Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy There are all sorts of crazy and incorrect ideas that are still in text books. Science is not represented by what is in text books but what is in the current scientific literature as is found in the major scientific journals. Text books will always be old science, especially when you cite books from 1971. In the field of biology you might as well be citing from the middle ages. Starboy

I cite books from the early 70's to the present for a reason. To illustrate that the facts have not changed.

Refer to:

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th ed.
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 2002), 2-18.

Essentials of Human Embryology, 3rd ed.
William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 2003), 1-17.

Some things are simply true whether you like them or not. One would think (if one were a thinking person) that at some point between Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43. which is the oldest book that I believe that I have referenced and the newest which is in its newest edition, that eroneous information would have been dropped. You can look at textbooks on most any subject, (including this very subject) and you will find all sorts of new information, and find outdated information absent. The facts, however, remain in place through the various editions spanning decades.

You want journals...Ok, here are articles from journals that you would read as well if you are a thinking person.

M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal
of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597
"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

As early as 1980 the British medical journal reported that 80% of neuroscientists said that children aborted after 10 weeks should recieve pain medication before the beginning of the procedure. Since then, the number has increased, and the recomendation has been changed to children as early as 8 weeks.

"Abortion is the taking of a life." --Pro-abortionist and former
Planned Parenthood president Mary Calderone, American Journal of Public
Health vol 50 no. 71960

"curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.
California Medicine, vol. 113, no. 3 (Sept. 1970), p. 67

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."
John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

"Again, let us stress that this is not a matter of religion, it is solely a matter of science. Scientists of every religious view and no religious view—agnostic, Jewish, Buddhist, atheist, Christian, Hindu, etc.—all agree that life begins at conception. This explains why, for example, the International Code of Medical Ethics asserts: "A doctor must always bear in mind the importance of preserving human life from the time of conception until death."
Hilgers and Horan, p. 317.

What difference does it make that human life begins at conception? The difference is this: If human life begins at conception, then the process of harvesting stem cells, like abortion, is the killing of a human life.

To deny this fact is scientifically impossible. To accept this fact and maintain that taking human life is not morally wrong is incredible. It is even reminiscent of Nazi Germany and yet today such arguments are increasingly accepted. Journal of Biomedical Ethics and the Law by James M. Humber and Robert F. Almeder, page 16; cf. note 3.

If you tire of reading medical textbooks and medical journals, you might also refer to a couple of medical dictionaries.

Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary
Tuber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary
Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing and Allied Health

These will also tell you point blank that we are living human beings from the moment of our conception.

I can play this game with you all day, but what would be the use. You either posess the intellect required to face scientific fact, understand what it means and accept it or you don't. The fact remains that you have yet to produce a whit of evidence to support your position while I can produce reams and reams to support mine. The little bit you have offered as evidence supported my position, not yours.

[Two Cents]

Technosoul and Starboy, read and read again if you don't understand. Get a dictionary or thesaurus if needed and check the definitions. An egg is just an egg, a single cell. This is not a human being. It is a SINGLE cell. After it is fertilized (conception) it becomes a living, developing being (of any kind). If you don't understand this then check a book on biology or talk to your parents about the birds and the bees. You must have missed that one. This is such an easy thing to see it must be that you just don't want to know so you can justify abortion. I am a female and more pro choice than not. This doesn't mean that I think abortion is the best choice or that it should be done to avoid inconvenience. When an abortion is done you must decide to have that abortion (termination of life) knowing that the "cells" are more than just cells. If left undisturbed it will be born into the human species since it has been that since conception. What is there not to understand about this?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Two Cents Technosoul and Starboy, read and read again if you don't understand. Get a dictionary or thesaurus if needed and check the definitions. An egg is just an egg, a single cell. This is not a human being. It is a SINGLE cell. After it is fertilized (conception) it becomes a living, developing being (of any kind). If you don't understand this then check a book on biology or talk to your parents about the birds and the bees. You must have missed that one. This is such an easy thing to see it must be that you just don't want to know so you can justify abortion. I am a female and more pro choice than not. This doesn't mean that I think abortion is the best choice or that it should be done to avoid inconvenience. When an abortion is done you must decide to have that abortion (termination of life) knowing that the "cells" are more than just cells. If left undisturbed it will be born into the human species since it has been that since conception. What is there not to understand about this?

