Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[northtexan]

Quote by: Pale RIder The thing is that I am not simply voicing an opinion. I have presented plenty of legitimate evidence that we are human beings from the moment of our conception. I have seen nothing from your side of the argument suggesting in any way that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything other than a human being. So, yes, you hold an illogical position because you can offer nothing in the way of evidence to support it in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary.

No, we each have presented some evidence and then made our arguments as to what it means. The question is essentially one of values, so that although evidence can certainly help elucidate the issues, evidence cannot decide values questions. For example, your evidence has been used to support your assertion that a complete human genome is present from fertilization (agreed) and that it is in charge of the entire pregnancy from fertilization (simply untrue, but you refuse to acknowledge evidence to the contrary). Neither point 'proves' anything about values. In fact, I have noted that I find your values argument to reduce humanity to simple biology, so to do violence to the human values that most of us respect. But as others have also noted, no amount of scientific evidence is going to answer the values questions -- that is what discussion is for. You seem somewhat reluctant to enter that discussion.

Quote by: Pale RIder I will resume my pro choice stance if you can demonstrate that unborns are not human beings. I used to be pro choice and was goaded into doing an enormous amount of research in an attempt to prove that the pro lifer was wrong. The more I researched, the more evident it became that I was wrong. Show me the hard science that I missed that would have proven that I was right. I still know where to find him if you can deliver.

I have already said enough about that. You disagree with my view of what a human person is; I disagree that your 'human being' defines what a human person is. So where do we go from there?

I will ask this: do you see a human BEING (your term) as nothing more than its biology? If you do, then there's not really much to talk about because we simply disagree on one of the most-basic points at issue. If you do not, then my next question is: what more is there to a human being than the biology?

Quote by: Pale RIder That statement alone should be enough to convince you that pro choice is the wrong position. If you honestly don't know, how can you justify erring on the side of of killing innocents for no better reason than convenience?

Nonsense! I argue for giving the benefit of the doubt for the period about which we don’t know – after brain birth. I argue that we DO KNOW that before brain birth, there can be no consciousness, no self-awareness, no awareness of feelings, and so on. My moral interpretation says that there can be no ‘killing of innocents’ before that point; it also says that after that point, rights must be balanced between brain-born fetus and the mother.

Quote by: Pale RIder More smoke and mirrors. We either are human beings from the moment of our conception or we are not. If we are not, then an abortion is of no more consequence than clipping your toenails in which case I am all for the choice. BUT if we are human beings from the moment of our conception, then we have an inalienable right to life. (in the US anyway) The science is squarely on the side that says we are humans before we are born. Again, if I missed any real science that says that at any point along the line of our lives that we are something other than human beings, I would be interested in seeing it.

Science cannot answer that question; it can only throw some light on the area where humans argue about values to decide that question. I have presented evidence that before brain birth, we cannot have been what I consider to constitute the minimum of what it is to be a human person. To you, the definition of a human being is something different (and I ask above for clarity on your definition). I find what I believe to be your definition to be deficient, but I seek clarification in order to find out if your definition is other than what I think it is.

Inalienable rights have been defined by U.S. law, by the Constitution itself, as starting with birth. It takes strong arguments to support altering that, but I am open to conferring some rights before on the basis of giving the benefit of the doubt. Now, if America were to at some point decide to extend unalienable rights for some period before birth, then that might require amendment to the Constitution – e.g., the granting of citizenship at some point before birth.

Quote by: Pale RIder So by that statement are you saying that from the time brainwaves are detectable forward that abortion should not be an option except in cases where the mother's life is genuinely in danger?

Close, but no cigar! I say the mother’s life and health, including mental health, must be taken into account. I say that because the mother is (except in the case of the brain-dead mother whose body is being kept alive to the point of fetal viability) undoubtedly a human person and because the fetus is present in her body. Her undoubted rights take precedence over any rights that might be extended to the brain-born fetus. I note, by the way, that many anti-choice attempts to outlaw some forms of late-term abortions do not make the exception even for genuine danger to the life of the mother. What an anti-life position that reflects!

[Two Cents]

Northtexan, nice post. I am seeing both your side and Pale Rider's. You've both made some wonderful points and I think I am understanding both of you. Your point seems to be more human "person" and when that starts and Pale Rider seems to be more human "being" and when that starts. Is my understanding correct? You both seem well educated and this is a very interesting discussion. You both also write very well and are able to put your points across. Something I sometimes have a problem with.

