Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Ant32bit prohibiting abortion is just that. If you are promoting that we should not let a woman decide whether a clump of cells is removed from her body or not, then you are promoting that we force her to wait for said clump to form a baby and then force her to deliver it.

Where did I argue abortion should be prohibited?

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: GloriousCause Yes. And often it's worth the role of the dice. With condoms and the pill, the risk is tiny. I had sex for years before I really wanted a kid, because the risk was so tiny. But I went it knowing the risks and accepting them.

What about post menopausal women, or someone without a uterus? Sex is meant to be fun, it's even in the bible, I think, that a man and woman should become one, and enjoy each other that way. The fact that it can be risky is usually not on your mind when you're having fun, this is the big trick that it plays on us.

[Mr. Big]

Back to the question at hand: "Does life begin at conception?"

The only answer to this is that life begins before conception. Lets look at it this way:

If life begins at conception, then the zygote comes from what is not alive.
The zygote comes from the sperm and the egg.
If the zygote comes from the sperm and the egg, then the sperm and the egg are not alive.
But this seems contrary to what we naturally feel - we naturally feel that a sperm is a living thing and an egg is a living thing.
So this means that life does not begin at conception.

Further:
If a sperm and an egg are alive before conception, then there is life before conception.
Again, we feel that a sperm and an egg are both alive.
So.... thats right, there is life before conception.

Marilyn Monroe, can you provide the relevant passages in the bible about sex?

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Mr. Big Back to the question at hand: "Does life begin at conception?" The only answer to this is that life begins before conception. Lets look at it this way: If life begins at conception, then the zygote comes from what is not alive. The zygote comes from the sperm and the egg. If the zygote comes from the sperm and the egg, then the sperm and the egg are not alive. But this seems contrary to what we naturally feel - we naturally feel that a sperm is a living thing and an egg is a living thing. So this means that life does not begin at conception.

Aren't you talking about a potential for life? An egg and sperm are life forms, but not really alive in the same sense as a fetus. My finger is alive, but without the hand it has no purpose.

Marilyn Monroe, can you provide the relevant passages in the bible about sex?

All I could find was this. Doesn't sound like fun, but it could be, but then it throws in prayer which ruins it.

"But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

[Mr. Big]

Hmm... I don't see sex explicitly stated in that quote. It could be talking about a spiritual (non-religious) union between two people, much like how Aristotle says that friendship is two souls dwelling in one body.

As for your other reply:

A cell is alive, is it not? Since a sperm and an egg are both cells, they would have to be alive, would they not? if not, then you have to define life, since we intuitively see cells as living. Well, at least the alive ones.

[Mr. Big]

"Aren't you talking about a potential for life? An egg and sperm are life forms, but not really alive in the same sense as a fetus. My finger is alive, but without the hand it has no purpose."

Okay, what you're talking about is purpose or importance, which is another matter all together. The fact that we call it a "life form" hints that its alive, and in a specific form. You need to also clarify why a cell is not alive in the same sense that a fetus is. In general, I think my argument still stands.

[SoylentGreen]

Mr. BigThe fact that we call it a "life form" hints that its alive, and in a specific form. You need to also clarify why a cell is not alive in the same sense that a fetus is. In general, I think my argument still stands.

No such clarification is needed. You are taking the argument out of context.
Given your reasoning every time you cut your hair or take an anti biotic you are a murderer taking life.
So MM is not talking about purpose or importance but is keeping within context. That is the specific cells for creating a child . Not any old cell that comes to mind.

[Mr. Big]

The context is the question of when life begins. The first post talks about abortion somewhat, but the title is a clear question. I have kept within that topic.

A cell is a living thing. Saying that one is more important than another is a value judgment, which is fine... but THAT is taking the topic out of context. The question wasn't, "What life forms is it okay to kill?" That question is a separate question. You can create another thread if you would like to discuss it.

"Given your reasoning every time you cut your hair or take an anti biotic you are a murderer taking life."

No. That doesn't follow from my argument. That, again, implies a value judgment. Murder is only murder when the death is the death of something that is of some value (intrinsic value or other) to us, or would be to that living thing, in conjunction with the act being an unauthorized killing.

So, attack my previous argument or leave the issue alone.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe My finger is alive, but without the hand it has no purpose.

Quote by: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define+purpose&btnG=Google+Search an anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions; "his intent was to provide a new translation"; "good intentions are ...

A paperclip has one common potential. It can also be bent into a knot and used to keep chickens from escaping, or sterilized and made into emergency tweezers to pull out a splinter. They also make fairly effective modes of torture, and one paperclip could be ground into a cure for anemia for hundreds of people. That is potential.

In philosophy purpose is an intent. A paperclip does not have intent and does not care what it does, although the person using it cares.

Yes, one thing can have more potential than something else; a severed finger would be hard to find a use for. Training medical students? Grind it up, label it as plankton and feed it to people? Naturally it still does not have inherent purpose unless it starts moving purposefully on its own. Yeah, I've got a weird imagination.

[Mr. Big]

You're derailing the thread.

[SoylentGreen]

The context is the question of when life begins.

