Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Gods_Mercenary]

A body part that doesn't share your genes or your blood supply?

[Dadoo]

The basic, fundamental elements for fetal development are provided undoubtedly by what the mother consumes.
A fetus is not an independent creature! It is a self-formed parasite. Any benefit of symbiotic interplay is for the child's benefit- yet, willed by the mother.
It doesn't matter, the Law. Women take care of their business regardless. Have so, forever.
Dadoo

[Thanatos]

Forgive me, for I have not read the full 170 pages and I'm about to butt into this argument with a rather strange take on things and stranger conclusions.

Life begins at conception (duh? What a strange and inarguable thing to argue), but when does self-awareness? Even the most precocious babies never recognize themselves in a mirror until they're several months old and their brains have developed a bit more. Before that milestone a baby lacks that spark that makes it an independent person.

[SoylentGreen]

If we look at the medical moral and ethics comittee, they apparently determine it on "the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated"

n mid-summer 2004, the moral debate surrounding abortion continued to gather momentum in the British media, centring on calls to review the 24 week limit currently set for most abortions (although it is lawful to terminate up to term in certain circumstances). It was proposed that the parliamentary science and technology committees should jointly review the Abortion Act 1967, as amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.1 The act sets a 24 week limit for abortions carried out when "the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family". Critics have frequently pointed out, however, that continuation of pregnancy invariably involves more risk than termination.

Ethics briefings -- English et al. 30 (5): 517 -- Journal of Medical Ethics

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Thanatos Forgive me, for I have not read the full 170 pages and I'm about to butt into this argument with a rather strange take on things and stranger conclusions. Life begins at conception (duh? What a strange and inarguable thing to argue), but when does self-awareness? Even the most precocious babies never recognize themselves in a mirror until they're several months old and their brains have developed a bit more. Before that milestone a baby lacks that spark that makes it an independent person.

Yes, and every independent person was at one point a single cell with no more self awareness than a speck of dirt. Self awareness seems a relatively arbitrary measure of what it is to be a person. by killing a fetus, you are in all likelihood denying a totally unique fully functional and independent human adult life.

[Morality Games]

It's not just that the fetus is a psychological non-entity. It's also that women are complex psychological entities, that regulation of such an important bodily process sets dangerous precendents in government power and trends in public thought (what people think they are allowed to force other people to do and why) -- that people should be allowed to control other people on the mountain of logical fallacies and appeals to emotion pro-lifers have built up would truly signal the end of sensible law. Statements like, "We were all fetuses once," don't constitute passable rationalizations for public law, especially when restricting the freedom of others. You have to prove a fetus has meaningful humanity on its own, apart from what it might become later on if certain conditions are meant. Believe it or not, but the inability of fetuses to actually function like humans in an everyday sense was huge in the court's decision to legalize abortions, and that is really the only legitimate law there can be until substantial proofs are proferred for the humanity of fetuses (something other than taking scientific vocabulary like 'life' completely out of context).

Anyway, about half of fetuses die naturally. That pro-lifers either haven't noticed or just don't care about this even when they believe fetuses constitute human beings with a right to live makes me laugh at them. With all the time and effort they waste on trying to illegalize abortions, you'd think they might stress the importance of developing new medicines to increase the probability of a fetus' survival for those women who are willing to bear them. I guess they think the humanity gained at birth doesn't extend where it is difficult to reach, only where it is easy. Either they are asinine (because they haven't noticed such a hyprocrisy) or insincere (because they have noticed and have dismissed it on some deus ex machina or another).

[Gods_Mercenary]

I never said I'm for government involvement, necesarily, I'm arguing morality, as is the originator of this thread, I beleive.

Pro-lifers probably assume that medecine, in terms of fertility medecine, would probably love to have a drug to stop miscarriage anyway. Plus, it's the difference between someone dying of cancer and someone dying of a beheading, and just because you protest (highly hypothetical) an african genocide and not for aids drugs doesn't mean you don't care about the aids victims.

[Morality Games]

I never said I'm for government involvement, necesarily, I'm arguing morality, as is the originator of this thread, I beleive.

Championing empathy toward a psychological non-entity before a psychological entity is not moral, it is senseless. Speaking in terms of straightforward, common sense morality, no fetus should receive the care of another being until after that same being has felt for the suffering of every psychological entity in the perceptible world, and that being should not make any move, in word but especially not in deed, to save a fetus while they still have the power to help psychological entities deserving of it.