Two Cents, I probably have shoes older than you are. Your condescending tone is not appropriate for Volconvo debate. I have most likely read more about biology then you have any idea of. If you have a point then make it. But arguing that I must accept your point of view because somehow I am lacking is not any kind of a reasonable argument. So if you are convinced that the information supports your case then present the information and show how it supports your case. But you will first need to get around the fact that the seed or the egg of any plant or animal, fertilized or not, is not the plant or the animal.

Starboy

[MerlinsByte]

By starboy...Two Cents, I probably have shoes older than you are. Your condescending tone is not appropriate for Volconvo debate.

mb writes... agree Starboy...I have flamed (more like MIKE-ed the first megatonnage H bomb test) in the past and am working on my temper, at least the part that I reveal....;} >


mb

[MerlinsByte]

I cite books from the early 70's to the present for a reason. To illustrate that the facts have not changed.

mb writes...Attempting to discredit sources is a common (and ineffective) tactic used by most anti God anti religion types. This should be called a retreat not a tacit because when you hear someone questioning your sources, it usually means you got em'. And then its AMF you going down.

[Dirty Name]

It should not read "it can be nothing else" but rather "in cannot BECOME anything else".

And so we see that the pro-"choice" position has been reduced to the difference between "be" and "become."

When the difference between life and death has been reduced to this level in the minds of the opposition, I'd say we've proven our point. To be pro-"choice," you literally have to be willing to parse words and bank your entire existence on a philosophy that revolves around utter selfishness.

[Dirty Name]

If left undisturbed it will be born into the human species since it has been that since conception. What is there not to understand about this?

Well said. I would add that the very act of abortion involves taking measures that would kill ANY human being, not just a zygote, embryo, fetus, or baby. No matter how you go about it, you have to strip the living organism from it's mother so that it cannot feed, breathe or otherwise carry on it's life support functions. It's simply absurd to believe that an abortion doesn't kill a living organism (which cannot be anything else except human).

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name Well said. I would add that the very act of abortion involves taking measures that would kill ANY human being, not just a zygote, embryo, fetus, or baby. No matter how you go about it, you have to strip the living organism from it's mother so that it cannot feed, breathe or otherwise carry on it's life support functions. It's simply absurd to believe that an abortion doesn't kill a living organism (which cannot be anything else except human).

Every thing involved is a living organism. We kill human organisms all the time. A single cell is a human organism but it is not a human being.

Starboy

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Dirty Name To be pro-"choice," you literally have to be willing to parse words and bank your entire existence on a philosophy that revolves around utter selfishness.

Isn't blocking the abortion of a female, and thus interfering with the lives and issues of a family, utter selfishness? Putting yourself smack in the middle of other's affairs just to satisfy your religious opinions?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy Two Cents, I probably have shoes older than you are. Your condescending tone is not appropriate for Volconvo debate. I have most likely read more about biology then you have any idea of. If you have a point then make it. But arguing that I must accept your point of view because somehow I am lacking is not any kind of a reasonable argument. So if you are convinced that the information supports your case then present the information and show how it supports your case. But you will first need to get around the fact that the seed or the egg of any plant or animal, fertilized or not, is not the plant or the animal. Starboy

I believe that her condesending tone is perfectly appropriate when speaking to you on this topic. It is clear that she understands the subject matter far better than you and has come to terms with the facts as they are. I don't know that I would bring up the fact that you have shoes older than someone who is so obviously intellectually superior to you.

If you have read more biology than her, you shure as sh*t didn't learn any of it. Requiring that she present information that supports her case is laughable when the request comes from you. Hell, I have presented information upon information, all of it from credible sources and you are either unable to understand it or simply refuse to look at the truth.

And you end by insisting that the fertilized seed or egg of any plant or animal is not the plant or animal when the general scientific community says that it is and I have provided plenty of documentation to hammer the fact home.

Simply stated, it seems as though you are intellectually inferior to everyone who has grasped the basic facts of biology. That or you are deliberately playing the fool in order to avoid the simple truth.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Isn't blocking the abortion of a female, and thus interfering with the lives and issues of a family, utter selfishness? Putting yourself smack in the middle of other's affairs just to satisfy your religious opinions?

NEWSFLASH!!!

The inalienable right to life trumps anyone else's convenience every time. And there are no religious opinions being bantered about here except by those who worship at the altar of abortion on demand. The pro choice side here is arguing pure science.

