Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: miena The difference between killing a human being and legally aborting a FETUS, is that an abortion may have much more favourable consequences to society for the future.

And it may be much worse. There are only a very few super geniuses born per generation and one can't predict which side of the tracks said genius would be born. Considering that more than 40 million have been aborted, it is entirely possible that the one who would have cured aids or developed cold fusion never even saw the light of day.

May have's and could have's and might have's are nothing but illusions that you offer up to comfort yourself. They are meaningless.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Still no one has answered the question when is a baby a baby? And what is the difference If I say a one month old infant is only an unaware unsouled clump of cells, so I have the right to kill it? Of course we all have reasons for doing vile things. I had to steal because I was hungry. I had to lie because the truth hurt too much. blah blah ....deal with it. Its all bullshit. Its all Lies and denial. mb

Baby is a subjective term. Baby is the sort of word that the pro choice crowd likes to use because it is hard to pin down. Like toddler. Exactly when does one stop toddling? Or adolescent. What day does one become an adolescent? or an old fogie?

Baby is subjective. Human being is not. Science states quite clearly that a human being's life begins at conception so therefore the pro choice side looks for terms that are not precice. They must avoid precice language at all costs as they can only keep up the argument by using language that is somewhat muddled. Part truth, part pseudo science, but mostly lies.

If you want to see them squirm, stick to precice language.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Cephus Of course they don't. That's the biggest problem right there, anti-abortionists are arguing that people who are clearly unqualified to become parents be forced into it, simply because birth control failed, or worse yet, they were too stupid to use birth control in the first place.

And it seems that you are advocating killing a human being because his or her parent's are stupid. What sort of twisted logic is that?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder These are medical textbooks starboy, and on the pages that I have listed for you, they all (as does damned near every medical textbook on the subject) state quite clearly that "Contemporary scientific precepts accept as a given that human life begins at conception." This isn't me just arguing my position, these are actual textbooks. Pardon me, but I believe a medical textbook carries more weight than your silly theories.

Rider, we have been over this before. There are textbooks that say otherwise. Hell there are textbooks that say that the universe as it exists was created in seven days. So what? Just because others share your stupidity doesn't change that you are stupid. Your basic argument is simple. Your core claim is that a single cell is human because a human can be traced back to a single cell. You either ignore that there are stages involved along the way that are not human or you have simply decided to now label most of the states of development as a human being. Simply because you can trace a human being back to a single cell does not mean that during that time period that in all of the stages that the cell has gone through what existed was a human being. And I don't care how many text books you quote. It doesn't change the fact that your argument is no different than arguing that just because a fortune can be traced to a penny, a penny is now a fortune. It is stupid. You are stupid. There are many stupid people out there that also think this and some of them write textbooks and papers. So what? It is a classic case of a double standard. They will not subject their pet idea to the same standards that they would subject any other idea. They would not call a chicken egg a chicken but now they are willing to call a conceptus a human being.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder And it seems that you are advocating killing a human being because his or her parent's are stupid. What sort of twisted logic is that?

More dishonest tactics Rider. Only someone that though that a chicken egg was a chicken could make this statement.

Starboy

[Runa216]

"And it may be much worse. There are only a very few super geniuses born per generation and one can't predict which side of the tracks said genius would be born. Considering that more than 40 million have been aborted, it is entirely possible that the one who would have cured aids or developed cold fusion never even saw the light of day."

It's also possible that the next hitler could have been aborted. Equal opportunity baby! (Hitler's mom wanted an abortion, her docter talked her out of it)

Runa

[Runa216]

It also appears as if Pale rider is more interested in insulting others than he is of disproving our evidence. I say a sperm and egg are just as important to the development of the fetus, but he completely ignores that post, even though it brings fully reasonable points to the table. he is too bust arguing with starboy to actually realize that he is evenly matched, if not beaten by starboy. Starboy is not a fool, and neither is PAle rider, they just disagree, and therefore, the other is stupid, ignorant, and incapable of understanding big words, even though I'm sure that's not the case.

oh, and Pale rider, using your mastery of HTLM to use bold, italics, and underline will not make your points better.

And starboy, after reading through the whole thing, I can see that Pale rider started the insulting first, so don't let him get to you, it's just his way of defending himself when there's nothing left to defend. Don't be brought down to his level of insulting and stuff. You have both made good points.

