Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Mr. Big]

Any one have a counter argument? If not I think I'll move on.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: Mr. Big Any one have a counter argument? If not I think I'll move on.

I have too asked MOD to change the title of this thread, some two years ago and name it as

Does individual human life starts at conception ? instead of simply life. But, nobody paid serious attention to my suggestion. It is quite logical to say life has started, probably before Adam. Possible God's sperm having life has produced Adam with somebody's egg (Whose, I do not know) !!!????

But individual human life, or, feeling of individuality in fetus defintely comes only after development of its brain and nervous system and not at the time of conception, I argued further then.

[Eraldo Coil]

The zygote itself is not a human being, because it does not possess what a human has. Thoughts and a heart beat. The heart isn't nearly developed yet, and there are no brain waves.

[Mr. Big]

"The zygote itself is not a human being, because it does not possess what a human has. Thoughts and a heart beat. The heart isn't nearly developed yet, and there are no brain waves."

So someone with a mechanical heart who is unconscious (or involved in a brain transplant...yes it is possible...) is not a human being either.

[GloriousCause]

Quote by: SoylentGreen You have yet to prove that the only purpose for sex is procreatio. I can point to many instances in the animal kingdom and among humans where sex serves a purpose entirely unrelated to procreation. What have you got?

Perhaps I was vague. The only evolutionary/biological purpose for sex is procreation. This is basic science. The drive, the desire, the fun - It's great, it provides other MOTIVES for sex, but these motives were biologically embedded for the purpose of getting us to procreate.

Homosexual sex. We should encourage our children to have same sex relationships until they are ready to procreate.

Or encourage them to have oral sex, mutual masturbation, or anal, if they're into that sort of thing. But I digress, because the fact of the matter is....

Homosexuality doesn't exist. Now before you go thinking I'm some priest looking to instill a Christian sharia (I'm actually agnostic), hear me out. Kinsey posited that sharp definitions of heterosexuality and homosexual are illusory - just as black and white are illusory extremes of gray. Nobody is purely homosexual and nobody is purely heterosexual. Even the most raging homosexual has a touch of attraction to females, so little perhaps that they don't even recognize it, and among the most bullheaded hetero the same is true. Homosexuality is not biological, no more so than my preference for blondes, red wine, and CBS over brunettes, Budweiser, and NBC.

People's sexual TASTES have nothing to do with the reason why vaginal intercourse exists.

Again the onus is on you to prove that it is only the reason for the existence of the sex act.

Not the "only reason" - the only biological/evolutionary reason.

But that's not even an essential point in the article, because regardless of existential arguments about "purpose" and "cause", vaginal intercourse bears the risk of producing offspring, regardless of what you do to prevent it. You are still knowingly engaging in an act that carries the risk of producing offspring.

[GloriousCause]

Quote by: gela No.. your defining the terms the way you see it.

How is my "perception" wrong?

You've given no evidence to support your claims, just your belief that we owe the fetus something.

You engage in an act the purpose of which is the creation of offspring, an act which carries the risk of producing offspring 100% of the time. That's why you owe the fetus something - because you made it, by action, and unless you take further action, it will most likely develop into a fully-grown human being.

I am saying, we owe it nothing. We brought it into existence, but as far as I'm concerned, we have brought a lump of cells, comparable to a lump of bacteria, into existence. We have not brought something with feelings or a consciousness into existence, we have not yet brought something that recognizes its own existence, into existence. For that reason, I see no problem with aborting it before it becomes a note worthy existence.

And you're entitled to your opinion - but your argument is just as supported by evidence as my article. In the end it's a matter of opinion. I believe that the humanity of the fetus, coupled with respect for the biological imperative and the rights schemata generated by your choice trumps your belief as you outline it above.

I respect your opinion, but I don't think that your opinion should be the law of all 50 states.