Seems to be two points of view.

[Pale RIder]

2cents...the problem is that the pro choice side can't offer a rational difference between human being and human person. The dictionary says that they are essentially the same. One has to make up definitions in order to separate the two and made up definitions are patently worthless in a debate, or anywhere else for that matter.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Pale RIder 2cents...the problem is that the pro choice side can't offer a rational difference between human being and human person. The dictionary says that they are essentially the same. One has to make up definitions in order to separate the two and made up definitions are patently worthless in a debate, or anywhere else for that matter.

Yes, the answer to the overall question of when life begins is not an answer based on mere scientific principle, but instead the opinion and background of the person answering it.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Yes, the answer to the overall question of when life begins is not an answer based on mere scientific principle, but instead the opinion and background of the person answering it.

No the answer is based on scientific principle and very basic biology. It can't rationally be argued with. The basis for every argument that the pro choice side puts up is that at some point in your lifetime you were something other than a human being. How absurd is that?

The problem lies with people who are so dogmatic in thier thinking that they can't accept a simple scientific truth when it is laid out in detail before them if it is in opposition to their ideology. You can call it opinion, or background or whatever you like, but refusal to accept the truth because it doesn't fit one's political ideology describes a particular type of person to me.

My guess is that when you argue evolution with a devout Christian, your opinion and assesment of their dogmatic thinking is roughly the same as my opinion and assesment of the dogma of pro choicers.

The pro choice side of this argument argues from a position of faith. They assume (without any evidence at all) that unborns are something other than humans and can't imagine why everyone doesn't "get it". Just like Christians when they are arguing entirely from a position of faith and can offer not the slightest evidence to support their position.

[Two Cents]

I still believe that the being is human and alive from conception. This seems to be a given but the point made by Northtexan about brain birth is very interesting. What do you, Pale Rider and Northtexan think about stem cell research using the embryos that are frozen and will be destroyed? Is tossing them into toxic waste bags or using them to further science still destroying life in either of your opinions?

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Pale RIder No the answer is based on scientific principle and very basic biology. It can't rationally be argued with. The basis for every argument that the pro choice side puts up is that at some point in your lifetime you were something other than a human being. How absurd is that?

Wrong. I think you are a human and I am pro choice. So you are wrong. Don't be so eager to sum up the pro choice argument in one sentence. I understand full well that you are human. I just don't value life so much as others do, because I think it has no value in the first place. Of course, if I actually lived my own life like that, I would be pretty miserable, so I keep my values reserved for situations like these. Also, I am not arguing from a religios stance at all. I'm pretty sure I'm atheist for the time being.

[Isaiah]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Wrong. I think you are a human and I am pro choice. So you are wrong. Don't be so eager to sum up the pro choice argument in one sentence. I understand full well that you are human.

I think you missed Pale Rider’s point. He was saying that the pro-abortionists must believe that the unborn child is not a person/human being and that after birth they are. If they did not hold this belief then they would all support an action that is a violation of the unborn person’s Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

The 14th Amendment provides that “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” and therefore if the unborn child is a person, then they cannot be deprived of life without the due process of law, including a trial by jury etc. Therefore the pro-abortion movement and every person holding a pro-abortion stance must believe that the unborn child is not a person.

Pale Rider was saying that anyone who is pro-abortion, must believe that, at some point in time, every person must have not been a person. Your statement was that you believed him to be a person NOW but that is not what he was saying. Therefore you did not answer his assertion which still stands, and as I have shown, is a logical and legal necessity of the pro-abortion movement here in the US.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Isaiah I think you missed Pale Rider’s point. He was saying that the pro-abortionists must believe that the unborn child is not a person/human being and that after birth they are. If they did not hold this belief then they would all support an action that is a violation of the unborn person’s Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. The 14th Amendment provides that “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” and therefore if the unborn child is a person, then they cannot be deprived of life without the due process of law, including a trial by jury etc. Therefore the pro-abortion movement and every person holding a pro-abortion stance must believe that the unborn child is not a person. Pale Rider was saying that anyone who is pro-abortion, must believe that, at some point in time, every person must have not been a person. Your statement was that you believed him to be a person NOW but that is not what he was saying. Therefore you did not answer his assertion which still stands, and as I have shown, is a logical and legal necessity of the pro-abortion movement here in the US.

