Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Technosoul The womans body is creating the child, she is the one would gives her word 'let their be a child", she is the one who gives the child it's name and so forth. Of course incubation is part of the process of creation, but you cannot produce any science or real facts that a person can be created without the woman. It is possible for women to reproduce without men (with some help from science). If they are not creating new individual DNA then they are simply REPRODUCING life that was already present and that would conflict with all your other opinions and the stand you wish to make. Checkmate?

Checkmate? From you? A person without a firm grasp of developmental biology. I suppose that is your "view" as well. Not rooted in fact, but good enough for you, eh? The woman's body creates nothing. She is not in charge. The unborn delivers hormones to her body so that her immune system can not identify it as a foriegn body and kill it. The unborn creates its own placenta to keep itself separate from her. The woman supplies nutrients and oxygen, nothing more. She is a shelter from the elements, a grocery store, and an air supply. Not exactly my idea of a "creator"

The women who are reproducing without men are simply forgoing sex. The sperm is still required so they are just forgoing the act of sex, nothing else. Their pregnancies are no different from those of other women. An assist from science does not make the unborn less human, or less alive, it simply allows a woman who might not otherwise have been able to get pregnant to achieve a pregnancy.

By the way, I named my children. And I would like to see a woman issue "let there be child" and then be pregnant with no assistance. If she can do that, then she might have the right to abort it if she wishes. Of course then there would be the question of why she called it into existence if she didn't really want it. And after conception, incubation is THE process, not part of the process.

Maybe you would like to try again. Like starboy, flitting from argument to argument. All failing because none of them are rooted in the truth, or factual in nature. I have had this discussion many many times. I have yet to see a pro choice argument that can't be EASILY dissembled with simple fact because none of them are rooted in truth EXCEPT the argument that you are ok with killing innocent human beings for no better reason than convenience. That argument is honest and I can't counter an honest argument. Are you ready to be that honest?

[Technosoul]

Pale Rider - Again I like the fact that you came to this forum well prepared and that you did your research on this topic, that gives you some advantage because this topic was not something of great interest to me and so I have not spent a lot of time in the study of it.

I approch it from simple logic. It seems you have little respect for the role of mothering. What I mean is that under standard moral conditions the woman is the one who must say yes, when it comes to sex and picking a mate. Even if the girl is not directing things with her mental abiltiy her body which contains automatic intelligent programming is running the show and creating both the being and the environment for its development. Also, once I read (somewhere?) long ago that a womans body can produce the same stuff found in the sperm with a females body. But I wish not to change the topic and go into that distraction. (women's lib organizations have the info if anyone wants to research it).

Here is my debate about your theory. You base you opinion on the fact that at conception we have individual DNA "fingerprints" that are different then anyone elses. But are you confusing individualation with life? Each planet in our solar system has its own individual nature and make up and rocks from the moon are different then rocks on earth and can be "fingerprinted" as such by science. But are planets alive just because each is an individual different then the other planets?

Are rocks alive because we can see the individual differences between different kinds of rocks?

Everything (not made by humans) has its own individual shape or whatever. Snowflakes each have an individual design that is unlike all other snowflakes and never duplicated. Are snowflakes alive?

We replace most of our cells every 7 years and so the individual who is 50 years old is a totally different individual physically then they were at age 3, or age 20. We are made up of billions of tiny microscopic goodies as a collective combination of many living organisems. That idea that random chance gives us individual DNA designs at conception would not mean that is when life starts, because we are the continuation of life that did not begin with our individualness.

I will allow you to agree that a woman pro-creates instead of reproduces due to the fact that reproduction would suggest that women are copy machines in a publishing house.

Your individual DNA design might have orignated at conception but you life started at birth and before that you are part of the life of the environment in which molded you.

