Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[vash the sane]

Quote by: doc303 Today marks the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision on the matter of Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that granted women the constitutional right to have an abortion. In the 35 years since the court's ruling there have been more than 50 million abortions in the United States. 50 million unwanted children - 1/10 th of which were possibly to be physically or mentally disabled ! Sounds fair to me ! - unless one was to be an Einstein, Curie, ML King, etc - we will never know. Doesn't that bother anybody besides me?

And what if one were to be the next hitler, mussolini, stalin, etc? What about all the children that could have come into being if you had never used a condom?

Think about all the geniuses that could be born if everyone just has sex in every single spare moment, at all times of the day! My god!

"What if" is not a valid argument, and you can't measure life by potential.

[linda_mary_13]

Thanks, but no thanks, Vash the Sane. The very reason I think rationally and logically produces a feeling called mercy and forgiveness. Those feelings are part of my process and I believe should be part of the process when establishing legislature.

[vash the sane]

If you think rationally, then produce a logical reason to oppose it.

Provide a reasonable explanation why we should give a clump of cells more rights than what we give a living person.

P.S. "It's the will of god" is NOT a reasonable explanation

[Esters]

Quote by: vash the sane If you think rationally, then produce a logical reason to oppose it. Provide a reasonable explanation why we should give a clump of cells more rights than what we give a living person.

Vash the sane,

You tell everyone else to think rationally- why don't you start doing the same.

How is allowing a child to be born giving it more rights than a living person? Exactly what special rights are you talking about? Are you talking about the inalienable right to life? If so, then the debate is about whether or not the fetus is human.

And I hate to have to remind you that you too, are just a clump of cells. Is the fact that you are a larger clump of cells grant you more worth as a human? Are you more human that a child because you are larger in size? Size does not equal human.
Is the fact that your clump of cells is more intelligent or more developed make you a human, and an pre-adolescent not a human? No, intelligence and development do not make rational parameters for human status.

You can call a fetus a clump of cells all that you want, but your statement is biologically and genetically completely wrong. As I have repeatedly stated, and have yet to be challenged on, is the genetic fact that a fetus is 100% human, as is any zygote of any organism formed sexually. It has all the DNA information it needs to grow, live, and then die. All that is added is nutrients and oxygen.

According to you, humaness develops. But humans develop physically and intellectually long after they are born, and for the majority of their lives. How does your "logic" accomodate this fact?

[vash the sane]

Vash the sane, You tell everyone else to think rationally- why don't you start doing the same. How is allowing a child to be born giving it more rights than a living person? Exactly what special rights are you talking about? Are you talking about the inalienable right to life? If so, then the debate is about whether or not the fetus is human.

The right to violate bodily integrity. I can't take someones spare kidney against their will, yet the fetus can take nutrients and energy? The fetus acts as a parasite until it is born.

And I hate to have to remind you that you too, are just a clump of cells. Is the fact that you are a larger clump of cells grant you more worth as a human? Are you more human that a child because you are larger in size? Size does not equal human. Is the fact that your clump of cells is more intelligent or more developed make you a human, and an pre-adolescent not a human? No, intelligence and development do not make rational parameters for human status.

I have a brain. I am sentient. I am a person. Until a fetus has a brain it can not be a person- it has no thought, no conciousness. Up until then, it might as well be a tumor.

You can call a fetus a clump of cells all that you want, but your statement is biologically and genetically completely wrong. As I have repeatedly stated, and have yet to be challenged on, is the genetic fact that a fetus is 100% human, as is any zygote of any organism formed sexually. It has all the DNA information it needs to grow, live, and then die. All that is added is nutrients and oxygen.

And why is a women required to provide nutrients and oxygen?

According to you, humaness develops. But humans develop physically and intellectually long after they are born, and for the majority of their lives. How does your "logic" accomodate this fact?

It has consiousness, sentience. And, it's not violating bodily integrity after it's born.

[Esters]

Quote by: vash the sane Would you prohibit all abortions, even before the fetus developes a brain?

Unless the mother is at risk of serious health complications or death, abortion should be prohibited at all stages of pregnancy.
And my question to you is, what is it exactly about having a brain that makes someone a person?

[Esters]

Quote by: vash the sane The right to violate bodily integrity. I can't take someones spare kidney against their will, yet the fetus can take nutrients and energy? The fetus acts as a parasite until it is born.