Everything about our genetic makeup is ultimately about procreating, and protecting the offspring. Sex isn't special, its the same as everything else about us. 'The meaning of the sex act' is irrevelent, because everything else about us has the exact same meaning. Do we let that affect us? no. So why should sex be given a special label?

it's not given a special label for that reason. It's special because when you have sex and produce a fetus, you are putting another human being into the equation. Now we can debate the value of that other human being, but that is unmistakably what makes this different. I'm free to sabotage my own chances at procreation all I want, but I'm not free to interfere with the lives of others.

[GloriousCause]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe 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.

I think I've already addressed this. Not to be rude - check my post two above this one or some of my posts from my original round.

[Morality Games]

And you're entitled to your opinion - but your argument is just as supported by evidence as my article. In the end it's a matter of opinion. I believe that the humanity of the fetus, coupled with respect for the biological imperative and the rights schemata generated by your choice trumps your belief as you outline it above. I respect your opinion, but I don't think that your opinion should be the law of all 50 states.

I'm getting extremely sick of this topic, so I will keep the admonishment light: unless you can demonstrate the fetus is human in a significant sense, which all of the many appeals of pro-lifers have failed to do in decades, then there are no grounds for illegalizing abortion. That's not how principled, constitutional law works. There is a certain logic involved, and part of that logic is that regulating public relations revolves around evidence. Until such a time as a fetus can be indisputably, beyond all contest and without any recourse to faith of any type, be demonstrated a human being in a significant sense, it is not possible for there to be a justified law which restricts abortions.

Restricting people's activity in a democracy with a constitution is never a matter of opinion.

You need to prove a fetus is human in a very concrete and firmly established way that does not depend on the "out there" logic of essentialism pro-lifers have used to bolster their argument (which has been deemed an unacceptable rationale under Constitutional Law by courts throughout the land, including the one that really counts (U.S. Supreme Court), because it is too fantastic and crazy). You have to do it in the same way we know gravity and motion are real.

A/N: Science has proven you will never be able to do that (we know very much what a fetus is, and it is not human in any significant sense, no matter what weird abuses of language pro-lifers employ), so it is basically hopeless unless some kind of populism or theocracy triumphs over the rule of reasoned law.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Mr. Big 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.

I think you're talking about apples and oranges.

There's the potential for a human life to form, but until it does it's just cells that are alive in a sense, but they die off eventually, they don't stay alive. Sperm have a pretty short life span. Eggs have a longer lifespan in the sense that they can stay in a body for a lifetime, but eventually they wither and die as the host ages.

I get your point that they are alive and of a human, but they really aren't miraculously alive until they join up with a foreigner. They're just sluffing along, no real aims, or huge goals until they get lucky.

[Mr. Big]

Marilyn,

Your comparison may or may not be correct, but thats a different issue. All I said was that life begins before conception, and you have seemed to have agreed to this.

[SoylentGreen]

GloriousCausePerhaps I was vague. The only evolutionary/biological purpose for sex is procreation. This is basic science. The drive, the desire, the fun - It's great, it provides other MOTIVES for sex, but these motives were biologically embedded for the purpose of getting us to procreate

Why should humans be bound by instinctual design. We have developed a brain, seems a waste not to use it.

People's sexual TASTES have nothing to do with the reason why vaginal intercourse exists.

But they do provide an alternative. Why should we not use it?
We have the ability to decide if a pregnancy should continue or not, through contraception or abortion. And you suggest we throw that technology away because of a base instinct?

You are still knowingly engaging in an act that carries the risk of producing offspring.

So your suggesting we artificially over ride our basic instinct to procreate in order to accommodate our basic ability to procreate.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Why should humans be bound by instinctual design. We have developed a brain, seems a waste not to use it.

When's the last time you saw a human use it's brain for anything significant?

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Mr. Big Marilyn, Your comparison may or may not be correct, but thats a different issue. All I said was that life begins before conception, and you have seemed to have agreed to this.

The life I'm talking about is someone like you or me, and you gotta have conception for that which is us.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: Mr. Big Marilyn, Your comparison may or may not be correct, but thats a different issue. All I said was that life begins before conception, and you have seemed to have agreed to this.

