Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[90ogle]

Quote by: Brian Wow that was out there but I see the connection especially with Number 3. But I think it is rather selfish not to think of the children in it all and that was my point.

Children indeed will sow the seed to future natures' existence. Educate and Nurture with a Responsible heart and soulful mind.

I am selfish in some ways less than others.

I reflect conditions in my own environment.

An artist is owns his environment.

So as far as when does a life begin and end. That is in the hands of the great public opinion. My opinion is not gold but it is a true analysis of what I see before me. Hope I have not stayed too far in this debate.

Have a good weekend and Take time to reflect on the importance of you own existence which is great in your own mind. Forward motion in a balanced circle.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Brian Wow that was out there but I see the connection especially with Number 3. But I think it is rather selfish not to think of the children in it all and that was my point.

Abortion doesn't involve children.

TC

[Roger Bartlett]

Life begins with conception, there's no doubt in my mind about that.

But what if it didn't? What if the fetus is unliving inside the mother's womb and living outside of it? Does that make the act of abortion any less egregious? No. You're still taking away the future life that the fetus would eventually have, which in my opinion is just plain wrong.

Should we give some women free abortions just because they are poor and we believe the kid can't have a good life? No. In my country we believe that you can be successful no matter where you start out from. That's the American Dream, and to deny that dream from a person (or something that will soon be a person) is just as wrong as murder.

[Morality Games]

That's the American Dream, and to deny that dream from a person (or something that will soon be a person) is just as wrong as murder.

You assume that a person and something that will soon be a person are interchangeable . . . more or less the same thing. You are wrong, and this is not a matter of opinion or belief. People are treated like people specifically because their existence embodies a certain set of features which a fetus doesn't have. Having these features and pending on having these features isn't the same thing, so they don't receive the same treatment.

Put simply, 0 does not equal 1, the equation requires 1 to function, so 0 is not part of the equation.

You claim throughout your post it is important we consider a fetus and a person as more or less the same thing, but the question that won't go away is, "Why should two things not the same be considered the same?"

[Roger Bartlett]

Put simply, 0 does not equal 1, the equation requires 1 to function, so 0 is not part of the equation.

People aren't numbers, and it's much more complicated than you make it out to be. You speak as if it's already been proven that the human fetus isn't alive.

Can someone explain to me how something can be described as dead at one point and alive at another? Things go from living to dead every day, but lifeless tissue suddenly coming to life is something I cannot fathom.

Here's the truth: biology teaches us that the smallest form of life is the cell. What are fetuses made up of? Cells. It is not one of the mother's body parts, as many people seem to think. It is merely living off the mother in a symbiotic relationship. And last but not least, the fetus has every right a regular person has.

[inri]

As is evidenced by the pitiful history of women who have felt the necessity to self abort, mutilating and sometimes killing themselves in the process, an unwanted pregnancy is far more than a mere 'inconvenience' to the woman experiencing it.
Does the fact that she is unequivocably an established, living 'human being' garner any rights in her favor? How about the fact that she is in ownership of the very body the fetus requires to sustain it's 'life'?

I view abortion as a form of 'self-defense". The woman resorting to it is often attempting to 'preserve' her very own body and life as she has come to know it.

The very question "When does life begin" would likely not even be asked if not in relation to the question of abortion and stem-cell research and such. It is a question that goes so far beyond mere biology as it is far more encompassing in it's scope. Simply answering this question on a purely biological level does nothing to address the many issues involved in these scenarios. Sure, human life begins with an egg and sperm uniting...but does the result of this constitute a human being, fully deserving of the very same rights and considerations as an already established person?....this is a question that cannot be answered in a science lab.

It seems to me that those opposed to abortion are forgetting one huge fact. The fetus grows in and off of another persons body. A person who has rights to that body and whose own 'humanity' and 'life' is not in question in the slightest way. (I don't think there's ever been a debate on whether or not a woman is a living human being deserving of rights - the fetus however....well this thread speaks for itself).

For those vehemently opposed to abortion...it would be in your best interests to make darned sure you never have one yourself..beyond that, no one should have a say in what another does with their own body.

(okay,,,that was wierd..i was responding to a quote and poster who now seems to hve disappeared....anyway I trust this response won't be totally irrelevant now...)

[minorwork]

Quote by: Roger Bartlett Life begins with conception, there's no doubt in my mind about that. But what if it didn't? What if the fetus is unliving inside the mother's womb and living outside of it? Does that make the act of abortion any less egregious? No. You're still taking away the future life that the fetus would eventually have, which in my opinion is just plain wrong. Should we give some women free abortions just because they are poor and we believe the kid can't have a good life? No. In my country we believe that you can be successful no matter where you start out from. That's the American Dream, and to deny that dream from a person (or something that will soon be a person) is just as wrong as murder.

A hydatiform mole, though conceived in the normal matter, is far from achieving the American Dream. Is it and other non-viable results of normal conception worthy of your protection? Or do you reasonably draw a line somewhere and support abortion for medical reasons?

[SoylentGreen]

Roger BartlettHere's the truth: biology teaches us that the smallest form of life is the cell. What are fetuses made up of? Cells.

So if you understand at least that much about biology then why make such a silly assertion as

What if the fetus is unliving inside the mother's womb and living outside of it?

Can someone explain to me how something can be described as dead at one point and alive at another?

Can you explain why you think something is dead at one point at all?
If the fetus dies then it is a miscarriage, not an abortion, does that explain it for you.

Should we give some women free abortions just because they are poor and we believe the kid can't have a good life?

Again what makes you think poverty is the issue here. Do you think the well off wont have an abortion ?

That's the American Dream, and to deny that dream from a person (or something that will soon be a person) is just as wrong as murder.

