Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[pikatore]

Quote by: texasdave Perhaps the neolibs need to consider that the neocons really do believe that embryos are human beings and ,as such, it makes no sense to kill a human being to save another.

Perhaps the neocons need to realise that there is a whole world of reasoning against thier opinion staring them straight in the face, and the best thing they've got to offer is the appeal to emotion fallacy.

If you are going to turn this into a situation where you simply become a barrier despite whatever points you make are debunked, you might as well concede until you've got something better to throw back at us.

[texasdave]

I have plenty to back up my claims.
FACT- the unborn are alive thus they are beings.
FACT- they are human thus they are human beings
FACT- They have their own unique DNA
FACT- only pro-abortionists refer to them as parasites. Scientists do not.

[Huck1919]

Quote by: texasdave I have plenty to back up my claims. FACT- the unborn are alive thus they are beings. FACT- they are human thus they are human beings FACT- They have their own unique DNA FACT- only pro-abortionists refer to them as parasites. Scientists do not.

Whoa there cowboy.

The unborn are alive due to the cell theory.

I would argue that a single cell (zygote), as I noted earlier, is a human because humans are made up of trillions of cells, and each one of those cells that have 46 chromosomes and are each, by themselves considered life, but a single human cell cannot be considered a human.

Following this fallacy of logic, all humans that have ever existed have killed humans because we shed billions of skin cells every day, and skin cells are the equivalent of a zygote except that they have a function in the body.

Only pro-abortionists refer to them as parasites? I find it very pessimistic and sad that you would think any psychologically balanced person would be pro-death. In fact, a mark of good psychological health is when a person can accept other people for their beliefs and does not try to mold reality to please themselves. Some psychologists consider extreme conservatism to be a mental illness, and rightly so.

Please consider this as well. If you take the political quiz at politicalcompass.org, you will find that W. as well as yourself, I'm sure, will lie in the same quadrant as Hitler. While, on the exact opposite side, you will find Gandhi and the Dali Lama. Tell me which side has the better track record, please.

I would also challenge you to name a few great presidents that were conservative. Keep in mind, you may not use Lincoln, because the Democrats and Republicans switched meanings after the time he was around. For our side, Lincoln, FDR, Jefferson, Kennedy, Clinton (for economic reasons, people never died for his mistake, and Bush has made many, MANY more mistakes that are loathsome), just to name a few. Your move, slick.

[texasdave]

huck,
I don't really care what you think of conservatives. Think whatever you like. The facts are;
1. A single cell zygote has a unique DNA from its mother. A skin cell has the same DNA as every skin cell. It is only a piece of the puzzle. A zygote is the complete puzzle just wrapped up in a single cell.
2. It remains a single cell for only a moment then it divides into two then four etc.
3. NO ONE has an abortion at the zygote level so it is irrelevent to the argument. It is too small to even find with tests much less abort.
4. No scientific fact has ever been shown to deny that in every developmental stage we are human beings. Denying humanity to the unborn is purely a philosophical argument that is politically driven. It is not supported by science.

[Passivist]

Quote by: texasdave huck, I don't really care what you think of conservatives. Think whatever you like. The facts are; 1. A single cell zygote has a unique DNA from its mother. A skin cell has the same DNA as every skin cell. It is only a piece of the puzzle. A zygote is the complete puzzle just wrapped up in a single cell. 2. It remains a single cell for only a moment then it divides into two then four etc. 3. NO ONE has an abortion at the zygote level so it is irrelevent to the argument. It is too small to even find with tests much less abort.

This is all true for animals, which neo-cons (or whatever so-called pro-lifers), disregard when they slaughter them by the millions. So there must be something ultimately more valuable.

4. No scientific fact has ever been shown to deny that in every developmental stage we are human beings. Denying humanity to the unborn is purely a philosophical argument that is politically driven. It is not supported by science.

Which all hinges on your definition of what makes a human being human. What is special about the human sort that distinguishes us, from the Zygote to death, from animals? I feel this has not been satisfyingly addressed.

[pikatore]

Quote by: texasdave I have plenty to back up my claims. FACT- the unborn are alive thus they are beings.

A cell is alive, it isn't a being. Are plants 'beings'? Are bacteria 'beings'?

Quote by: texasdave FACT- they are human thus they are human beings

Wow, why does the reasoning here seem flawed? This is just a vague rephrasing of the first 'fact' i think.

Quote by: texasdave FACT- They have their own unique DNA

Big deal. Cancer cells have thier own unique DNA. That isn't nearly good enough to consider them as the equivalent of a whole human being.

Quote by: texasdave FACT- only pro-abortionists refer to them as parasites. Scientists do not.