I will be back with more to add - gotta leave at this moment to provide transporation for someone.
Technosoul

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Technosoul Pale Rider - Again I like the fact that you came to this forum well prepared and that you did your research on this topic, that gives you some advantage because this topic was not something of great interest to me and so I have not spent a lot of time in the study of it. I approch it from simple logic. It seems you have little respect for the role of mothering. What I mean is that under standard moral conditions the woman is the one who must say yes, when it comes to sex and picking a mate. Even if the girl is not directing things with her mental abiltiy her body which contains automatic intelligent programming is running the show and creating both the being and the environment for its development. Also, once I read (somewhere?) long ago that a womans body can produce the same stuff found in the sperm with a females body. But I wish not to change the topic and go into that distraction. (women's lib organizations have the info if anyone wants to research it).

I have researched this topic more than you will ever know. I used to be pro choice and my position was defeated by someone much like myself. I did enormous amounts of research trying to prove that he was wrong and I was right. In the end, fact won out and I simply realized that I was wrong. Being a thinking person, I had little choice but to modify my position for what use is it to hold a position that you know is wrong?

I have great respect for the role of mothering. Which is exactly why I have so little respect for women who would kill their offspring because they are not "convenient" at a particular time. The fact that under any conditions the woman is in control of mating in no way diminishes the humanity of unborns. You seem to want to wander off on tangents as if they had some bearing on whether unborns are human or alive. It wouldn't matter if women could produce a-sexually their unborn children would still be human and alive. That is the issue.

Quote by: Technosoul Here is my debate about your theory. You base you opinion on the fact that at conception we have individual DNA "fingerprints" that are different then anyone elses. But are you confusing individualation with life? Each planet in our solar system has its own individual nature and make up and rocks from the moon are different then rocks on earth and can be "fingerprinted" as such by science. But are planets alive just because each is an individual different then the other planets?

I have no theory. I hold a position that is based in rock solid science. You seem to have the same misunderstanding regarding the uniqueness of our DNA as starboy. The only reason that I even brought up the unique DNA argument was to counter the tired old pro choice argument that the unborn is part of the mother's body. The unique DNA of the unborn proves beyond doubt that it is not part of her body and that is the only signifigance of unique DNA to me . Contemporary science coroborates my position..

I thought I gave an adequate and inarguable definition of life. Let me repeat..

Life is the property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

Unborns meet this criteria in every respect so they are alive. Their DNA proves beyond question that they belong to species h. sapiens. Ergo, they are living human beings. Can you offer up even the slightest evidence to suggest that they are not.

Quote by: Technosoul We replace most of our cells every 7 years and so the individual who is 50 years old is a totally different individual physically then they were at age 3, or age 20. We are made up of billions of tiny microscopic goodies as a collective combination of many living organisems. That idea that random chance gives us individual DNA designs at conception would not mean that is when life starts, because we are the continuation of life that did not begin with our individualness.

"We replace most of our cells every 7 years..." You have defeated your own argument. My cells, your cells. They are a result of your development. It has nothing to do with your life or when it began. It is just a growth process. You are no more human and no less human because you have replaced cells. And you are no more or no less alive because of it. Tangents again that have no bearing on your humanity or the fact that you can only trace your individual life back to a finite moment in time.

Quote by: Technosoul Your individual DNA design might have orignated at conception but you life started at birth and before that you are part of the life of the environment in which molded you. I will be back with more to add - gotta leave at this moment to provide transporation for someone. Technosoul

If I was not alive before I was born, how did my body grow from a single cell to the 8 pound 7 ounce bundle of love that my mother delivered? She certainly didn't grow me because my DNA is not hers and try as she might, she can only grow cells that have her own DNA fingerprint. And what magic do you suppose occured that transformed me from a non living "lump" into a living human being simply by traveling down 7 inches of birth canal? Today, you are nothing but part of the environment which molds you every day, you are no less human and no less alive because of it. We are all part of our environment but it doesn't change our humanity.

If you want to win this discussion, you are going to have to demonstrate that the offspring of two human beings is something other than human, even at its earliest stages of development. You can not prove it because it is not true and you know it instinctively; so why do you cling to a position that you know to be untrue?

