Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Agent007]

I wholeheartedly agree with pandit in this debate; his logical contentions are valid.

[tPA]

Quote by: Starboy We have already been over this. Genetic uniqueness has nothing to do with being human. Even Rider has admitted to this. Get a better argument. Starboy

Perhaps this has been covered, perhaps not. If so, apologies (and a link if you can find it). If not, here I go:

Human sperm + Human egg = Human creation. We can agree on this, right? It's not a giraffe or a tree...

Unique DNA (combination of 2 separate and unique DNA codes).

Development into recognizable human baby.

Further development into human adult.

Other than size and cell differentiation, nothing is different from the time of conception to the time of adulthood. Time and nourishment are all that are added to the zygote.

If, therefore, the initial zygote is of entirely human creation, and is an entirely new genetic code, and with the introduction of time and nourishment becomes a banker or a teacher or an astronaut, how can it be said that it is not a unique human?

[Agent007]

Uniqueness does have to do with specified existence. That is, if the genetic material of a fetus is different from that of another fetus, then the first fetus may be a human while the other may be a cat. A human zygote exists as a human and will not change into any other being by its own unique conception and existence. Life is thus formed when the zygote is made from the two distinct gametes of a male and a female.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dr. Pundit You are suggesting that giraffes, lemurs, and earthworms, all of which have functioning brains, are humans; indeed, this is not true because they are, by definition, a distinct species from humans.

I am stupefied at how silly people have become in trying to pretend to have a rational argument. In order for a giraffe to be considered a living giraffe it must have a functioning brain. Same goes for lemurs, and what little brains earthworms posses. You see if their brains do not function they are dead. Now perhaps this was not clear to you but I was in no way implying that a brain in a human could be a giraffe or a lemur or even a worm’s brain. Perhaps you should have your own brain checked. It would explain a great deal.

Furthermore, those people whose brains are not properly functioning, such as most patients in mental asylums, are, by your words, not humans. Surely, they are humans. Therefore, your argument that humans are things with functioning brains is inherently flawed. Life begins at conception; abortion is murder and is thus wrong.

I am talking about the loss of a level of functioning where the person would be declared dead. This happens all the time. They make this declaration when the person who died has allowed their organs to be harvested. No one would say that human life was not present just that there was no human being present.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: tPA Perhaps this has been covered, perhaps not. If so, apologies (and a link if you can find it). If not, here I go: Human sperm + Human egg = Human creation. We can agree on this, right? It's not a giraffe or a tree...

It is a human conceptus. The sperm and the egg were also human. They were not giraffe sperm combined with a lemur egg. Also the sperm and the egg were also alive. Everything was alive, mom, dad, egg, sperm. And they were all human.

Unique DNA (combination of 2 separate and unique DNA codes).

Except in the case of clones or multiple identical twins.

Development into recognizable human baby.

Eventually yes.

Further development into human adult.

Through other stages.

Other than size and cell differentiation, nothing is different from the time of conception to the time of adulthood. Time and nourishment are all that are added to the zygote.

I agree that human life was there at all times, even before the conceptus. But a human being is not always there. That only certain stages of human development qualify as a human being. You ignore that human life is also present when we die. What is important about being human is not just human life, but it is that human life configured in a certain way and in somewhat working order.

If, therefore, the initial zygote is of entirely human creation, and is an entirely new genetic code, and with the introduction of time and nourishment becomes a banker or a teacher or an astronaut, how can it be said that it is not a unique human?

Let me ask you this. Is a tomato seed a fresh tomato? If you ordered a tomato in a restaurant and you got a plate with one seed on it would you accept it? Simply because there are stages of development from one form of life to another form of life doesn't make all the stages the same. Human life is not a human being. We kill human life all the time and no one gives it a second thought.

Starboy

[Athena]

If the egg or the sperm were dead, a union that developments any further can not happen. Therefore, the life does not begin when the egg and sperm met.

Furthermore, women exposed to nuclear radiation may have cells reproduce as a result of a union of sperm and egg, that never become living babies.