... uhhm... even if this is true, how does it refute anything I've said?

[Osborn F Enready]

Individual rights cannot apply to a non-individual, non-person.

A fetus is not a person, nor an individual, and is IN FACT parasitically dependent on the mother for existence.

[Mia]

Quote by: texasdave I have plenty to back up my claims. FACT- the unborn are alive thus they are beings. FACT- they are human thus they are human beings FACT- They have their own unique DNA FACT- only pro-abortionists refer to them as parasites. Scientists do not.

Simple enough. Last I checked, parasites have no capacity for morphing into human beings post-birth...unless we really are kidnapped by aliens and implanted with these parasites-morphing-into-human beings.....wait, that might explain how a few people seem to turn out

[Mia]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Individual rights cannot apply to a non-individual, non-person. A fetus is not a person, nor an individual, and is IN FACT parasitically dependent on the mother for existence.

So are babies after they are born, doesn't mean we can kill them.

What happens in the space of time before birth and through the canal that changes the exact same being from a parasitic organism into a human being with rights?

I mean, let's say there is a C-section. When the incision is made, is that when the baby becomes a baby, or was it the same 5 minutes before?

I can go along with abortion within three months of conception. I can talk myself into it not being a baby yet, but a potential. After that, I don't see how anyone can.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Mia So are babies after they are born, doesn't mean we can kill them.

Biologically, they aren't parasitic.

[Osborn F Enready]

Mia said: So are babies after they are born, doesn't mean we can kill them.

No Mia, babies are NOT physically parasitic after they are born. The caregiver is interchangeable once born, while the womb is individual.

Mia said: What happens in the space of time before birth and through the canal that changes the exact same being from a parasitic organism into a human being with rights?

Nothing, its SEVERING the umbillical cord that makes that change.

Mia said: I mean, let's say there is a C-section. When the incision is made, is that when the baby becomes a baby, or was it the same 5 minutes before?

Its when the cord is cut.

Mia said: I can go along with abortion within three months of conception. I can talk myself into it not being a baby yet, but a potential. After that, I don't see how anyone can.

Its the OBVIOUS physical issues, and natural phenomena.

If a woman owns her body, she has the right to reject a life that is parasitic upon her, within her, as long as that life is parasitic and within her AGAINST HER WILL.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: texasdave The facts are; 1. A single cell zygote has a unique DNA from its mother. A skin cell has the same DNA as every skin cell. It is only a piece of the puzzle. A zygote is the complete puzzle just wrapped up in a single cell. 2. It remains a single cell for only a moment then it divides into two then four etc. 3. NO ONE has an abortion at the zygote level so it is irrelevent to the argument. It is too small to even find with tests much less abort. 4. No scientific fact has ever been shown to deny that in every developmental stage we are human beings. Denying humanity to the unborn is purely a philosophical argument that is politically driven. It is not supported by science.

Here's a fact, dave. nobody denies that the zygote, the embryo, and the fetus are all human beings.

Let me say that again: nobody denies that the zygote, the embryo, and the fetus are all human beings.

Once more with feeling: NOBODY DENIES THAT THE ZYGOTE, THE EMBRYO, AND THE FETUS ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS.

From the moment of conception, when a new DNA signature is created, a new human being exists. And that's coming from the one who refers to that thing as a parasite, thus the one you seem to think is pro-abortion, though of course that is a lie, as I have pointed out before.


It is a human being. Please stop making this the foundation of your claim, as it is not in dispute. It is a human being.

Now defend the rest of your position: that this human being, who is biologically a human parasite whose very existence infringes on the rights of its mother -- an independent person with full rights under the law -- should be allowed to continue its mindless, unfeeling existence despite the fact that this enslaves the mother. Give me your facts on that part, okay?

[GraceAustin]

Quote by: dotcoma I used to be pro-choice, but I thought about it for a while, and the privacy issue no longer makes sense to me. If you truly beleive life begins at conception then you have no right to privately destroy that life. It is like taking someone's life in your basement and claiming prosecution would be a violation of privacy in my opinion. So what are you feelings on this controversial social issue?

>>>>

Actually, the sperm is 'alive' as is the 'egg.' If they weren't a 'human life form', they wouldn't be able to come together to form a human being. So being objective, I think the question should be when do we define something being 'human.' Does that mean all components are in place to define a human? Should the heart be there? The nervous system? The brain?

At conception, there are cells which are undifferentiated. That means, they have yet to become human tissue. They aren't brain cells, they aren't skin cells, they are merely potential; just as the egg and the sperm are potential. So I'd have to say, they are not yet 'human.' And if we're going to call them 'human', they require funerals if they don't meet their potential.