Except, do you really think that the founding fathers meant for unborn people to also be human citizens? I have no idea, since they never stated an opinion. That's kind of where the stalemate begins I suppose.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Wrong. I think you are a human and I am pro choice. So you are wrong. Don't be so eager to sum up the pro choice argument in one sentence. I understand full well that you are human. I just don't value life so much as others do, because I think it has no value in the first place. Of course, if I actually lived my own life like that, I would be pretty miserable, so I keep my values reserved for situations like these. Also, I am not arguing from a religios stance at all. I'm pretty sure I'm atheist for the time being.

Congratulations..A genuinely honest pro choicer. Yours is the only pro choice argument that can't be systematically torn down to reveal the truth behind the argument. That is because yours is honest from the beginning. You are perfectly ok with killing innocent human beings for no better reason than convenience.

Of course, philosophically your argument breaks down after birth unless you are ok with infantacide or killing without consequence at any other age but at least your position is honest.

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Except, do you really think that the founding fathers meant for unborn people to also be human citizens? I have no idea, since they never stated an opinion. That's kind of where the stalemate begins I suppose.

No, if the founders had not wanted to extend the right to life to unborns, the nature of our constitution is such that they would have had to specifically name unborns as a group that did not have an inalienable right to live. That is why Dred Scott was found unconstitutional. Had the constitution said that blacks are not humans and thus have no right to liberty then there would have been no problem.

Until the constitution specifically denies the unborn the right to live, we will be living with unconstitutional law and this conflict is going to rage on.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Pale RIder Congratulations..A genuinely honest pro choicer. Yours is the only pro choice argument that can't be systematically torn down to reveal the truth behind the argument. That is because yours is honest from the beginning. You are perfectly ok with killing innocent human beings for no better reason than convenience.

Economic inconvenience sums it up a little better. I know I wouldn't want to be inflicted on society. Please cut the lingo that makes things sound so much worse, like "innocent" and "convenience." We naturally link these words to other things and that's why I find it annoying. For example, there's really nothing "innocent" about an unborn child. For all you know it could grow up to be a killer. And I understand that it is not at that point, but the words are confusing to some.

Quote by: Pale RIder No, if the founders had not wanted to extend the right to life to unborns, the nature of our constitution is such that they would have had to specifically name unborns as a group that did not have an inalienable right to live. That is why Dred Scott was found unconstitutional. Had the constitution said that blacks are not humans and thus have no right to liberty then there would have been no problem.

Out of curiosity, does that mean that unborns are not protected by the constitution, and therefore, any law/court order would not affect him or her?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Economic inconvenience sums it up a little better. I know I wouldn't want to be inflicted on society. Please cut the lingo that makes things sound so much worse, like "innocent" and "convenience." We naturally link these words to other things and that's why I find it annoying. For example, there's really nothing "innocent" about an unborn child. For all you know it could grow up to be a killer. And I understand that it is not at that point, but the words are confusing to some.

Of course, until that unborn actually kills, it is an innocent. Those who have committed no crime are innocent. And killing for economic inconvenience is still killing for convenience. If you don't like the words, then don't hold a position that makes them applicable.

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Out of curiosity, does that mean that unborns are not protected by the constitution, and therefore, any law/court order would not affect him or her?

Unless you can clearly demonstrate that unborns are not humans, they have the same 14th amendment protections that you enjoy. There is no difference between the court decision that allowed slavery than the decision that allows abortion. Either way, one human becomes the property of another and lives or dies at the whim of the owner.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Pale RIder
The thing is that I am not simply voicing an opinion. I have presented plenty of legitimate evidence that we are human beings from the moment of our conception. I have seen nothing from your side of the argument suggesting in any way that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything other than a human being. So, yes, you hold an illogical position because you can offer nothing in the way of evidence to support it in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary.

Quote by: northtexan No, we each have presented some evidence and then made our arguments as to what it means. The question is essentially one of values, so that although evidence can certainly help elucidate the issues, evidence cannot decide values questions. For example, your evidence has been used to support your assertion that a complete human genome is present from fertilization (agreed) and that it is in charge of the entire pregnancy from fertilization (simply untrue, but you refuse to acknowledge evidence to the contrary). Neither point 'proves' anything about values. In fact, I have noted that I find your values argument to reduce humanity to simple biology, so to do violence to the human values that most of us respect. But as others have also noted, no amount of scientific evidence is going to answer the values questions -- that is what discussion is for. You seem somewhat reluctant to enter that discussion.