In the language games of science, life begins before conception, but not because of a natural law or God which makes it so; the current consensus of the scientifiic community is that the term 'life' will apply to entities comprised of at least one cell, and public use of the word 'life' is sometimes affected by this definition.

However, if scientists changed their minds and decided one cell entities are too unsophisticated to merit use of the same term applied to multicelluar beings like you or me, then they would find a new (probably Latin) word to refer single cells organisms -- 'life' would no longer be in use. Scientists don't do that because the political battle doesn't effect their research much. For their purposes, use of the word 'life' is just fine.

None of these semantic riddles are of any relevance to public law. Whether the fetus should be called 'alive' or 'not alive' doesn't matter to a court whose occupation is just rulings -- only the reality of the situation matters, and that is that the thoughtlessness, emotionlessness, and zero desires and personality of the fetus disqualify it as a human being with rights.

Hence, why abortion is legal -- under the logic of democracy and constitutional law, it must necessarily be that way.

Pro-lifers tend to fail to emphasize the temporal, provisional nature of language as a mode for describing things -- they don't seem to realize the difference between language and the parts-of-the-world-about-which-some-sensible-things-can-be-said.

[Mr. Big]

Quote by: Morality Games In the language games of science, life begins before conception, but not because of a natural law or God which makes it so; the current consensus of the scientifiic community is that the term 'life' will apply to entities comprised of at least one cell, and public use of the word 'life' is sometimes affected by this definition. However, if scientists changed their minds and decided one cell entities are too unsophisticated to merit use of the same term applied to multicelluar beings like you or me, then they would find a new (probably Latin) word to refer single cells organisms -- 'life' would no longer be in use. Scientists don't do that because the political battle doesn't effect their research much. For their purposes, use of the word 'life' is just fine. None of these semantic riddles are of any relevance to public law. Whether the fetus should be called 'alive' or 'not alive' doesn't matter to a court whose occupation is just rulings -- only the reality of the situation matters, and that is that the thoughtlessness, emotionlessness, and zero desires and personality of the fetus disqualify it as a human being with rights. Hence, why abortion is legal -- under the logic of democracy and constitutional law, it must necessarily be that way. Pro-lifers tend to fail to emphasize the temporal, provisional nature of language as a mode for describing things -- they don't seem to realize the difference between language and the parts-of-the-world-about-which-some-sensible-things-can-be-said.

So we're in agreement, life begins before conception.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Morality Games None of these semantic riddles are of any relevance to public law. Whether the fetus should be called 'alive' or 'not alive' doesn't matter to a court whose occupation is just rulings -- only the reality of the situation matters, and that is that the thoughtlessness, emotionlessness, and zero desires and personality of the fetus disqualify it as a human being with rights.

Abortion was legalized because of a woman's right to privacy, and the mother has all the rights when pregnant.

[Mr. Big]

"Abortion was legalized because of a woman's right to privacy, and the mother has all the rights when pregnant."

Legal rights, anyway. Actually come to think about it, thats not even true. A woman can be held legally liable if she uses drugs or alcohol while pregnant, seriously affecting the fetus. This means that an unborn child has a right not to be subject to things that will significantly affect it physically in the future.

[Mr. Big]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe The life I'm talking about is someone like you or me, and you gotta have conception for that which is us.

I have no disagreement with this stance.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Mr. Big "Abortion was legalized because of a woman's right to privacy, and the mother has all the rights when pregnant." Legal rights, anyway. Actually come to think about it, thats not even true. A woman can be held legally liable if she uses drugs or alcohol while pregnant, seriously affecting the fetus. This means that an unborn child has a right not to be subject to things that will significantly affect it physically in the future.

That's true if she doesn't abort it first. The fetus does have some rights when killed by someone reckless, like a careless or negligent driver, not the mother, if she makes the abortion choice. Now if a woman stabbed herself in the stomach, not sure how the law would look at that. The law can seem somewhat contradictory, depending on how you look at it.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Mr. Big I have no disagreement with this stance.

Life is present before conception, but I never really considered it "a life". I get your point though.