[Luxavius]

This is a really simple debate, and one where you can't convince most people either way. It's too broad to say this is killing life, since we kill chickens for food and don't have a problem with it. This is a debate about whether we are killing a human. Everyone has a different definition of a human, and some people (like me) think a fetus is a fetus. Please, give me a definition of what it takes to be human, and at what percent they need to be genetically complete to be counted as one. Once the sperm enters the egg, it starts growing. Is killing that killing a human? What does a few arms and a few legs matter? It's still not sentient, and nothing has changed but a few physical characteristics. Even monkeys are smarter until a year after birth. Hopefully this explained our side somewhat better.

[Mia]

Osborn, so if the change takes place when the cord is cut, it's OK to kill it at that point? A full-term baby, but still parasitic by your definition....a woman should be able to give birth, but kill it before cutting the cord?

[texasdave]

This is a simple debate. But one in which the pro-abortionists deny the obvious so as to excuse their childish desire to kill another human being for the sake of their own convenience. Having an abortion is the same moral equivalent as murdering a two year old. Or ten year old. Or an old lady. Actually, it is morally worse because all of those others can at least try to defend themselves or run away. Aborting an unborn child is the worst kind of murder a person can commit because the unborn are totally innocent and totally defenseless. It is an act of evil.

[pikatore]

Instead of continuing to mindlessly rant, I'd prefer if you provided counter-points to my refutation of your 'facts'.

[GraceAustin]

Quote by: texasdave This is a simple debate. But one in which the pro-abortionists deny the obvious so as to excuse their childish desire to kill another human being for the sake of their own convenience. Having an abortion is the same moral equivalent as murdering a two year old. Or ten year old. Or an old lady. Actually, it is morally worse because all of those others can at least try to defend themselves or run away. Aborting an unborn child is the worst kind of murder a person can commit because the unborn are totally innocent and totally defenseless. It is an act of evil.

>>>>

Actually, it isn't 'simple'. It requires logic, as does any issue.

1. Being pro choice, does not mean pro abortion. Your attempt to demean those who believe in the mother's rights, makes your logic suspect.
2. On the issue of embryonic stem cell research, there is no abortion involved. Research involves fertilized eggs left over from artificial insemination, frozen in labs, and which will ultimately be discarded (flushed), if not used in research to save lives. The undifferentiated cells have yet to take on the role of ANY human tissue. There is no womb, there is no person. They are potential, and nothing more.
3. You are pairing embryonic stem cell research with abortion. This is incorrect. You have your information skewed. You deal in hysteria, not reason.

[GraceAustin]

Quote by: texasdave huck, I don't really care what you think of conservatives. Think whatever you like. The facts are; 1. A single cell zygote has a unique DNA from its mother. A skin cell has the same DNA as every skin cell. It is only a piece of the puzzle. A zygote is the complete puzzle just wrapped up in a single cell. 2. It remains a single cell for only a moment then it divides into two then four etc. 3. NO ONE has an abortion at the zygote level so it is irrelevent to the argument. It is too small to even find with tests much less abort. 4. No scientific fact has ever been shown to deny that in every developmental stage we are human beings. Denying humanity to the unborn is purely a philosophical argument that is politically driven. It is not supported by science.

>>>

http://departments.weber.edu/chfam/P...lastocyst.html

You will note that the division of the cells after conception take several hours for each division, as they form a ball of cells to created what's called a blastocyst. All of these cells being undifferentiated, they are NOT human tissue until the blastocyst has moved to the womb. The stage in which the cells take on their roles to be brain, or skin, or liver, etc takes about three weeks.

You say that no one takes on the role of abortion at the earliest stage. Denying women the right to over the counter contraception (morning after pill) shows that statement is not shared by religious extremists. Their pressure of conservatives in Congress and george bush, made that choice unavailable to women without a DR's prescription. Denial of that choice will actually increase abortions after the blastocyst HAS achieved its potential of becoming human tissue.

And AGAIN, science is interested in embryonic cells in LABS, not cells from abortions. Two entirely different issues, that you appear to have gotten mixed up.

The rest of argument is subjective.

[GraceAustin]

Quote by: Mia I can go along with abortion within three months of conception. I can talk myself into it not being a baby yet, but a potential. After that, I don't see how anyone can.

>>>>>

Well, Mia, I wouldn't have an abortion at any stage. But for the purposes of speaking about what another woman should or shouldn't do, I agree with you that there should be a stage at which abortion should be cut off. (first trimester). HOWEVER, if society is going to be the decision maker of whether a woman must continue a pregnancy, then society has the responsibility of seeing to the needs of both of them FOR 18 YEARS. If society isn't willing to do that, then society needs to shut up.