Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Isaiah I seriously hope that you are attempting to be funny or absurd here or something... right?

Not at all. Who do you think I am? Just another grain of sand - or a rock? I am the power that your lawmakers depend upon for their authority - my vote counts.

[Isaiah]

Quote by: Technosoul Not at all. Who do you think I am? Just another grain of sand - or a rock? I am the power that your lawmakers depend upon for their authority - my vote counts.

Actually I wasn't referring to your right to vote nor making any statements about your identity. However, I was referring to the statements you made (as I quoted them). They seem strange and somewhat out-of-touch with reality.

When the founding fathers of this nation wrote about self-evident rights, they were not doing so from any “indwelling source” but a consensus of reason and of experience, and, yes, of faith as well, but not faith alone.

“Self-evident”, and apparently I need to explain this to you, does NOT mean that you hear some voice in your head and that settles it, but that these right are so commonly held that they are evident without having to argue them, thus “self-evident”. Like as in the color of the sky (on a sunny day) is self-evidently blue, or that water is self-evidently wet.

"Self-evident" was not Thomas Jefferson saying, “Hey, everyone I had some voice in my head tell me that we all have inalienable rights. Let’s put that in somewhere.” They were expressing what all normal human beings who are not tyrannical despots or mental patients pretty much recognize as the fundamental right we all want to have.

That is why many thousands of persons flock to the US every year seeking freedom and no one flocks to, say, Cuba seeking freedom, unless of course they recently escaped from a mental institute or are a 6 year old boy forced to go by Janet Reno and a bunch of heavily armed government agents using an illegitimate court order. Those thousands, and millions, demonstrate once and for all that these self-evident and inalienable rights are what people believe in and desire to have. They are imprinted upon the common man indelibly, with the exception of persons such as Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Stalin, Hitler, etc.

[Two Cents]

I have been reading all the posts again. Dirty Name and Pale Rider have much more patience than I do. An egg is just an egg unless it's fertilized. Then it becomes a chicken, or a frog or a camel, horse, bird, human or whatever species it's parents are. One cell is just that, one cell. When fertilized it becomes something else. So evident that if one had only two brain cells it should be understood. Oh, Technosoul, a woman does not concieve a sperm. A sperm and egg become a baby.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Two Cents I have been reading all the posts again. Dirty Name and Pale Rider have much more patience than I do. An egg is just an egg unless it's fertilized. Then it becomes a chicken, or a frog or a camel, horse, bird, human or whatever species it's parents are. One cell is just that, one cell. When fertilized it becomes something else. So evident that if one had only two brain cells it should be understood. Oh, Technosoul, a woman does not concieve a sperm. A sperm and egg become a baby.

No one thinks that a fertalized or unfertalized egg is a chicken. This is so obvious I am amazed I must repeat it so often. When people go into a store and ask for a dozen eggs fertalized or not they do not expect to receive a dozen chickens. People do not consider a single cell of any animal to be the animal.

Starboy

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy For some reason you think this is important to your argument? You are the one that wants to claim that a single cell is a human being. I agree that is what you want to do. But for some reason you do not want to admit that in all other cases of life we do not confuse a single cell with the developed stages of that cell. We do not do it with seeds or chicken eggs. Yet the same argument that you want to apply to humans could also be applied to plants and chickens and yet people know that they are not the same. You ignore this very basic fact and then try to deflect it with all your claims of a scientific argument when all you have done is chosen some text books that you think support your contention. That is not how science is done. And ignoring basic facts is not how honest argument is accomplished. Starboy

Again, you aren't reading for comprehension. I am not making any sort of claim at all. I am stating scientific fact and providing plenty of documentary evidence to support it. To date, all you have provided is your ill founded opinion.

Your misuse of the word conceptus is irrelavent to my argument. I simply pointed it out to you so that you might realize that you are embarrasing yourself. It was you who said

But confusing a "human" cell with a "human" being because both are "human" is just sloppy thinking.