Is it the reproduction of cells that equal life we value, or when these develop consciousness that we have life we value?

Further more, if we value this life, why do we ignore the needs of the living? Why do we argue against such this as universal health care and protecting people's welfare. I will argue, those who are opposed to abortion, are often the first to degrade, devalue and kill.
Are you arguing for or against what we did to Iraq? whose life do we value? who are we willing to kill, or let be malnurished or untreated when needing medical help? How many of you are visiting people in prison or nursing homes, to express how much you value the life of another? Value life? I think not. If a person is terribly disfigured from birth or an accident, do we value this person's life enough to pay for reconstructive surgery? How about paying for this persons bed and food, because the person is too disfigured to get employment? When we truly life, there will be no more abortions. But in fact, we not only intolerate the intolerable but argue for the rightness of doing nothing about the intolerable.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy You can't help yourself can you? There is no problem with killing human life. We do it all the time. You claim to be a dentist. If you are what you claim to be then you do it all the time. It is not killing human life that is the problem, it is killing human beings. You have yet to show that a human conceptus which is human life is a human being. Starboy

The fact that you can't look at the facts and see them for what they are is your shortcoming, not mine. You have failed to even dent my case, much less defeat it.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: tPA Perhaps this has been covered, perhaps not. If so, apologies (and a link if you can find it). If not, here I go: Human sperm + Human egg = Human creation. We can agree on this, right? It's not a giraffe or a tree... Unique DNA (combination of 2 separate and unique DNA codes). Development into recognizable human baby. Further development into human adult. Other than size and cell differentiation, nothing is different from the time of conception to the time of adulthood. Time and nourishment are all that are added to the zygote. If, therefore, the initial zygote is of entirely human creation, and is an entirely new genetic code, and with the introduction of time and nourishment becomes a banker or a teacher or an astronaut, how can it be said that it is not a unique human?

Starboy had problems grasping why I brought up the uniqueness of the unborn's DNA. Once upon a time he argued that the unborn was "part" of the mother's body. (not nearly the silliest notion that he has put forth on this topic). I mentioned the uniqueness of the unborn's DNA to demonstrate that it was indeed NOT part of the mother's body. I don't know if he gets it or not at this point. I have only explained it to him 8 or 10 times.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy I am stupefied at how silly people have become in trying to pretend to have a rational argument. In order for a giraffe to be considered a living giraffe it must have a functioning brain. Same goes for lemurs, and what little brains earthworms posses. You see if their brains do not function they are dead. Now perhaps this was not clear to you but I was in no way implying that a brain in a human could be a giraffe or a lemur or even a worm’s brain. Perhaps you should have your own brain checked. It would explain a great deal.

Of course you don't grasp the difference between a dead brain in a dead human, and a human that hasn't developed to the point of having a brain yet. Don't worry, I am not surprised any more by what you don't grasp.

By the way, I explained to you that by the time that most women find out that they are pregnant, a functioning brain is present. I also asked you if you oppose abortion at any time past that point. You never answered. Did you not answer because you are a hypocrite, or because you didn't understand the question?

[Pale RIder]

T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. 1990)); an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology”

E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE 16–17 (1977)); Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else.”

Starboy, you never said which part of these you didn't understand, or which part seemed to support your side of the discussion. OH!! I get it, you were ignoring them because they simply bit$h slapped you into silence. I understand, and feel your pain.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. 1990)); an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology”

Unless he gives a scientific reason for why "an unborn child is a human being from conception" it is just an opinion. And is as good as any other opinion on the matter.

E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE 16–17 (1977)); Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else.”

Hey I agree, what is involved is entirely human life. Even before the moment of conception. So what? That doesn't make it a human being.

Starboy, you never said which part of these you didn't understand, or which part seemed to support your side of the discussion. OH!! I get it, you were ignoring them because they simply bit$h slapped you into silence. I understand, and feel your pain.

You should be worrying if you comprehend your own citations. You should also consider that you do not have a clue as to what constitutes "proof" or even evidence for that matter. Someone echoing your opinion is nothing more than an echo of an opinion. If the book you cite has an argument or a scientific reason to support their claim then they should present it.