[FIFI]

Because abortion has nothing to do about what you are aborting, its about choice. The eggs stored in a women can be called "human" because they are; human eggs cells. But it doesn't mean your killing a human just because the man's sperm has fertilized it, its just an cell.
The growth inside a woman's body is a wonderful thing, and it is a joy to see "bundles of love" born. But HOW you went from a clump of cells to a 8lbs child is just science.

I recomend going to your local library if you want the step- by - step of a fetus development explained correctly.

[Technosoul]

This is part two of my current response. The judges must honor our original documents which state that we are BORN with certain rights. The document did not say we get those rights at the moment of conception. So no matter if people think your theory is correct or not you are not born at the moment of conception and you (meaning anyone still in the womb) cannot claim or can anyone claim for them any rights because the judge cannot re-write the Bill of Rights.

Now I know that our much of what we become as an individual is predetermined by the DNA mapping which starts to formulate after conception. That is why we can use stem cells to heal our self because our body is less likely to reject them if we are the donator. They have claimed that even our personality and how we think is influenced by the DNA gene mapping. A gay person might be pre-designed to become gay because of one of the genes, and science thinks they could alter or re-design what a person will become if they know what genes cause those individual personalities. Example: If they found the gene that causes folks to grow up to be born-again right wing republican fundamentalists, they could just remove that gene then they would grow up to be normal people like us lefties. Ha! (think about that).

One of the main reasons Bush wants to stop stem cell research is because of the powerful special interest lobby groups known as the drug industry because once the cure is found we would no longer need drugs and other types of current treatments being offered by the medical establishment and they would go broke. Big bucks not morality is at stake. ( my educated guess).

Now if the woman is just an environment for the individual to formulate we must also comprehend that we are born out of one environment into another (larger) environment known as Mother Nature.
We are still dependant on the surrounding environment for our air, food, water, and proper temperature, and all else we need to remain alive. And we must comprehend that life depends constantly upon us killing some animal or plant to remain funtional. We have the right to kill what we need to keep our health in good status. No way to get around that fact. Now one could debate if you get an organ from someone else to save your self form death you are acting like a cannable, same goes for blood transfusions. It is a matter of how we wish to think about it, but currently we think it is okay and not immoral or illegal to replace a liver with one donated by someone else. The research in question is not producing full grown adult humans (like homeless people) to use for body parts, thinking of it that way is a missinterpretation of the reality.

Now take for example also our laws about war and capital punishment. Should we abort a life before it can become a re-born Christian person? Hmmm? Does our DNA map prove that no one is different realistically after completing the rituals for becoming reborn spiriturally, do the get a new DNA blueprint? Does your science put a damper of those concepts advocated by religion?

Philosophy is one thing, religious belief is one thing, and science is another thing. We cannot mix religion and science together just like you cannot build a idol with a foundation of iron and clay.
We need to pass laws to insure the seperation of science and religion.

So what do you have to say now?
Technosoul

[Technosoul]

I do agree with the fact you present and believe that our individual physical self started at conception and perhaps altered a bit afterwords due to external influences upon it (adaptations). I do not think that a newly conceaved person (by whatever name) could operate or act like a human outside the womb in the external world. I believe that life is made up of four primary conciderations. Thought, energy, time, and matter. I have not reviewed yet your thoughts about consciouness, or self-consciousness and self awareness. I do know that each cell can take part in the communicational network of our body but is human consciousness in its fully developed brain different then the kind of consciousness present in someone whom a doctor would call "brain dead". We have no memory of anything experienced before birth and so I am not sure if we are human or not without having some control over what we wish to think about. All we can do is speculate.

Then we have the concepts about mind, body and spirit. Most early religions believe that the soul becomes active at the moment of birth with the first intake of breath. Even the Bible talks about God breathing life into a fully formed person (Adam). Was Adam alive before that first breath of air or was he just some dead clay? Hmmm?