And the fact that "conceptus" describes both a human being and the accompanying tissues clearly indicates that you have indeed confused a human being with human cells. In order to be accurate, you must specify what exactly it is that you are talking about. Conceptus is a word for those who really don't have any clearly defined knowledge and are limited to speaking in gross generalities. That does describe you does it not?

As to your whiny argument about seeds and chickens. Educated people do know that a fertilized egg is indeed a chicken. An immature chicken but a chicken none the less. And educated people know that if you disect a seed, you will find a plant inside. An immature plant, but a plant none the less. Educated people know this. Second graders for instance know this because it is at that level that people should become aquainted with such basic science. The fact that you can't grasp it is an endless source of laughter for me, and if you actuall knew what you are talking about, it would be an endless source of embarrasment for you. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

I have pointed out textbooks that say exactly what I have argued. I have challenged you to provide reference to textbooks that support your argument. Of course you haven't provided them because they all support my argument. Nothing you have said so far even resembles honest argument. You have tried half a dozen different arguments and all have failed miserably. I, on the other hand, have remained consistent in my statement from the beginnining.

I have provided reference after reference for my argument. And you actually believe you will be taken seriously when you claim that I am not making an honest argument? What? Do you think that the people who read this are as ill informed as you? My bet is that at least those who are involved now visited the 2nd grade science syllabus and are now perfectly aware that you are not even arguing at a 2nd grade level.

And basic facts. I would suggest that medical textbooks are far superior as a source for facts than anything that you have provided to date.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder Again, you aren't reading for comprehension.

Now, now Pale Rider. Be nice. Do not attack me if you can't attack my argument. That is the sign of a very sore looser.

Starboy

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: technosoul Again you twisted my words, I said that no state can take away those rights that our federal laws have established for the citizens of this country.

You are such a liar. When you lie so much, you forget what you said to whom. Here are your words.

For later when they did make it a law that you have the right to living a life with the liberty to own property and to be happy to the best of your abilities they so stated that those rights are dependant or granted to those who are born in the USA or have been naturalized by a legal process.

Clearly you lied again. You said that people must be born here or naturalized in order to have those rights. Then after you were corrected, you changed your tune and are now trying to distance yourself from what you originally said.

As to searching within yourself and finding logic. You should look somewhere else. You have been slapped down on errors to many times for you to consider yourself a valid source for anything if you are any sort of thinking person at all.

[MerlinsByte]

Temperature is an important part of egg hatching. If mama chicken does not sit on the egg, the hatching is aborted. (unless farmer John has a machine to hatch eggs in). If you keep a store eggs for a year you will have nothing but rotten eggs, not chickens. You are eating abortions, not formulating chickens. Sounds yummy eh?

Yum, yes, I don't eat eggs though! And dear fellow, you haven't answered my question..... ; } >

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy No one thinks that a fertalized or unfertalized egg is a chicken. This is so obvious I am amazed I must repeat it so often. When people go into a store and ask for a dozen eggs fertalized or not they do not expect to receive a dozen chickens. People do not consider a single cell of any animal to be the animal. Starboy

What is amazing is that you genuinely don't seem to be able to grasp such a simple concept.

Here is the link to the 2nd grade level science again. I suggest that you read it. If you read very slowly, and keep your websters close, maybe you can get through it. Lesson 30 is the one to check out.

http://www.cstone.net/~bcp/2/2FSci.htm

Again, this side of the argument is providing science to back up our positon and you are providing squat.

What you don't seem to realize is that when people go to the grocery store to buy eggs, they expect to get unfertilized eggs. An unfertilized egg is no more a chicken than a woman's egg is a child. If you go to the farm though and ask for fertilized eggs, then you would expect that you were buying chickens. If you did not get chickens you would have every right to expect to get your money back.

I suppose the "people" that you refer to are people who are running as hard as they can from the truth. I suppose those "people" would argue, like you, that the offspring of two creatures of the same species is not also a member of the same species. I would suggest that those "people" are either uneducated and therefore ignorant of the facts of the biology of human development, or they are ideologues who will say anything to avoid the simple truth.