Starboy

[Agent007]

Starboy, have you not learned anything from your failed debate in "What is the meaning of life?" Please, stop trying to advance your atheist agenda and do noy simply "rebut" arguments with nothing.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder Starboy had problems grasping why I brought up the uniqueness of the unborn's DNA. Once upon a time he argued that the unborn was "part" of the mother's body.

Stop lying. I have never argued that. Please cite where I have. I do not consider that to be a very good argument. Never have.

(not nearly the silliest notion that he has put forth on this topic). I mentioned the uniqueness of the unborn's DNA to demonstrate that it was indeed NOT part of the mother's body. I don't know if he gets it or not at this point. I have only explained it to him 8 or 10 times.

Again, I have never argued that. In fact we did discuss the uniquess of the DNA as a demarcation of a human being and you admitted that it was not a valid demarcation. And if you like I can quote it for you. You dishonestly attribute arguments to me that I have never made.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder The fact that you can't look at the facts and see them for what they are is your shortcoming, not mine. You have failed to even dent my case, much less defeat it.

I can't dent your case. You have no case to dent. The best you can provide is the opinions of others.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder Of course you don't grasp the difference between a dead brain in a dead human, and a human that hasn't developed to the point of having a brain yet. Don't worry, I am not surprised any more by what you don't grasp.

This is an interesting collection of words. So you agree with me that there is a difference between a human with a functioning brain and a human with a non-functioning brain and that a brain dead person is dead because their brain is not functioning? Is this what I do not grasp? Because if it is then you agree with my argument.

By the way, I explained to you that by the time that most women find out that they are pregnant, a functioning brain is present. I also asked you if you oppose abortion at any time past that point. You never answered. Did you not answer because you are a hypocrite, or because you didn't understand the question?

And at what stage would that be? And what criterion do you use to indicate that the brain is functioning?

Starboy

[Agent007]

The opinions of the others, as long as they are experts, is what makes cases credible. Besides, starboy, you seemed to have blindly followed the opinions of people like Charles Darwin and Karl Marx.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Agent007 The opinions of the others, as long as they are experts, is what makes cases credible. Besides, starboy, you seemed to have blindly followed the opinions of people like Charles Darwin and Karl Marx.

Not really. It is not as if there are not other experts that think the very opposite. The AMA and the AAAS do not think that a conceptus is a human being in as much as they have no problems with using them for scientific experiments.

Starboy

[Agent007]

Starboy, you should have quoted them in your case then. I believe others have done so for the opposing side. Surely, I do not think you are an expert on this issue.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Agent007 Starboy, you should have quoted them in your case then. I believe others have done so for the opposing side. Surely, I do not think you are an expert on this issue.

I did long ago on this thread, but do not believe me. Go to their websites and see what they have to say about using human conceptus for scientific experiments.

Starboy

[barbnf]

My answer is ... it depends ...

If we take the question in its purest form, life begins when the decision is made to carry a fetus to term. Failing that decision, a fertilized egg is simply a fertilized egg ... Until some time has passed and the egg is properly lodged in a woman's uterus, thoughts of life are moot, IMHO ...

If we are talking about "life" in the context of abortion, I say ... choice ... A very difficult choice ... When? defines whether there is a taking of "life" ... or a termination of a pregnancy ... I know, sematics, but it all matters and we CAN "split hairs" to try and understand it all ...

If we are talking about "life" in the context of stem cell research, I say an embryo is not yet "life" ... because all the fertilized eggs being stored could not possibly all be carried to term, so ... by default, a decision was made to not give rise to "life" ... Hence, the use of those embryos for stem cell research is NOT the destruction of "life," but the study of living and how we can enhance the lives of the living by utilizing "living" cells, but cells destined to be "destroyed" and not carried to term ... So, what is the difference? ... Do we use the embryos to research life or do we stand on "definitions" and "preserve" the embryos? ... For what? ... If they will not be carried to term, they are not going to "live" ...

Clearly, the definitions and the debate are complex ... I've just come by to opine and share my thoughts ... ...