And by pointing out all cells are alive does nothing to answer where it begins only that it comes from other life sources.

No. That doesn't follow from my argument.

Of course it does. You argue that all cells are alive , therefore cutting your hair deprives the hair of the nutrients needed to stay alive. You are killing it.
And by ignoring the word conception you are taking it out of context. This is about certain cells not all cells.

[Mr. Big]

"And by pointing out all cells are alive does nothing to answer where it begins only that it comes from other life sources."

Your correct. What I should have said was that the question is whether life begins at conception or not. I have made it clear that it does not, and you have yet to challenge me on this.

"Of course it does. You argue that all cells are alive , therefore cutting your hair deprives the hair of the nutrients needed to stay alive. You are killing it."

Killing and murder are not the same thing. Murder is a moral crime against a moral being. Killing is ending the life of something living. In order to be murdered, you must be part of a moral community. For that to follow from my argument would require additional premises which were not included.

"And by ignoring the word conception you are taking it out of context. This is about certain cells not all cells."

In my argument (if you actually read it) I did talk about conception, so it doesn't look like I took it out of context in that way. If this conversation is about certain cells, then why was this not stipulated in the op? I understood it to only mean human life, and I have been talking about human life since I originally posted. There was no talk about "certain cells" in the op, nor cells at all. It only talked about "life", and alluded to human life.

Now if you don't have an argument against my original argument I will not respond to you again. Post something relevant or nothing at all.

[SoylentGreen]

I have made it clear that it does not, and you have yet to challenge me on this.

No you didn't you just pointed out all cells are alive .

Killing and murder are not the same thing.

Good, now that you have sorted that out ,you can see where your wrong.

If this conversation is about certain cells, then why was this not stipulated in the op? I understood it to only mean human life, and I have been talking about human life since I originally posted.

It was ,it is dealing with the cells specifically used for creation , not all cells

It only talked about "life", and alluded to human life.

Finally you got it. the beginning of human life , not all life or the life of every cell.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Mr. Big Hmm... I don't see sex explicitly stated in that quote. It could be talking about a spiritual (non-religious) union between two people, much like how Aristotle says that friendship is two souls dwelling in one body.

The part that says a wife's body is no longer her own sounds like sex to me. There are other places in the bible where it seems like the spirits become one, but this is talking about the body.

As for your other reply:

A cell is alive, is it not? Since a sperm and an egg are both cells, they would have to be alive, would they not? if not, then you have to define life, since we intuitively see cells as living. Well, at least the alive ones.

I think you're being nit-picky. A cell is a part of a body, it's not alone out there living on it's own, getting an apartment, trying to find a job. Sperm and eggs are parts of someone's body that have no potential for life outside of that body unless they somehow escape and join with something that is welcoming. Take that back, nowadays they can be put in a petrie dish, but still they would have to be attached to a host to live and grow eventually.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Mr. Big You're derailing the thread.

No, I'm trying to save it by teaching the difference between potential and purpose.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Thanatos Yes, one thing can have more potential than something else; a severed finger would be hard to find a use for. Training medical students? Grind it up, label it as plankton and feed it to people? Naturally it still does not have inherent purpose unless it starts moving purposefully on its own. Yeah, I've got a weird imagination.

Actually, I thought of some of that stuff, so great minds think alike?

[Mr. Big]

Well first, a sperm and an egg are human. You can't deny that. They are produced by the human body, and float around inside a human. They can eventually develop into a separate human, so both cells are human.

"I think you're being nit-picky. A cell is a part of a body, it's not alone out there living on it's own, getting an apartment, trying to find a job. Sperm and eggs are parts of someone's body that have no potential for life outside of that body unless they somehow escape and join with something that is welcoming. Take that back, nowadays they can be put in a petrie dish, but still they would have to be attached to a host to live and grow eventually."

You make a good observation, but that is a separate issue than was raised by the op.

The fact is that a human cell is human and its alive, so life begins before conception as stated by my argument. Potentiality does not factor into this and is irrelevant.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: SoylentGreen No such clarification is needed. You are taking the argument out of context. Given your reasoning every time you cut your hair or take an anti biotic you are a murderer taking life. So MM is not talking about purpose or importance but is keeping within context. That is the specific cells for creating a child . Not any old cell that comes to mind.

Hair is not alive, and bacteria are not human, bad analogy.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Actually, I thought of some of that stuff, so great minds think alike?

Call it convergent thinking. I never thought about it until I saw your post and some of the anti-abortion arguments.

[SoylentGreen]

Mr. BigThe fact is that a human cell is human and its alive, so life begins before conception as stated by my argument. Potentiality does not factor into this and is irrelevant.

Well after 173 pages of discussion your the first to figure out what the real intention of the OP is. To discuss whether humans cells are alive.
And here was the rest of us talking about at what point a child in the womb can be determined to be sufficiently called a life in itself and therefore should not be aborted.
Now perhaps you can show it is not the case, that which everyone else took for granted, that a sperm and egg must be alive in order to join and begin the process of cell division in order to create a new life.
Other than that we should award you the medal for "stating the bleeding obvious" and then hope that we can return to the topic of the OP.