Pro-lifers probably assume that medecine, in terms of fertility medecine, would probably love to have a drug to stop miscarriage anyway.

If the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers assume anything (unlikely, considering most of them probably don't invest serious thought into the matter even if they do hear of it), it is that the death of fetuses at such an early stage is no matter for grief because it is 'natural', or the will of god, neither of which are consistent with the premesis of their arguments -- pro-life logic goes that the will of God or Natural Law is what guarantees human beings the right to live. That's a fairly sizeable contradiction. That no effort has been made to help fetuses who die from causes other than abortion is a massive damage to their ethos (moral character), since it shows they either don't notice or don't care about the nuances of the situation they have involved themselves in. They basically adhere to mob logic, or as stated before, they rely on deus ex machinas to help them get free of responsibility for their ramifications of their thought so they can keep expounding their nonsense untroubled by their conscience or the objections of more reasonable people.

Plus, it's the difference between someone dying of cancer and someone dying of a beheading, and just because you protest (highly hypothetical) an african genocide and not for aids drugs doesn't mean you don't care about the aids victims.

No, because fetuses have never been shown to be people in the same way we demonstrate our personhood in everything we do. The analogy doesn't apply because it presupposes fetuses are persons, which has yet to be proven.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Championing empathy toward a psychological non-entity before a psychological entity is not moral, it is senseless. Speaking in terms of straightforward, common sense morality, no fetus should receive the care of another being until after that same being has felt for the suffering of every psychological entity in the perceptible world, and that being should not make any move, in word but especially not in deed, to save a fetus while they still have the power to help psychological entities deserving of it.

I was unaware I was championing anything, just expressing my views on why most abortion is probably immoral.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I was unaware I was championing anything, just expressing my views on why most abortion is probably immoral.

I don't know how any morality will function without some degree of empathy, but I guess it was idiotic of me to assume it might play into it somehow. So to clarify, you are saying empathy is unassociated with your concept of morality? If so, then I must apologize for getting totally off basis.

Also, 'championing and 'expressing a view' can be different phrases for the same concept, that being 'affirming an idea positively'.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Yes, and every independent person was at one point a single cell with no more self awareness than a speck of dirt. Self awareness seems a relatively arbitrary measure of what it is to be a person. by killing a fetus, you are in all likelihood denying a totally unique fully functional and independent human adult life.

Hey, I did give this some thought. As arbitrary boundaries go I picked a fairly defensible one.

*Thanatos begins humming "Every sperm is sa-cred" to himself*

Mere potential for life is cheap; humans evolved in a rough world and can make a lot of it when we need to. I was once a zygote. I was also once a fancy Italian dinner that was eaten by my parents; my carbon did not appear from nothing. Yet I am not Italian food.

So, what defines me? What makes me different from everybody else? My genes? They gave me a piece of direction, but I am not them. I transcend my blueprints just as my blueprints transcended amaretto and linguine. Are identical twins the same being?

I am an individual, and I think. I have thoughts, dreams, fears, favorite foods and all that crap. I even remember things some of the time. My mind defines me and so I value it and reached my previous conclusion.

On an empirical note, this is the logical conclusion of preserving every set of partial (or whole) blueprints chance and human fecundity are capable of producing. Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Morality Games I don't know how any morality will function without some degree of empathy, but I guess it was idiotic of me to assume it might play into it somehow. So to clarify, you are saying empathy is unassociated with your concept of morality? If so, then I must apologize for getting totally off basis. Also, 'championing and 'expressing a view' can be different phrases for the same concept, that being 'affirming an idea positively'.

Championing implies I think everyone else should think it and must be degenerate if they don't, expressing just means that's my view. While, indeed, I try to keep empathy, a totally subjective emotion, out of my morality, I don't see why seeing abortion as immoral implies having more empathy for the fetus than the mother.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Thanatos Hey, I did give this some thought. As arbitrary boundaries go I picked a fairly defensible one. *Thanatos begins humming "Every sperm is sa-cred" to himself* Mere potential for life is cheap; humans evolved in a rough world and can make a lot of it when we need to. I was once a zygote. I was also once a fancy Italian dinner that was eaten by my parents; my carbon did not appear from nothing. Yet I am not Italian food. So, what defines me? What makes me different from everybody else? My genes? They gave me a piece of direction, but I am not them. I transcend my blueprints just as my blueprints transcended amaretto and linguine. Are identical twins the same being? I am an individual, and I think. I have thoughts, dreams, fears, favorite foods and all that crap. I even remember things some of the time. My mind defines me and so I value it and reached my previous conclusion. On an empirical note, this is the logical conclusion of preserving every set of partial (or whole) blueprints chance and human fecundity are capable of producing. Sorry, couldn't resist.