Aborting and killing the child in the womb definitely violates its bodily integrity as well as its right to life, so its a matter of the bodily integrity of the mother vs. the bodily integrity and right to life of the child. There's no doubt as to which should take precedence.

Quote by: vash the sane And why is a women required to provide nutrients and oxygen?

For the same reason a woman or any parent is required to provide food to a child that's been born- so that the child won't die. Depriving a child of food or oxygen would be neglect and murder.

The fetus' demand for nutrients and energy from the mother is accommodated by the body of the mother. Pregnancy does not put her at any serious health risk, and it is not justified to take someone's life because they need to eat and breathe.
By your logic, even a young toddler is a parasite. The toddler requires food, water, time, and care- all of this provided by the parents. Is it right to kill someone if they are dependent on someone else? What about old people who can't take care of themselves? They are parasitic to society, so do we have a right to weigh their lives with our convenience? By your logic, we do.
Parasites exist in society who have no choice but to be parasites in order to remain alive. Their inalienable right to life means that those of us who can have the moral duty to provide for them. This includes fetuses, who have no choice but to grow in a womb by the mother's natural provisions. The fetus did not conceive itself or become a parasite by its own will- it was conceived by choice of the mother to have sex.

People are not expendable because of need. Your argument is flawed.

Quote by: vash the sane Until a fetus has a brain it can not be a person- it has no thought, no conciousness.

What do you consider a brain? They have detected brain waves as early as 40 days after conception. The brain itself continues developing long after birth. What about someone with a non-functioning brain, like the severely retarded who have little or no thought or consciousness- is it ethical to kill them?

Consciousness is not a basis for humanness...a fact long established in
this thread. A person in a coma is still human. A person who is asleep is
still human. Someone who is smarter is not "more human" because of a higher consciousness of the world around them. A baby does not have significant thought or consciousness until long after it is born, yet it is still considered human.

Quote by: vash the sane Up until then, it might as well be a tumor.

Maybe in your small, deliberately ignorant view of things.

[Jack_Sparrow]

Quote by: vash the sane The right to violate bodily integrity. I can't take someones spare kidney against their will, yet the fetus can take nutrients and energy? The fetus acts as a parasite until it is born.

But the womans body is actively giving the parasite... sorry I mean tumor... these things. Your example doesn't hold unless the donors body goes against the donors mind and actively gives you the kidney. Erm, No.

Quote by: vash the sane It has consiousness, sentience. And, it's not violating bodily integrity after it's born.

Going by your logic, the fetus violates the womans body, but as the womans body plays an active intentional role it is violating itself. Does that mean the womans mind (her person by your definition correct?) violated her body by making it pregnant via irresponsible gambles with sex?

[DrSpangle]

I think that life begins as soon as your brain is somewhat developed, If by life you mean conscious life, as in the phrase (life begins at 40) then I don't know, it really varies. What I think is, an identity is created at conception, but what if a person never does anything after conception about the want to have a baby? Do you mean conception as in "The creation of something in the mind" because if so then it doesn't really make sense that a life would begin because, well... Nothing has happened for that life to take place, or do you mean conception as in the starting of an embryo? Because life definetly doesn't begin with a thought. Does that mean that babies who actually aren't conceived, and actually are accidental don't start living until later in life? :/ because that is even weirder

[doc303]

The nescient failure to recognize the Divine Nature of All Life and it's significance to humans, is a given for atheists. Theirs is a secure world-view until they have needs their belief system is incapable of sustaining. This is the beauty of atheism - it's Godless reliance on the individual who answers all questions with MY OPINION and no others - except perhaps another foolish non-believers. They have no documentation that defines their dogma - each for his own, while mocking the humble faith of a Christian. How could it be this easy ?- is their complaint.

The abortion issue epitomizes this dichotomy as does no other. True Christians place the sanctity of human life - at conception - above all other life forms as God designed. Children are considered a gift from The Lord and should be treated as such. Psalm 127

We do not - generally - consider ordinary fauna and flora above the inviolable nature of homo sapiens, although many liberal denominations are hopping on the green bandwagon. They may eventually become the first so-called Christians to consider abortion acceptable. They are Nominal Christians - in name only - and will pay a price for their anti-Biblical compromises.


I wonder how many atheists are vegetarians?

[Maryjane]

Esters They have detected brain waves as early as 40 days after conception.