And also, other then just DNA blueprinting, what makes a human any different then an ape or some other life form? That must be determined to know if it is okay to kill a cow or some cabbage in order to maintain our health. After all, cows also have individual DNA form that of other cows. We still have all our original DNA blueprint concerning our individual selfhood when we are dead and in our grave, they could dig us up and tell someone our name. So if you can be dead and six feet under the ground and still have that origianl DNA that you had at conception can we call that DNA "life"?

Go for it. Technosoul.,

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder I already did. I have listed bibliographical references to textbooks back to the days of Roe that all state quite clearly that we are human beings from the moment of our conception. If you have textbook references to the contrary, then we can argue over which textbook is correct.

Okay then. Since you have not provided any other basis for your claims other than the references provided I will ask the next question.

Please quote one or more parts of the following reference that explicity states that a conceptus is a human being.

KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 14 (5th ed. 1993)

Starboy

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: FIFI Because abortion has nothing to do about what you are aborting, its about choice. The eggs stored in a women can be called "human" because they are; human eggs cells. But it doesn't mean your killing a human just because the man's sperm has fertilized it, its just an cell. The growth inside a woman's body is a wonderful thing, and it is a joy to see "bundles of love" born. But HOW you went from a clump of cells to a 8lbs child is just science. I recomend going to your local library if you want the step- by - step of a fetus development explained correctly.

If they are unfertilized, a woman's eggs are of no more consequence than her fingernail clippings. Once fertilized, however, a new human exists. The only choice is whether to kill the child or not. Like it or not, since unborns are human beings, they have an inalienable right to life and a woman's "choice" does not trump that right.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy Okay then. Since you have not provided any other basis for your claims other than the references provided I will ask the next question. Please quote one or more parts of the following reference that explicity states that a conceptus is a human being. Starboy

I have torn down every argument presented. The fact that you don't grasp what was said, and or are too lazy to go back and read the thread is irrelavent to what I have written.

Again, if you are going to use scientific terms, use the correct scientific term. ie "human" conceptus. And you do realize, don't you, that the term conceptus is extremely generalized. Conceptus refers to the unborn at any time from the moment of conception until the moment of its birth. I find it ironic that you are asking for "explicit" information from me while you are using the most general of terms yourself.

Are you arguing that the "conceptus" is not a human being until it travels down that magical 7 inches of birth canal? Are you arguing that at 8 months and 29 days when the mother is in labor pains and dialated to 10 centimeters that the "conceptus" is still not a human being? If you want exact answers to your questions, then ask exact questions.

"Human development begins at conception or fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote (Gr. zygotos, yoked together). This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The developing Human 14 (5th ed. 1993);

Then in the 6th edition of the same textbook:
(p. 2);" :Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). "

Do keep in mind that this is a medical textbook and detailed, painstaking explanations as one would expect in 4th grade science books will not be present. It is expected that medical students can read the words and understand the concepts being discussed. If you don't understand what is being said then again, perhaps I can enlist the assistance of someone who is versed in expressing ideas to those who are..."challenged"

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Technosoul ...I do not think that a newly conceaved person (by whatever name) could operate or act like a human outside the womb in the external world.

And you can't function or operate like a newly concieved human inside the womb. What is your point. An infant can operate or act like an olympic athelete. An octogenerian can't operate or act like a teenager, a person with down's syndrome can't operate like a thorastic surgeon. How we act or operate has no bearing on whether we are human or alive. You can't operate in the vaccum of space without some life support that could very easily be compared to the enviornment that an unborn lives in. Are you less than human because you couldn't survive outside your natural environment?

Quote by: Technosoul So what do you have to say now? Technosoul

What do I say now? I say that you have strayed so far out on your tangent that you are no longer discussing whether an unborn is a living human being. It is facinating to observe the gyrations and elaborate (and flawed) mental calculus that pro choicers will go through rather than simply look at the unborn human being itself.