You, biologically, are your genes. Psychologically, a fetus is capable of emotion. A fetus in a mother's womb, if both are left to nature, will in all likelihood develop into a full person. I see no reason why ending this chain of events artificially for no overwhelming reason is justifiable

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Championing implies I think everyone else should think it and must be degenerate if they don't, expressing just means that's my view. While, indeed, I try to keep empathy, a totally subjective emotion, out of my morality, I don't see why seeing abortion as immoral implies having more empathy for the fetus than the mother.

The mother has to go through the pain and discomfort. Some people might see immorality in forcing women to have kids they don't want, or can't support. What if there's something profoundly wrong with the fetus? Is it immoral to force a being to come into the world, and then have no real life? The issue is a circle of morality. Goes 'round and 'round.

One other point is God would know that that fetus was never going to live since He knows all, so in a sense it's a life that never was going to be anyway. The lives that are are, and the one's that aren't aren't.I see the immorality from the point of view that it is God's creature, and we are disrespecting Him by destroying a life that He created, but, well, there are just so many buts. I stay pretty confused about all of it.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary You, biologically, are your genes. Psychologically, a fetus is capable of emotion. A fetus in a mother's womb, if both are left to nature, will in all likelihood develop into a full person. I see no reason why ending this chain of events artificially for no overwhelming reason is justifiable

I think you missed my point. A rock has potential for life if you rearrange it sufficiently. I can't help but value the life instead of the mere omnipresent potential because that's how I see the world.

The appearance of brainwaves is another logical boundary. I'm not a vegetarian so I can't start respecting the lives of nonsentient beings without feeling like a hypocrite

[Haltia]

Again like a few people i have not read the whole debate as i would be sat here all night. So i will just simple post my views and opinions.

I don't think life begins at conception because not alot happens for about 2 weeks, the cells don't start dividing for about 30 hours and it actually takes around 6 days before it becomes part of the womb. Also the parts of the body don't develop until after the first two weeks from conception.
I personally wouldn't say life begins until the heart and brain start to form and function which is around the 4-8 week mark. This for me is when life begins, when the fetus is now getting to a stage where it can react to light and sounds and also has a working heart and brain.
Before this stage its just a clump of cells and thats not just what i decided to call them, i've read it in many books and on many websites by scientists and they also refer to the baby as a clump of cells until the 4-6 week mark.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Thanatos I think you missed my point. A rock has potential for life if you rearrange it sufficiently. I can't help but value the life instead of the mere omnipresent potential because that's how I see the world. The appearance of brainwaves is another logical boundary. I'm not a vegetarian so I can't start respecting the lives of nonsentient beings without feeling like a hypocrite

Will a rock turn into a fully functional human being if you let nature take its course? I can see brainwaves, I'd probably agree to meet halfway at some point, but I think late term abortion in general is horrific.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe The mother has to go through the pain and discomfort. Some people might see immorality in forcing women to have kids they don't want, or can't support. What if there's something profoundly wrong with the fetus? Is it immoral to force a being to come into the world, and then have no real life? The issue is a circle of morality. Goes 'round and 'round. One other point is God would know that that fetus was never going to live since He knows all, so in a sense it's a life that never was going to be anyway. The lives that are are, and the one's that aren't aren't.I see the immorality from the point of view that it is God's creature, and we are disrespecting Him by destroying a life that He created, but, well, there are just so many buts. I stay pretty confused about all of it.

When did I say we should force women to do anything? And when did I mention God?

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Will a rock turn into a fully functional human being if you let nature take its course?

Its the human ultimately doing the creating either way.

Is it murder if the person does not exist yet? Hypothetical: you are attacked by several incredibly horny, drunk and fertile members of a girl's college wrestling team. If you plead with them to apply a condom are you murdering the kids you would inevitably have had otherwise?

[Hurt]

Quote by: Thanatos Its the human ultimately doing the creating either way. Is it murder if the person does not exist yet? Hypothetical: you are attacked by several incredibly horny, drunk and fertile members of a girl's college wrestling team. If you plead with them to apply a condom are you murdering the kids you would inevitably have had otherwise?

Not a very good analogy..? Most people won't consider anything before fertilization, at least, as conception, right?