Please site your source.

[Tycoon]

I just want to throw this out there, but doesn't every sperm cell and every egg cell produced have the potential to become a human being?

You can't base the entire argument around how a still developing fetus has the right to live on the fact that it has the potential to become a human being.

[Jack]

The nescient failure to recognize the Divine Nature of All Life and it's significance to humans, is a given for atheists.

For the simple reason that no one has provided any evidence that it exists.

Theirs is a secure world-view until they have needs their belief system

Rejecting the theistic belief system does not create another belief system. There is no atheistic belief system. If anything, it's a disbelief system.

mocking the humble faith of a Christian

Christian faith is seldom humble ("foolish non-believers" sounds fairly egotistical to me) but it is frequently mocked. Mocked, questioned, doubted, exposed...all apply at different times.

I wonder how many atheists are vegetarians?

Who knows, or cares? As you said, "They have no documentation that defines their dogma", so atheists aren't obligated to slavishly follow thousands-of-years old codes of behavior. All atheism denotes is a decision not to believe in gods.

[doc303]

...all to their loss

[doc303]

Quote by: Isherwood For the simple reason that no one has provided any evidence that it exists. Rejecting the theistic belief system does not create another belief system. There is no atheistic belief system. If anything, it's a disbelief system. Christian faith is seldom humble ("foolish non-believers" sounds fairly egotistical to me) but it is frequently mocked. Mocked, questioned, doubted, exposed...all apply at different times. Who knows, or cares? As you said, "They have no documentation that defines their dogma", so atheists aren't obligated to slavishly follow thousands-of-years old codes of behavior. All atheism denotes is a decision not to believe in gods.

I both know and care what any fellow hunan believes and will warn of impending doom for those who:"Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen". Romans 1:24-25 NLT

"...thousands-of-years old codes of behavior" have done much good for America and the world. Atheism will destroy all of it if given the chance, my vegetarian friend.

[Maryjane]

The abortion issue epitomizes this dichotomy as does no other. True Christians place the sanctity of human life - at conception - above all other life forms as God designed. Children are considered a gift from The Lord and should be treated as such. Psalm 127

doc303,

Are you saying that christians don't have abortions?

[doc303]

Quote by: Maryjane doc303, Are you saying that christians don't have abortions?

There is a vast difference between a therapeutic - medically necessary - abortion, and an abortion of convenience, MJ. I specified “true Christian” in my post, indicating their desire for an intimate personal relationship with their Creator, not a Nominal Christian. The former strongly believe Psalm 127 and follow it's precepts. Have you read it, MJ? (It's not very long)

I suspect many marginal Christians have indeed had abortions and may well continue to do so, but if their Judeo-Christian ethics prevail they will eventually be asking God for forgiveness.

I have seen many an agonizing expression on the face of parents who have experienced a spontaneous abortion - a miscarriage - even though they understand their child is with the Lord. The healing process is facilitated by giving that child a name and explaining to their other children - who also were eagerly anticipating a brother or sister - what happened and why.

I am saying that any Christian - sincere or in name only - should never have an abortion of convenience. They should consider the blessings of God and offer their child, who it is impossible to raise, to those folks prepared to do so. Couples are going so far these days in surrogate pregnancies that India has become the center for accomplishing this task!

The Associated Press: Outsourcing Pregnancies to India

Follow and read, MJ and see what an authentic mother thinks.

[Sweet Katie]

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?

I am strongly pro-life . . . and pro-choice . . . I prefer to give that choice to the unborn baby . . . I'm not sure where life begins . . . But I do know where abortionists want to end it . . . currently, it's in the first trimester. Good news . . . Abortions are down and the greatest number of anti-abortionists are under 25.

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: vash the sane If you think rationally, then produce a logical reason to oppose it. Provide a reasonable explanation why we should give a clump of cells more rights than what we give a living person. P.S. "It's the will of god" is NOT a reasonable explanation

How is allowing a baby to live providing it "more rights" than the human carrying the child? It seems that this "clump of cells" (defenseless and voiceless, except for those who are oppposed to abortion) deserves nothing more or less than the mother who made it -- life.

And, for me, this isn't a religious matter. It's a humanitarian one.

[Sweet Katie]

Why are subscribers making abortion a religious issue? Does life and death only occur if one believes in God? Does one need to believe in a higher power to have humanity? I don't see it.