It belongs to species h. sapiens. It is not part of its mother's body. It is respirating, developing, growing, and excreting waste so it is most certainly alive. These few simple facts are all that are necessary to demonstrate that it is a living human being. It is painfully clear that the goal of your argument is to get as far away from the unvarnished truth as possible which, I suppose, is why you never face biology head on.

Do you want to provide some scientific evidence that unborns are not living human beings? Some evidence that is not etherial in nature? Something that doesn't sound like it is coming from the mind of a necromancer or a fortune teller? Do you want to talk actual biology, because it is biology that is going to tear Roe v. Wade down next time it is heard. The science is undeniable. I can only hope that when Roe is heard again, that the pro choice side makes arguments such as yours, and starboy's. Flitting from one dead end argument to another; searching for something, anything that might make sense, always failing because the arguments are not based in fact or truth.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder I have torn down every argument presented. The fact that you don't grasp what was said, and or are too lazy to go back and read the thread is irrelavent to what I have written. Again, if you are going to use scientific terms, use the correct scientific term. ie "human" conceptus. And you do realize, don't you, that the term conceptus is extremely generalized. Conceptus refers to the unborn at any time from the moment of conception until the moment of its birth. I find it ironic that you are asking for "explicit" information from me while you are using the most general of terms yourself. Are you arguing that the "conceptus" is not a human being until it travels down that magical 7 inches of birth canal? Are you arguing that at 8 months and 29 days when the mother is in labor pains and dialated to 10 centimeters that the "conceptus" is still not a human being? If you want exact answers to your questions, then ask exact questions.

First off, you are the one making the claims. Simply because you think that you have somehow successfully countered every opposing argument does not "prove" anything about your claim. In order to "prove" your claim you must provide a logical and valid "proof" and your assumptions must be "true" or at least currently accepted to be real. A list of references is not a "proof" of anything. It is just a list of sources that agree with you. I have also provided sources that disagree with you and they are not just a few books, there are the largest medical and scientific organizations in the world. But even so such a large group of people that disagree with you doesn't make your claim false. Now if you had just an itsy bitsy shred of honesty in you, then you would admit that I have very painfully and very meticulously tried to pry out of you the "proof" that you seem to think that you have for your claims. All I have received from you is a huge pile of ad hominems, non-arguments and evasive (deceitful) tactics. I wonder why Sean hasn't banned you yet.

"Human development begins at conception or fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote (Gr. zygotos, yoked together). This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The developing Human 14 (5th ed. 1993); Then in the 6th edition of the same textbook: (p. 2);" :Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). " Do keep in mind that this is a medical textbook and detailed, painstaking explanations as one would expect in 4th grade science books will not be present. It is expected that medical students can read the words and understand the concepts being discussed. If you don't understand what is being said then again, perhaps I can enlist the assistance of someone who is versed in expressing ideas to those who are..."challenged"

The fact that it is a text book is irrelevant. It is not as if texts books have never been wrong. It is a fallacious argument. But the reason why I have forced you to quote from the references that you claim are "proof" of your claim that a human conceptus is a human being is to show that at least one of your sources make no such claim (I haven’t checked the rest of your list but if I were you I would not want to chance it). And the source you listed and I responded to makes no claim that a human conceptus is a human being. All it states is that a human conceptus is a stage of human life. This simply confirms what I have stated before and that is the vast majority of your arguments are simply the conflation of the adjective "human" with a being that is” human". Those same text books take great pains to show the progression of human life. However being a human concepts does make it human life but it doesn't make it a human being. A human conceptus is a stage of human life, just as a human being is also a stage of human life. Simply because both stages are human doesn’t make them the same. If you have an actual "proof" then present it. But please do not respond unless you are presenting the “proof”. And if you have no idea what a “proof” is then go look it up. And please do not even try to play word games again and claim that your use of the term “proof” was meant as evidence because even in that case you have presented no evidence either.

Starboy

[Technosoul]

Pale Rider - you only responded to my weakest point in selected quotes. A formulating human cell could not operate outside the womb in the natual environment like any fully developed human being but all those people you cited can survive outside the womb and act like human beings even if teenager could not perform with the same skills as more experiened person.