By the way, when are you going to provide any corroborating evidence to support your opinion. So far, you have provided nothing and pardon me for being blunt, but your opinion is worth squat.

[Two Cents]

What species is a tadpole? Where does it belong? Is it a frog? Not yet, but it belongs to frogs because they are the ones who conceived it. So a zygote, while it does not look like a human you would recognise will become a human you will recognise. Just like the tadpole is a stage in the development of a frog a fetus is a stage in the development of a human. They are both alive..

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy Now, now Pale Rider. Be nice. Do not attack me if you can't attack my argument. That is the sign of a very sore looser. Starboy

Not an attack, a truthful observation. And you don't have an argument. You have a silly opinion that so far has been substantiated by NOTHING. That is the sign of a loser.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Two Cents What species is a tadpole? Where does it belong? Is it a frog? Not yet, but it belongs to frogs because they are the ones who conceived it. So a zygote, while it does not look like a human you would recognise will become a human you will recognise. Just like the tadpole is a stage in the development of a frog a fetus is a stage in the development of a human. They are both alive..

Here is some second grade science for you as well.

http://www.cstone.net/~bcp/2/2FSci.htm

Lesson 31 explains that tadpoles are indeed frogs. Immature frogs but frogs none the less. Frogs, like humans, and dogs, most other higher order of creatures mature, they do not develop from something that is not of their species.

The only thing a tadpole, or a human zygote will ever become is more mature. Neither will ever become more a member of thier species than they were at the time of their conception by virtue of age or development.

This is basic science. It would serve you guys to take the time to do some research. No, I suppose it wouldn't because it would just dash your fantasies to bits.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder Not an attack, a truthful observation. And you don't have an argument. You have a silly opinion that so far has been substantiated by NOTHING. That is the sign of a loser.

You are right again. Claiming that I have a comprehension problem is not an attack on me. And pointing out something that is plainly obvious to everyone and directly shows how your claim is just a special pleading for a different standard for human life as opposed to every other kind of animal life on the planet is just silly.

Starboy

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Two Cents I have been reading all the posts again. Dirty Name and Pale Rider have much more patience than I do. An egg is just an egg unless it's fertilized. Then it becomes a chicken, or a frog or a camel, horse, bird, human or whatever species it's parents are. One cell is just that, one cell. When fertilized it becomes something else. So evident that if one had only two brain cells it should be understood. Oh, Technosoul, a woman does not concieve a sperm. A sperm and egg become a baby.

Hi Two Cents Worth.

Whatever... are you now saying that the "moment of conception" in not realistically a biological fact? If the woman did not conceave then we got no conception and Pale Rider has no "moment of conception".... better tell him he goofed.

[Technosoul]

[quote]

Quote by: Isaiah Actually I wasn't referring to your right to vote nor making any statements about your identity. However, I was referring to the statements you made (as I quoted them). They seem strange and somewhat out-of-touch with reality.

And I might point out that you quoted only those last lines out of the context of my whole message - and you avoided any attempt to disprove the parts you dodged.

So you think I am strange and out-of-touch with reality eh? And you claim that is not a statement about my idenity. Hmm? So I guess in your reality zone that is not double-talk? But in response to your question or comment - you cannot say someone is a nut unless you can first tell me what "normal" is. You don't know what normal is because none of the phychology experts can discribe it. So they come up with a number of different opinons and end of in a long philosophy of contradictions. And they only know that everyone is in some manner abnormal so abnormality is the norm - which would make being normal the most abnormal state of all relative to the majority of behaviorisms.
In other words - you are guessing.

When the founding fathers of this nation wrote about self-evident rights, they were not doing so from any “indwelling source” but a consensus of reason and of experience, and, yes, of faith as well, but not faith alone.

So is reason internal or external? Even a "consensus" of opinon is internalized as something learned and that knowledge is within the person who learned it, in his mind.
Experience becomes a memory and that memory is likewise inside the mind, within you, not external. So how can you rightfully state it is not indwelling thought?