Runa

[MerlinsByte]

Hitler was necessary to make you. Killing anyone is not allowed, or I should say killing isnt morally correct under any circumstances. we do not know when a baby or (owed to pale rider) a human being is self aware. I have some friends that are 40 and still not conscious most of the time.

No one has answered the question when is a baby when is the cells self aware. Until this can be answered abortion should be taboo.

mb

[Cephus]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Hitler was necessary to make you. Killing anyone is not allowed, or I should say killing isnt morally correct under any circumstances. we do not know when a baby or (owed to pale rider) a human being is self aware. I have some friends that are 40 and still not conscious most of the time.

Says who? Everyone keeps throwing around terms like 'morally correct', but since morality is purely subjective, what gives anyone the right to tell someone else their moral judgements are wrong?

No one has answered the question when is a baby when is the cells self aware. Until this can be answered abortion should be taboo.

How so? Abortion is a LEGAL matter. It has nothing whatsoever to do with self-awareness or anything else. A woman has the right to choose her own destiny, like it or not, and you have no right to tell her otherwise, any more than you'd like it if someone else got to tell you how to live your life.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Get off your ridiculous moral high horse and stop telling other people how to live. It's none of your damn business.

[Runa216]

"Hitler was necessary to make you."

Doesn't mean he wasn't a bad person, and I did answer you as good as anyone could. There is no way to tell unanimously when a mass of cells becomes a human being. As long as we all have our different views, we can discuss it civilly, it doesn't have to be taboo.

Runa

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy Rider, we have been over this before. There are textbooks that say otherwise. Starboy

And as I asked before, reference them. You have claimed their existence but have not delivered. You can either back up your talk, or you can not.

And your penny analogy fails. A penny is a part of the fortune. One can hold up the penny and say that this is where my fortune began. Can you identify the zygote within you? No you can't. The zygote was you, in your entirety and no amount of rationalization is going to change that.

I would say nice try, but it wasn't even that.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Runa216 It also appears as if Pale rider is more interested in insulting others than he is of disproving our evidence. I say a sperm and egg are just as important to the development of the fetus, but he completely ignores that post, even though it brings fully reasonable points to the table. he is too bust arguing with starboy to actually realize that he is evenly matched, if not beaten by starboy. Starboy is not a fool, and neither is PAle rider, they just disagree, and therefore, the other is stupid, ignorant, and incapable of understanding big words, even though I'm sure that's not the case. oh, and Pale rider, using your mastery of HTLM to use bold, italics, and underline will not make your points better. And starboy, after reading through the whole thing, I can see that Pale rider started the insulting first, so don't let him get to you, it's just his way of defending himself when there's nothing left to defend. Don't be brought down to his level of insulting and stuff. You have both made good points. Runa

Runa, I ignored the "sperm / egg" argument because I have already completely torn it down once already. I guess you didn't read as well as you claimed.

Sperm and eggs are cells belonging to the body from which they came. Your eggs can be identified via DNA testing as part of your body. Eggs and sperm are unique in that they only have half a set of chromosomes but to your body they are no more important than fingernail clippings. They are your cells. Their uniqueness is that they represent potential life.

Once sperm and egg get together and each contribute their half set of chromosomes, both sperm and egg cease to exist. As I said, they represent potential life. At this point, their potential has been realized and a new life is started. That new life is unique. Not part of the mother's body, not part of the father's body. It has its own DNA fingerprint and its own metabolism.

This is basic biology. One would expect not to have to explain it to adults but there, I have explained it twice. If you dissagree, then kindly provide some scientific evidence that proves that I am wrong. Otherwise, drop the sperm / egg argument from your repertoire as it is not valid.

And you will notice that starboy has not and never will reference a single scientific publication to lend weight to his argument since science has stated quite clearly when human life begins.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy More dishonest tactics Rider. Only someone that though that a chicken egg was a chicken could make this statement. Starboy

Quote by: cephus Of course they don't. That's the biggest problem right there, anti-abortionists are arguing that people who are clearly unqualified to become parents be forced into it, simply because birth control failed, or worse yet, they were too stupid to use birth control in the first place.

