Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[pikatore]

Quote by: inri That they are both "In the process of becoming" something more than what they currently are.

It's a crappy, crappy analogy. Just admit it. That only thing that those two things have in common is 'the process of becoming', which to me, is not enough to jusify such a silly analogy.

You could talk about how seed isn't a tree until it starts to grow, or how a car isn't a bunch of seperate pieces of metal until they go through the factory.

But no, you chose a biologically insulting analogy, which really, even a pro-lifer with biological knowledge would raise eyebrows at.

Metamorphosis heavily implies a living, breathing state BEFORE the 'becoming' process, it's more about being REBORN than being BORN. And it hurts my head to see it being used like this.

I also saw you say 'more' in that quote. How is a butterfly 'more' than a caterpillar? Tell me that. It can fly?

It isn't more in any sense of the word, and nothing like the same way we would consider a baby to be 'more' than the foetus.

[pikatore]

Quote by: ??! So you're saying im pro-life? I'm just trying to clear up ambiguity and appeal to emotion. Nothing personal.

Did I call you pro-life? No. I said this would be a forgivable analogy if made by a pro-lifer who was trying to appeal to emotion, because of the fact that there was a caterpiller before the birth, not a nerveless, senseless, egg at it is in reality.

My point is, debate using better analogies. Cause that one sucks, and it needs to be dropped.

[inri]

Quote by: pikatore It's a crappy, crappy analogy. Just admit it. That only thing that those two things have in common is 'the process of becoming', which to me, is not enough to jusify such a silly analogy. You could talk about how seed isn't a tree until it starts to grow, or how a car isn't a bunch of seperate pieces of metal until they go through the factory. But no, you chose a biologically insulting analogy, which really, even a pro-lifer with biological knowledge would raise eyebrows at. Metamorphosis heavily implies a living, breathing state BEFORE the 'becoming' process, it's more about being REBORN than being BORN. And it hurts my head to see it being used like this. I also saw you say 'more' in that quote. How is a butterfly 'more' than a caterpillar? Tell me that. It can fly? It isn't more in any sense of the word, and nothing like the same way we would consider a baby to be 'more' than the foetus.

You're nitpicking. The only part about the analogy I'm even focused upon is that of the fetus as well as the caterpillar both being something on it's way to becoming something else....and that something is clearly far further along in development than what it currently is....Yes, the other analogies you've cited would serve just as well as they also illustrate the point...once again an "analogy" by it's very nature is generally 'imperfect' as it's comparing two things that are 'basically unlike - yet still similar in some way"....the point is that a fetus is not a fully developed baby...period...whatever analogy one wants to use to help to illustrate this is just fine by me.

[pikatore]

Quote by: inri fetus is not a fully developed baby...period...whatever analogy one wants to use to help to illustrate this is just fine by me.

I have a major problem with loose analogies, because if they are too loose, the inconsistencies end up obscuring the whole point of drawing an analogy in the first place.

Saying a fetus is not a fully developed baby is like saying a larva is not a fully developed butterfly. But you introduce several major complications in saying that, and those were what immediately struck me.

Whatever analogy one wants to use to make a point, the idea is that analogies, to convey a point well, have to be similar in more ways that just one, no matter how important it is. And that is what makes a good debate.

If you don't care about how you send your point across, you step on the very point of what these forums are for, and that isn't to evanglise your opinion, but put forward an argument in a clear manner.

And for an analogy like that to strike me as incredibly inappropriate, being a guy on YOUR SIDE of the debate, you and ??!?! should take heed.

I'm not trolling here, but this is a serious distinction to make.

This whole thing came from ??! displaying a lack of knowledge about the event he was making an analogy of. A larva is different from a foetus, as the organism is complete in it's physiological form, but simply changing shape to move on to another phase of it's life.

Very much like puberty for humans. But not for embryonic development.

[inri]

Quote by: pikatore I have a major problem with loose analogies, because if they are too loose, the inconsistencies end up obscuring the whole point of drawing an analogy in the first place. Saying a fetus is not a fully developed baby is like saying a larva is not a fully developed butterfly. But you introduce several major complications in saying that, and those were what immediately struck me. Whatever analogy one wants to use to make a point, the idea is that analogies, to convey a point well, have to be similar in more ways that just one, no matter how important it is. And that is what makes a good debate. If you don't care about how you send your point across, you step on the very point of what these forums are for, and that isn't to evanglise your opinion, but put forward an argument in a clear manner. And for an analogy like that to strike me as incredibly inappropriate, being a guy on YOUR SIDE of the debate, you and ??!?! should take heed. I'm not trolling here, but this is a serious distinction to make. This whole thing came from ??! displaying a lack of knowledge about the event he was making an analogy of. A larva is different from a foetus, as the organism is complete in it's physiological form, but simply changing shape to move on to another phase of it's life. Very much like puberty for humans. But not for embryonic development.