You forgot to respond to the point that our oringial DNA "design" is the same when we are dead and six feet under as it is at the moment of conception. That is proof that DNA does not constitute "life" as we know it.

You overlooked the fact that we are BORN with certain rights and the Bill of Rights and Consitution never stated anything about right at pre-birth stages.

Technosoul.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy And the source you listed and I responded to makes no claim that a human conceptus is a human being. All it states is that a human conceptus is a stage of human life. Starboy

A stage of a human's life. WHich would be a stage in the life of a human being. No different that childhood, adolescence, adulthood, old geezerhood or whatever stage you care to name. As I said, one shouldn't expect Dick and Jane definitions in a medical text book.

And it does matter that it is a medical textbook as evidenced by your inability to reference any textbook that says that the offspring of two humans is something other than a human being at any stage of its development.

By the way, the AMA is a political orginazation whose members, by the way, took an oath that they would never induce an abortion. Seems that fact alone establishes them as liars.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Technosoul Pale Rider - you only responded to my weakest point in selected quotes. A formulating human cell could not operate outside the womb in the natual environment like any fully developed human being but all those people you cited can survive outside the womb and act like human beings even if teenager could not perform with the same skills as more experiened person. You forgot to respond to the point that our oringial DNA "design" is the same when we are dead and six feet under as it is at the moment of conception. That is proof that DNA does not constitute "life" as we know it. You overlooked the fact that we are BORN with certain rights and the Bill of Rights and Consitution never stated anything about right at pre-birth stages. Technosoul.

So now you are suggesting that your ability to "operate" determines your humanity. What about polio patients who need assistance to breathe, are they less than human because they can't operate outside the womb like you?

And I didn't "forget" to respond to your statement about DNA. I have already been through it too many times already. It seems quite simple to me, perhaps I am a super genius and am overestimating the intelligence of those I am talking to.

As I have stated over and over, I only mentioned the uniqueness of our DNA to counter the argument that the unborn is part of the mother.

And I didn't overlook the fact that we are "born" with certain rights, I overlooked the fact that you were incorrect in that assertion. We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. If you believe in God, then God endows you with certain inalienable rights. If you don't, then your parents are your creators and they endow you with certain inalienable rights. You are endowed with those rights when you are created, I find no requirement that one be born, only that one be human.

Can you demonstrate in any real way that an unborn is not human?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder A stage of a human's life. WHich would be a stage in the life of a human being. No different that childhood, adolescence, adulthood, old geezerhood or whatever stage you care to name. As I said, one shouldn't expect Dick and Jane definitions in a medical text book.

I was not the one claiming that the cited text supported the claim that a human conceptus is a human being. It was you. You have not provided any citation that supports your claim. You can make all the smart cracks about my reading ability you like. Continuing to make assertions that your references support your claims merely calls you reading comprehension into question.

And it does matter that it is a medical textbook as evidenced by your inability to reference any textbook that says that the offspring of two humans is something other than a human being at any stage of its development.

Funny about that. If it was commonly thought that a human conceptus was not a human being then one would not expect to find it in any medical text books. After all it is commony thought that a human conceptus is not a kangaroo but no one is surprised that medical text books must go to the trouble to state it. The absence of such a citation could be seen as support for a claim that it is not a well held view in medical circles if it is a view of the medical community at all. However I did provide references where the American Medical Association and the American Association of the Advancement of Science (the largest scientific organization in the world) did not consider a conceptus to be a human being.

But even so, none of that is "proof" of anything.

I am still waiting for the "proof" you claim to have. Where is it?

By the way, the AMA is a political orginazation whose members, by the way, took an oath that they would never induce an abortion. Seems that fact alone establishes them as liars.

Gosh could it be because they do not consider a human conceptus to be a human being? Doctors kill human life all the time but they know that human life is not a human being. I thought you were a dentist. Don't they teach dentists that a human tooth is living human tissue? Where is you horror with you have to kill human life during oral surgery?