If you are able to demonstrate that unborns are not living human beings even from the moment of conception, then by all means step up and do it. Otherwise simply face the fact that abortion kills an innocent human being every time it is performed.

By the way, if mommy doesn't want to raise the child, there are waiting lists of parents years long just waiting for a newborn of any color. Hell, they are going overseas to get newborns.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

I didn't know you could measure waiting lists by years, but I'll let it slide.

140,000 children are adopted each year.
1.3 million LEGAL abortions are each year, while there are 100,000 illegal abortions each year.

Year-long list of possible parents? I think not.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 I didn't know you could measure waiting lists by years, but I'll let it slide. 140,000 children are adopted each year. 1.3 million LEGAL abortions are each year, while there are 100,000 illegal abortions each year. Year-long list of possible parents? I think not.

You obviously haven't done the research. Just to demonstrate how easy it is to actually know something, I did a google search for "waiting lists for adoption" The first hit was a British post adoption site that says that the waiting lists are 3 years long.

Here is a clue. Instead of "thinking" why don't you guys do some research and actually KNOW something for a change. Of course, to know, you must be willing to accept the facts as they are. Apparently that could pose a problem for much of the pro choice side of the argument.

[Starboy]

Pale Rider your posts are becoming more strident. Having trouble making rational argument? I am sure that in other circles argument based on the faults of the opposition is very convincing but surely a person of your great education knows that showing the other person is somehow deficient doesn't make you knowledgably or right. Present argument that supports your claims. Anything else is just pissing and whining.

Starboy

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy Pale Rider your posts are becoming more strident. Having trouble making rational argument? I am sure that in other circles argument based on the faults of the opposition is very convincing but surely a person of you great education knows that showing the other person is somehow deficient doesn't make you knowledgably or right. Present argument that support your claims. Anything else is just pissing and whining. Starboy

Pissing and whining...that is your purview, and I have the proof.

The sad fact of this argument is that science is indisputably on one side. Science has stated quite emphatically for decades which side of the argument has merits, and it isn't the side that argues that the offspring of two humans is something other than a human. The fact that there are two sides to this argument demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that one side is deficient.

And not only did I point out that his argument was deficient, I provided evidence that he was quite simply wrong. Just as I have provided more than ample evidence that you are wrong also.

And only a skidmark would even suggest that I (Pale Rider) need to present anything to support my position. I have presented plenty, at every request. At this point, it is you, and all your pro choice buds who have completely failed to present even the slightest bit of science to back your position.

Now, I would suggest that it is about time for you to write another weeping note in your neverending effort to have someone else mete out the punishment to me that you are so unable to deliver on your own.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Post the website Pale Rider. Amuse me.

Here, maybe you missed my data:

140,000 children are adopted each year.
1.3 million LEGAL abortions are each year, while there are 100,000 illegal abortions each year.

Now show me some of your DATA, instead of unbacked statements to an unheard of website. let's see these hundreds of parents waiting to adopt.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder Pissing and whining...that is your purview, and I have the proof. The sad fact of this argument is that science is indisputably on one side. Science has stated quite emphatically for decades which side of the argument has merits, and it isn't the side that argues that the offspring of two humans is something other than a human. The fact that there are two sides to this argument demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that one side is deficient. And not only did I point out that his argument was deficient, I provided evidence that he was quite simply wrong. Just as I have provided more than ample evidence that you are wrong also. And only a skidmark would even suggest that I (Pale Rider) need to present anything to support my position. I have presented plenty, at every request. At this point, it is you, and all your pro choice buds who have completely failed to present even the slightest bit of science to back your position. Now, I would suggest that it is about time for you to write another weeping note in your neverending effort to have someone else mete out the punishment to me that you are so unable to deliver on your own.

More pissing and whining.

Starboy

[Two Cents]

Starboy, I'm 60 so your shoes were probably bought before 1944. You are the one taking a condesending tone.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Two Cents Starboy, I'm 60 so your shoes were probably bought before 1944. You are the one taking a condesending tone.

Maybe you are 60, but that still doesn't excuse your condesending tone. Anytime you want to engage in civil debate rather than incivil debate by attacking your opponent you may do so. I am not stopping you.

Starboy

[Gilligan]

My sons life began at conception. I can't remember if mine did.