Is he, or is he not, suggesting that some people are too stupid to have kids and therefore it is justifiable to kill the children because the parent's are stupid?

You really should at least attempt to read for comprehension.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Cephus Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Get off your ridiculous moral high horse and stop telling other people how to live. It's none of your damn business.

This argument falls flat on its face.

What if we suggested that if you don't like murder, then don't kill people for no reason, but don't tell them not to kill whoever they choose.

Don't like slavery, then don't own a slave, but don't tell me that I can't buy and sell human beings if I like.

Don't want to drive at 100 mph through school zones, then don't do it, but don't tell me that I can't.

Such silly arguments can be applied to anything.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder And as I asked before, reference them. You have claimed their existence but have not delivered. You can either back up your talk, or you can not.

I gave the reference, but like everything else you just ignored it. You also completely ignored my point that the fact that a text book makes one claim vs. another is meaningless. And is yet another dishonest argument that you have persistently made. Look it up. It is called argument from authority. It is a dishonest argument. An honest authority does not need to beg for the acceptance of an idea because it is in a text book. All text books eventually become obsolete except of course if you are a religious nut. Then your textbook is the bible.

And your penny analogy fails. A penny is a part of the fortune. One can hold up the penny and say that this is where my fortune began.

If you believe that then take me up on my offer. Quit being a dishonest lying sack of shit and put your money where you mouth is. I will give you a fortune in the form of a penny in exchange for a small sum in the form of a US legal tender ten dollar bill. If you honestly believed your own bullshit then you should jump at this chance to take advantage of my stupidity.

But you will not because you are a dishonest lying sack of shit. You know that the only stupid person in that exchange would be you.

Can you identify the zygote within you? No you can't. The zygote was you, in your entirety and no amount of rationalization is going to change that.

This is also a very funny argument coming from you. It also illustrates just how stupid you are. The fact that you cannot find the zygote within a human being indicates that a zygote is not a human being but only a stage in the creation of a human being. It would be like looking for the egg in the chicken.

I would say nice try, but it wasn't even that.

Nahhhh. The points negating your claim have already been made so painfully obvious to anyone with a brain that all that is happening now is that you are making it painfully obvious to everyone just how stupid and dishonest you are.

Starboy

[Highwayman]

Sperm and eggs are alive. They might not have all the information needed to build a new complete being because we humans are not "omnisexual", and they might have a limited lifespan, but they ARE technically alive. I guess one could say they become individually alive once they are completed in the ovaria or the testes.

So, what "life" are we talking about? An individual human being? OK. The primal stages of the zygote are basically the same for all mammals. The "recipe" is basically the same; we start off with one cell in which the gene pairs are matched, then split to technically form a zygote only after the splitting of the one cell - hey, we even have a tail as zygote developes through these primordial stages.

Then during gestation changes occur according to the specie's DNA "recipe" and the embrio starts to develope into a human. (Technically, we could clone ourselves, and thus don't really need a sperm- we just use the combined DNA found in our own stemcells - in which case we could say a stemcell is "alive" in "sort of" a sperm or egg way too - as an individual one-celled lifeform - before the forming of a zygote.

At what stage does the embrio become distinctly human, ie, beyond which number of cell devisions, or when does the embrio divert from basic cell-duplication to specie specific cell specialisation exactly? We are not EXACTLY sure, but it could be after a week or two of mere duplication, at a sort of set mass or number of cell devisions.

Of course, many many pregnancies goes wrong as the zygote does not find good anchorage in the uterus, or for a variety of reasons gets flushed out by the body. The zygote for instance is quite sizeable by the time it attaches to the uterus- many many cell divisions and even some specialisation has occurred by then - the beginnings of the placenta and the amniotic sac etc etc

But I think the argument is about the moral definition of human life - as opposed to all life, as very few people become extremists who wear masks so that they don't accidentally swallow a bug and so kill a living thing... even if they are against the use of the contraceptive pill.

That is where the medical profession comes in, and can say that after such a time the viability of the fetus to develop into a human being is a virtual certainty. I think we could trust this as a very good general medical certainty - but of course a lot of babies for some or other reason still do not make it to live birth after this. And I am sure with a lot of dedication and determination and luck, some premature embrios might be kept alive to become Mother Theresas or Jeffry Dahmers. I mean that in the nicest possible way, of course, just pointing out creation of life is a small part of what makes a human.