It matters not that there might actually be text books of any kind that agree with your claim. If they have nothing to back up their claims then who cares. They must do what you must do if they are to be honest about their claims. Where is the "proof" that a human conceptus is a human being? Show me a conceptus that has a brain with the capacity to be a human being and behaves anything like a human being. Otherwise a human conceptus is just a developmental stage of human life but it is not an actual human being.

In any case what you have shown by using a reference as if it were actual support for your claims when it does not support your claim at all is that you are dishonest.

Starboy

[Two Cents]

I have been reading this forum with great interest and have read it from the begining. I have to think that Pale Rider is correct in his thinking. From the moment of conception the being is human. It is not yet a "person" as we think of them.

[Technosoul]

Pale Rider - even if we are endowed by our creator with certian rights, find and dandy, but one of them is not the right to live forever and ever because otherwise small children would never die by any means. We were created with a body that can die and that is the truth of the matter. It was the creators of the consitution who made the claim we are born with certian rights but those same people had to kill a lot of Englishmen to gain those rights. However in stem cell research the process used was created by science and not as part of the normal procedure which was created at the beginning of time. Those combinations would never had been were it not for stem cell research and would never have become adult humans at all. One good thing (other then healing real people) is that we might discover how the gods created humans in the first place via our genetic research.
And we cannot know for sure if God did not give us these revelations in science on purpose because it is now time for us to know about it.

You opinions are of course worthy of concideration and I would favor further study on the topic. I recomend a ten year study should be funded by federal taxes. We should however put all political and legal action on the backburner until the study can reach more facts which stem cell research can provide us with. With that I must conclude this debate. Technosoul.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Technosoul Pale Rider - even if we are endowed by our creator with certian rights, find and dandy, but one of them is not the right to live forever and ever because otherwise small children would never die by any means. We were created with a body that can die and that is the truth of the matter. It was the creators of the consitution who made the claim we are born with certian rights but those same people had to kill a lot of Englishmen to gain those rights. However in stem cell research the process used was created by science and not as part of the normal procedure which was created at the beginning of time. Those combinations would never had been were it not for stem cell research and would never have become adult humans at all. One good thing (other then healing real people) is that we might discover how the gods created humans in the first place via our genetic research. And we cannot know for sure if God did not give us these revelations in science on purpose because it is now time for us to know about it. You opinions are of course worthy of concideration and I would favor further study on the topic. I recomend a ten year study should be funded by federal taxes. We should however put all political and legal action on the backburner until the study can reach more facts which stem cell research can provide us with. With that I must conclude this debate. Technosoul.

The right to life is not the right to live forever. The right to life is simply the right to live your life, to not have it terminated for no apparent reason. You seem bright enough, such grasping is below you.

And in 10 years, another 13 million or so will have been killed. Why not abolish abortion today and do the 10 year study. If we find in 10 years that unborns are neither human, nor alive, then lets resume the practice of abortion. Sad that you would be willing to risk another 13 million lives on the "chance" that I am wrong when you have been able to provide nothing that would disprove anything that I have said.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy I was not the one claiming that the cited text supported the claim that a human conceptus is a human being. It was you. You have not provided any citation that supports your claim. You can make all the smart cracks about my reading ability you like. Continuing to make assertions that your references support your claims merely calls you reading comprehension into question. Starboy

It appears that you are completely unable to provide even the smallest evidence to support your side of the argument. and completely unable to counter the evidence that I provided in any way. Sorry, but you shouldn't be surprised. You are trying to argue that the offspring of two humans is not a human being. What a silly argument to make.

By the way, I went back and looked at your "evidence". Did you notice that they said nothing definitive. There were lots of shoulds, and coulds, and should be's, but they, in n way contradicted contemporary science. They suggested that this or that should be despite what contemporary science says.

And my references do state quite clearly that we are human beings from the moment of our conception.