“Self-evident”, and apparently I need to explain this to you, does NOT mean that you hear some voice in your head and that settles it,

Hearing voices inside your head is caused by what we call an alter-ego which is an echo of ourself basically hearing our own ideas bounce back to us. I do not hear voices and never did. You do not comprehend how the process works. Your impression is in error.

but that these right are so commonly held that they are evident without having to argue them, thus “self-evident”. Like as in the color of the sky (on a sunny day) is self-evidently blue, or that water is self-evidently wet.

The sky is colorless - the blue you see is like a magical trick done with lights and mirrors.
Sort of like when you see a rainbow near a waterfall. The light from the sun reflects in those tiny droplets of water, and depending on what angle the light is reflected the different colors of the rainbow are created - but close observation would reveal that the drops of water are clear and colorless. So you did not see the blue sky, you saw reflected light from the sun that caused the illusion that the sky is blue. And you are also like those tiny drops of water, I once read that scientists claim that nearly 99 some percent of the body is just water, leaving about only one once of "other stuff". So you are like a bucket of water scientifically. A fact that might be so self evident because you might not feel "wet". Webster said that reality is stranger then fiction - his grandaughter e-mailed me that quote. So according to that my strangeness is reality.

"Self-evident" was not Thomas Jefferson saying, “Hey, everyone I had some voice in my head tell me that we all have inalienable rights

And likewise I never said a voice in my head told me anything. Why are bearing such false witness of me?

” They were expressing what all normal human beings who are not tyrannical despots or mental patients pretty much recognize as the fundamental right we all want to have.

And by what method did all those humans "recognize" something we all want to have"?
Did a little bird in their heads tell them that? Or was that common sense in fact a indwelling sense common to many people. A indwelling source?

That is why many thousands of persons flock to the US every year seeking freedom and no one flocks to, say, Cuba seeking freedom, unless of course they recently escaped from a mental institute or are a 6 year old boy forced to go by Janet Reno and a bunch of heavily armed government agents using an illegitimate court order.

eh, Janet Reno? - are we getting political? What does Janet Reno got to do with the price of eggs ( unborn chickens)? Never mind, lets not change of topic.

Those thousands, and millions, demonstrate once and for all that these self-evident and inalienable rights are what people believe in and desire to have. They are imprinted upon the common man indelibly, with the exception of persons such as Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Stalin, Hitler, etc

.

Indelibly? Sure you do not meant "delibly or outdelibly". Why do you think that word (combination of two words) has "In" as part of its meaning? A.K.A. In-dwelling source.

It is also self-evident that lots of people flock here because they dream of making a lot of money and getting rich or famous. Economic motivations. Or who knows, perhaps because we honor a womans rights to get an abortion?

I just talked to one gentleman who just got his citizenship papers after passing some tests to be naturalized. I joined his celebration and he laughed "Now I have the right to complain about the government and to burn the flag". (That was last year, by the way).

Hey, this is the place, the most fun country to live in. So don't try to put me in the same bracket with Hitler or the Pope, or those other dominators of human will. Drop the gossip and false witnessing. I am that I am and not what others think I am.

So who am I?

Technosoul.

[MerlinsByte]

I feel that many pro choicers have a denial problem. Anyone in clinical denial cannot accept truth so must accept self deception as truth and reality. This pathological behavior is entrenched and not treatable unless and until the underling disease is treated. Then the secondary manifestation of delusional thinking can be treated as well.

A program of intensive psychotherapy parallel with a regimented pharmaceutical therapy would be the ideal stratagem but the prognosis of a full recovery to normalcy would not be expected in the majority of the patients.

If the patient shows favorable results, then institutionalizing the subject may be avoided.

mb

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Technosoul Hi Two Cents Worth. Whatever... are you now saying that the "moment of conception" in not realistically a biological fact? If the woman did not conceave then we got no conception and Pale Rider has no "moment of conception".... better tell him he goofed.

Reading comprehension again? Don't worry, no one expects more from you.