So, morally, we could go with the survival expectancy of the medical field, to say when we are actually killing a viable individual. As opposed to depriving a fetus of its gestation...

Somehow this will not sit well with the religiously defined morality of "life", will it? So when does the embrio obtain or develope an immortal soul? I know most western religions don't go for the re-incarnation thing, and thus belief that every new baby has/is a new soul. In some ways that does not go for Jesus, as he was sent, not merely conceived... and as part of God has been alive forever, etc etc etc. I am sure some religious people will attack this notion - others will agree. I can only point out that two individual cells make the pilgrimage to fertilisation - which one carries the soul? Half-half? Or is the soul a function of the body/brain - at the very first functioning of the rudimentary nerve nodes? At the stage where awareness kicks in - the first possible recorded perceptions from some inflowing impulse?

Frankly, this is a rediculous argument anyway. Why don't these same people who vehemenently calls any abortion including the contraceptive pill, murder, vote for war, where innocent lives get lost, along with lots of those strapping young men and women in their sexy uniforms??? AND morally defend this - even if they do have to jump from one virtuous and righteous reason to the next... WMDs, bad guys, democracy, oil, whatever.

[Runa216]

"What if we suggested that if you don't like murder, then don't kill people for no reason, but don't tell them not to kill whoever they choose"

Slightly different situation, Murder is actually wrong by society, and so is slavery, and your other suggestions. I realize that slavery, and in some cases murder, has been good, and you could relate that to abortion,b ut abortion has gone the other way, it went from being bad to accepted, and that's because society sees that in the long run, this is the better solution. even that, as a society as a whole, they beleive the zygote is in fact a choice the mother can make. There are some who disagree with abortion, and therefore would enver get one, but still can accept that it is an individuals choice to make, and will not go around parading their views and condemning those who disagree.

Nice try though.

Runa

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Runa216 "What if we suggested that if you don't like murder, then don't kill people for no reason, but don't tell them not to kill whoever they choose" Slightly different situation, Murder is actually wrong by society, and so is slavery, and your other suggestions. I realize that slavery, and in some cases murder, has been good, and you could relate that to abortion,b ut abortion has gone the other way, it went from being bad to accepted, and that's because society sees that in the long run, this is the better solution. even that, as a society as a whole, they beleive the zygote is in fact a choice the mother can make. There are some who disagree with abortion, and therefore would enver get one, but still can accept that it is an individuals choice to make, and will not go around parading their views and condemning those who disagree. Nice try though. Runa

Abortion has been with us for about half a century. Slavery lasted over 300 years. Roe will fall long before that because pro choice doesn't have an argument that can stand against scientific fact. Science is very clear on when a human's life begins. Read back through this thread. How much of what the pro choice side is offering do you suppose would stand in a court of law against the hard light of scientific knowledge?

The fact is that in the US human beings have an inalienable right to life. Unless you are able to prove, in a court of law, that an unborn is not human, it stands that it also has an inalienable right to life.

By the way, if you ask society as a whole, for a very long time the majority has been against abortion on demand. The majority suoport abortion when the mother's life is in danger, but abortion on demand is on its way out. In a generation or two, your grand kids will look back on pro choicers with the same disgust as we look back on pro slavers.

[Chris the Chees]

Quit being a dishonest lying sack of shit and put your money where you mouth is.

That kind of comment is unacceptable Starboy and you know it. Quit doing it, if you wish to discuss it start a thread in flamefest of contact me via PM.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Pale Rider Quote by: Pale RIder And as I asked before, reference them. You have claimed their existence but have not delivered. You can either back up your talk, or you can not.

Quote by: Starboy I gave the reference, but like everything else you just ignored it. You also completely ignored my point that the fact that a text book makes one claim vs. another is meaningless. And is yet another dishonest argument that you have persistently made. Starboy

I reviewed your posts. Maybe you want to retract this statement as it is a blatant lie. You have not referenced a single text book or scientific text to refute a thing that I have said. Interesting that you call me a liar when it is clearly you who is fabricating.

I didn't ignore your claim that different text books could say different things. I was waiting for you to provide a reference to a text book that supports your argument. You have not yet delivered. Can you? At this point, it would seem not.