...yes & we can get so intent on scrutinizing each individual leaf of the tree that we lose sight of the the fact that our original purpose was to focus upon the forest....how's that for a loose analogy? :)....works for me!

[pikatore]

Quote by: inri ...yes & we can get so intent on scrutinizing each individual leaf of the tree that we lose sight of the the fact that our original purpose was to focus upon the forest....how's that for a loose analogy? :)....works for me!

Well seeing as how there isn't any pro-life argument here to smack down, I felt the obligation to point that out to ??!, as it's an analogy that can be twisted around by pro-lifers.

[??!]

Quote by: pikatore Well seeing as how there isn't any pro-life argument here to smack down, I felt the obligation to point that out to ??!, as it's an analogy that can be twisted around by pro-lifers.

I can see how this could be twisted. But any analogy can be twisted, not just mine.

[pikatore]

Quote by: ??! I can see how this could be twisted. But any analogy can be twisted, not just mine.

You have a point there. But some are easier to twist than others, and this one struck me as particularly vunerable.

[Antares]

I do think life begins at conception, because technically even the zygote is "alive". However, it is also uniquely dependent and parasitic on another organism; the mother and it increases the chance of death of the mother by 10 - 13 % (Opposing Viewpoints). No one should be obliged to risk their health and life for another organism, and mothers are no different. The fetus has no right to use the mother's body unless otherwise granted by the mother.

[minorwork]

Quote by: Antares I do think life begins at conception, because technically even the zygote is "alive". However, it is also uniquely dependent and parasitic on another organism; the mother and it increases the chance of death of the mother by 10 - 13 % (Opposing Viewpoints). No one should be obliged to risk their health and life for another organism, and mothers are no different. The fetus has no right to use the mother's body unless otherwise granted by the mother.

So radical, so blunt. I like it.

Can the mother change her mind? Late term abortions OK? You know the kind. A half hour before she delivers she changes her mind. Killing the baby OK then if the mother says or should by statute it be kept alive for a later adoption? If not ok then how about a day before, week, or month before the due date. Do you draw the line no where? If the baby could survive with a little outside help at 8 months, would you kill it at the mother's direction or keep it alive for adoption? How about 7 months or 6 months before the due date?

[pikatore]

Quote by: minorwork So radical, so blunt. I like it.

Hear hear! I'm sick of having to make concessions in my viewpoint to satisfy the constant appeals to emotion that pro-lifers make.

[minorwork]

Quote by: pikatore Hear hear! I'm sick of having to make concessions in my viewpoint to satisfy the constant appeals to emotion that pro-lifers make.

Whereas I thrive on it. Such "concessions" are interesting until it becomes a constant nagging. They allow a certain refinement of my own position in emotional terms that the pro lifers might find in their own lives. I am already wondering how many times I'll have to put out the same debating points before I become weary and move on.

[SoylentGreen]

minorworkI am already wondering how many times I'll have to put out the same debating points before I become weary and move on.

Try reading back over the last 191 pages and it might give you an idea of how many times the same old cliche's appear.

[TheStudent]

Quote by: Antares I do think life begins at conception, because technically even the zygote is "alive". However, it is also uniquely dependent and parasitic on another organism; the mother and it increases the chance of death of the mother by 10 - 13 % (Opposing Viewpoints). No one should be obliged to risk their health and life for another organism, and mothers are no different. The fetus has no right to use the mother's body unless otherwise granted by the mother.

Yes, a mother should risk their health and life for her child.

[TheStudent]

Quote by: pikatore Hear hear! I'm sick of having to make concessions in my viewpoint to satisfy the constant appeals to emotion that pro-lifers make.

What do you have against emotions?

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: TheStudent Yes, a mother should risk their health and life for her child.

And you are allowed to think that. But don't try to push it on other people.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: TheStudent Yes, a mother should risk their health and life for her child.

Tell us why she should do such a thing.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: TheStudent What do you have against emotions?

Being against emotional appeals doesn't mean you are against emotions. It just means you don't accept emotions as evidence that something is true or right. Only facts and sound reasoning pass on that scale.

Consider the scenario of a wife whose husband has just been slain; she is fully convinced the accused during a trial is the killer because he and her husband disliked each other immensely, and consequently pleads for the authorities involved to find him guilty, but is her grief proof that the defendant really killed her husband? No. He might have, he might not have, but her sadness doesn't inform us which.

[Median]

If a fetus is " alive " ,why do premature babies need to be incubated? While new born babies born normally just need normal care and nourishment? The answer is that the baby is not ready to be outside the mother, meaning it is not a complete human baby, meaning it has the " potential " to be alive at birth.

Do you believe people that are brain dead are alive? Are the family members and doctors that choose to end life support murderers?

[Eraldo Coil]

Stop wasting your time talking about this. Every single debate forum I've been on always leads with abortion. Prolife can't convice prochoice and vice versa. Sorry for stating the obvious but I know I'm not the only one who thinks 191 is alot