. Or show me that your standard is more valid than mine.

Way back in the beginning of this thread, the question was posed regarding the private destruction of that life.

I'm simply saying that life does begin at conception, and that destroying that life before it enters the next "phase" of rights and dependence is legally legitimate given the reasons I already listed.

[pikatore]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Some states disagree with you. So does the U.K. And China.

I don't care. Your point? Other people disagree with me? Wow.

Quote by: ZNFYRH I like your issue with legality and rights, that one is definitely quotable elsewhere.

A law is not directly equivalent to a right. You don't earn laws, they will always be there. Rights, you can lose or gain.

Looks like you just didn't get it.

Quote by: ZNFYRH If the child is going to be born retarded or with some other severe disability, the mother can decide that she is not capable of emotionally, financially, or physically supporting that child. Same as the coma patient. Which means that the unborn child still has rights, but those rights can be circumnavigated through legal means.

Firstly, its hypocritical for you to post that last bit, whilst posting what i said about legality and right in the idiotic post thread.

Secondly, the unborn child is given attention, as this scenario ASSUMES that the child WILL DEVELOP AND BE BORN.

Quote by: ZNFYRH I'm pushing. Answer it. Both rely on care, right?

No, they are different things.

Care is a voluntary action committed by the mother with a 1 year old child. However, if you ban abortion, that care would become be a legal obligation that the mother SHOULD NOT have to assume.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Abusing either means there are legal repercussions, right?

You need to define a mother's want to rid herself of the embryo/fetus relative the to the term 'abuse'.

Quote by: ZNFYRH The only difference is that the level of dependence and legality required is slightly altered at birth.

No, it's not just 'slightly' altered. The child moves from dormant parasitism to independent function. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that the child can feel pain, can feel even the most basic of instinctual 'feelings', and hence needs rights to protect it. An embryo or foetus doesn't DESERVE these rights, as there is no sentient being to protect in the first place. Right's should be given to people who don't exist yet.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Unborn changes at birth to child. Child changes at 18 to adult.

A gross over simplification. Read back on what I said about sentience.

Quote by: ZNFYRH That's all there is to it.

Right... :rolleyes:

Quote by: ZNFYRH So now it's illegal for me to harm my dead skin cells? You're reaching. But okay.

I'm not reaching, I'm being technical.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Your acceptance is irrelevant. You need to explain the difference. I stated that determining you can't support a child is the same as determining you can no longer support a person on life support. Tell me how it's different. With both, they have a legal right to life. And with both, there are legal ways to sidestep that right.

Supporting a child involves a lot of money, time and effort. 'Supporting' a person on life support involves emotional strain, and the power required to keep the machines runn