IF you were able to read for comprehension you would have understood that he was saying that until it is fertilized, and egg is an egg. A cell of no more consequence than a fingernail clipping. BUT once it is fertilized, it is no longer an egg but a bonified member of whatever species its parents were.

Of course, you probably won't comprehend what I am writing either...will you?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: MerlinsByte I feel that many pro choicers have a denial problem. Anyone in clinical denial cannot accept truth so must accept self deception as truth and reality. This pathological behavior is entrenched and not treatable unless and until the underling disease is treated. Then the secondary manifestation of delusional thinking can be treated as well. A program of intensive psychotherapy parallel with a regimented pharmaceutical therapy would be the ideal stratagem but the prognosis of a full recovery to normalcy would not be expected in the majority of the patients. If the patient shows favorable results, then institutionalizing the subject may be avoided. mb

Of course you are right. A large number of the most rabid and illogical pro choicers have either had abortions themselves and are trying to escape the truth of what they have done, or are closely associated with someone who they have supported in the decision to kill a human being.

To accept that they have had a part in killing an innocent would have to be difficult. I can understand that they are trying to escape the truth, I just can't understand the why. What purpose would it serve to endlessly lie to yourself and others?

Technosoul for example admitted that we are humans from the moment of conception. But he still supports abortion. I asked if he now held the position that it was simply ok to kill innocents for no better reason than convenience. One would have expected a rational person to simply say yes but technosoul in his effort to avoid the truth is now trying a whole new course of action in an effort to avoid the truth. As if what the founders were thinking had anything to do with killing innocents because they were inconvenient.

And starboy. No one is really that stupid. The chicken material that I gave him was on a second grade level. He is simply being obtuse in an effort to hide from the truth of what he has taken part in, or what he has supported on a personal level. I once took a series of posts from a conversation (if you can call it that) that we had and ran them by a mental health professional that I know and the man simply shook his head and suggested that I not ride him too hard.

There was a female on another thread discussing aborton who simply maintained that an unborn was a clump of cells until it was born. I posted an intrauterine picture of a child at 14 weeks and she, unabashedly stated that it was a doctored photo of some sort. That unborns were just clumps of cells. There is some serious psychic trauma there and I blame the aboriton industry for it. They clearly made no effort to help her understand exactly what she was doing. Now she is scarred, perhaps for life. And who knows how many others are exactly in the same condition.

I used to be pro choice. Someone once tore down every argument that I could offer. Being the tenacious arguer that I am, I did an enormous amount of research trying to find evidence that he was wrong and I was right. The more I learned, the more evident it became that I simply was on the wrong side of the argument. Since I could not, in good consceince, support the killing of innocents for no better reason than convenience, I did what any rational person would do. I modified my stance.

Clearly the people here, arguing pro choice, are not rational people. They have had evidence upon evidence heaped upon them and still they hold to their obviously flawed opinions even in the face of modern medical textbooks even though they have no medical training, or evidence upon which to base their dissagreement.

[Dirty Name]

A seed is not a plant. Two plant cells are not a plant. When there are enough cells in what is growing from the seed so that it can survive completely from available sunlight and nutrients in the soil then it is a plant. A single human cell is not a human being in a similar way.

So is there some magical point in the gestation process where you can draw a line and thus guarantee that an abortion will only terminate a human life but not a living human being? And are you then willing to outlaw any elective abortion that occurs after that point?

[Dirty Name]

For all the discussion here, it all boils down the indisputable fact that pro-choicers are pushing what amounts to religious philosophy - arguing that life begins when a certain number of brain cells have developed, or that it begins when the baby starts kicking inside the mother.

But if we follow these philosophical theories to their logical conclusion, the pro-choice camp must answer this question:

If a doctor aborts a child who had developed just enough brain cells to be a human being, wouldn't you agree that he just committed a crime, like say, manslaughter? Murder might be a bit harsh, since he didn't intend to kill a living human being. But the end result was that a living human being died during the abortion process. So, is he guilty of manslaughter?