Try it is an issue of a woman having the choice, not as some kind of patriotic thing to do.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Roger Bartlett People aren't numbers, and it's much more complicated than you make it out to be. You speak as if it's already been proven that the human fetus isn't alive.

Being 'alive' in the most basic of definitions doesn't mean that it should be equated with a formed, viable human.

Quote by: Roger Bartlett Can someone explain to me how something can be described as dead at one point and alive at another? Things go from living to dead every day, but lifeless tissue suddenly coming to life is something I cannot fathom.

No, it's always alive, but it's just that (until a certain point), a mishmash of tissue. And thus, it doesn't have the status of an actual human, and thus shouldn't have any rights at all.

Quote by: Roger Bartlett Here's the truth: biology teaches us that the smallest form of life is the cell. What are fetuses made up of? Cells. It is not one of the mother's body parts, as many people seem to think. It is merely living off the mother in a symbiotic relationship.

Every part of a human is made up of cells, That is and never had anything to do with the issue. A fetus is not a human deserving of rights to protect it until it possesses sentience. Until that point, it is a growing bundle of cells without feelings, without thoughts, even without a proper beating heart.

[Jinei]

Quote by: Roger Bartlett Can someone explain to me how something can be described as dead at one point and alive at another? Things go from living to dead every day, but lifeless tissue suddenly coming to life is something I cannot fathom.

Conisder a bunny rabbit for one moment. Every single cell in that rabbit is being fed by the food stuffs it digests. But those cells don't keep on eating forever. They reproduce using the energy they get from food. Indeed, the rabbit is what it eats. Some of the lifeless mass the rabbit eats is turned into more life. Say that it isn't.... lol.

Quote by: pikatore Every part of a human is made up of cells, That is and never had anything to do with the issue. A fetus is not a human deserving of rights to protect it until it possesses sentience. Until that point, it is a growing bundle of cells without feelings, without thoughts, even without a proper beating heart.

Exactly. A newly formed fetus has no more rights than a single skin cell. As I've said several (several several several) pages back, I don't think the fetus can truly become capable of being "murdered" until it develops brain activity sometime in the second trimester. Even then, I can't say for sure that it's sentient, but it would have the essential part of being human: a working, human brain.

[Barnicals]

I can't beleive this is still actually going on... 182 pages later.

[90ogle]

And i don't think it's going to stop any time soon. More wonderful word smiths please.: )

[minorwork]

Quote by: 90ogle And i don't think it's going to stop any time soon. More wonderful word smiths please.: )

183 pages is quite a bit. Usn's who ain't been here long might be doomed to the fate of repeating history until we've read it all.

[Jack_Sparrow]

Quote by: minorwork 183 pages is quite a bit. Usn's who ain't been here long might be doomed to the fate of repeating history until we've read it all.

The results of the poll state we think life starts at conception. Would it thus be fair to define life to start then?

[pikatore]

Quote by: minorwork 183 pages is quite a bit. Usn's who ain't been here long might be doomed to the fate of repeating history until we've read it all.

This isn't the UN. We aren't passing a resolution. I say let newcomers introduce existing arguments, and let thier minds be opened.

[90ogle]

Coool
YouTube - Cuil.com

[Jack]

Let's try to stay on topic, mmmK?

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[minorwork]

Quote by: Jack_Sparrow The results of the poll state we think life starts at conception. Would it thus be fair to define life to start then?

I've not read all the pages but Roger Bartlett toward the end lights me up.

Does human life start at conception? I've seen numbers suggesting that as high as 60% to 70% of concepti are spontaneously aborted or miscarried, some due to malformity, for others the reason is unclear. Also, the one-cell human zygote has been shown to have several developmental paths that we would not, in common usage, call human; the hydatiform mole, gestational choriocarcinoma, and scleroderma. Is this life? Certainly came from human, but the result is not recognizable and is not considered to be human life for legal and medical purposes.

My reluctant position is that these aberrations are human. This conclusion necessitates my thoughts as to some sort of value of the fetus, as cold as that may sound, that increases thru maturing gestation of the infant. Now as our instrumentation increasingly become adept at revealing of the fetus' health, further problems arise. Does a parent wish to bring a child into the misery of debilitating illness?

And so present law, and I think rightly so, increases the value of the fetus as it matures. The parent can image and by use of genetic sampling determine somewhat the health of the fetus. The informed parent if informed of, say, a condition of Cystic Fibrosis, has a choice. I would hope any Christian Church representative would support the use of such tests and the parents decision whether to terminate or not. It is only natural that the parents grieve for their creation of imperfection. More so if they are burdened with knowing they are the genetic carriers of disease. If the Church can help these parents deal with their self doubts by a doctrine or ritual, then I see the good in the Church and I am behind it. My beef is that being brought up by Catholic teachings, the guilt is more.
Systems using karmic and reincarnation concepts are also of use in these areas.

[Jinei]

Quote by: Jack_Sparrow The results of the poll state we think life starts at conception. Would it thus be fair to define life to start then?

Nope. The poll isn't specific enough. 30+% of everyone don't exactly agree with the "either or" choices presented. Instead, it should be:

• At conception
• At birth
• Between conception and birth
• Before conception ("potential" human agrument)

Also, the question shouldn't be when does life start, but when does something take on human rights. We all know what's biologically alive. Simply being alive doesn't grant an organism human rights.

[robby 1957]

God is the giver of life and rights .. according to America's constitution . . . . peace

WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . . . . PS: Isherwood is a pain in the ass

You should all meet me over at Beliefnet .. where people are really allowed to express themselves and debate without being 'micro-managed' . . . . Beliefnet