Actually, I have presented evidence. You, and all the other pro choicers have presented opinions. You are all guilty of the logical falacy of begging the question. You simply assume that an unborn is not a human being and believe that your assumption frees you from the burden of proof that rests squarely on your shoulders. You provided a link that stated that residual mRNA from the ovum facilitates about 4 cell divisions. That hardly constitutes evidence that the unborn is not a living human being. And there is no conflict within the scientific community as to who is actually pulling the biological strings during a pregnancy. Pick up an OB/Gyn textbook sometime.

I will attend to your values argument as I answer the rest of your post. I prefer to stick to science rather than philosophy because when you begin to argue philosophy you make any red faced Bible thumper's argument as valid as your own but as you will see, the values card is a philosophical loser as well.

Quote by: Pale RIder
I will resume my pro choice stance if you can demonstrate that unborns are not human beings. I used to be pro choice and was goaded into doing an enormous amount of research in an attempt to prove that the pro lifer was wrong. The more I researched, the more evident it became that I was wrong. Show me the hard science that I missed that would have proven that I was right. I still know where to find him if you can deliver.

Quote by: northtexan I have already said enough about that. You disagree with my view of what a human person is; I disagree that your 'human being' defines what a human person is. So where do we go from there? I will ask this: do you see a human BEING (your term) as nothing more than its biology? If you do, then there's not really much to talk about because we simply disagree on one of the most-basic points at issue. If you do not, then my next question is: what more is there to a human being than the biology?

If giving opinion and completely failing to offer any proof constitutes "saying enough" then I agree. You have said all that you could rationally say. The truth, however, is that you are unable to say more without exposing even more of the flaws in your argument than you already have.

I see human beings as they are. At 1 second past conception a new human hasn't had time to do much to distinguish herself from the other members of the human race, so we are left with nothing to look at but biology. As I drive through the city, I see people on the streets who have had 20, 30, 40 years or more to distinguish themselves from their peers and it appears that they haven't. Am I to look at them through the lens of your "values" and determine that they are worth less, or not as deserving of the basic right to live than those who have done more?..or should I just see them as human beings with intrinsic worth and realise that I have no right at all to judge them or discount them because of what they haven't achieved?

Quote by: Pale RIder
That statement alone should be enough to convince you that pro choice is the wrong position. If you honestly don't know, how can you justify erring on the side of of killing innocents for no better reason than convenience?

Quote by: northtexan Nonsense! I argue for giving the benefit of the doubt for the period about which we don’t know – after brain birth. I argue that we DO KNOW that before brain birth, there can be no consciousness, no self-awareness, no awareness of feelings, and so on. My moral interpretation says that there can be no ‘killing of innocents’ before that point; it also says that after that point, rights must be balanced between brain-born fetus and the mother.

Consciousness, self awareness, feelings. Is that how you judge the worth of a human being. Hang on, because this is the part where you see how your values philosophy is flawed as well.

If you are saying that humans have value only because of some acquired property such as consciousness or self awareness, or feelings and not by virtue of simply being human then it follows that since these acquired properties come in varying degrees, basic human rights must also come in varying degrees. Do you really want to say that those who have achieved a higher level of consciousness are more human (and valuable) than those with less? How about those who are more self aware, or more in touch with their feelings (emotions) or those who have different thresholds for sensation?

And again, your moral interperation is of little value without something to substantiate it besides your opinion.

Quote by: Pale RIder
More smoke and mirrors. We either are human beings from the moment of our conception or we are not. If we are not, then an abortion is of no more consequence than clipping your toenails in which case I am all for the choice. BUT if we are human beings from the moment of our conception, then we have an inalienable right to life. (in the US anyway) The science is squarely on the side that says we are humans before we are born. Again, if I missed any real science that says that at any point along the line of our lives that we are something other than human beings, I would be interested in seeing it.

Quote by: northtexan Science cannot answer that question; it can only throw some light on the area where humans argue about values to decide that question. I have presented evidence that before brain birth, we cannot have been what I consider to constitute the minimum of what it is to be a human person. To you, the definition of a human being is something different (and I ask above for clarity on your definition). I find what I believe to be your definition to be deficient, but I seek clarification in order to find out if your definition is other than what I think it is.

Of course science can, and has answered the question and it would seem that there is little if any argument within the scientific community about the answer as evidenced by your (and the other pro choicer's) complete inability to reference any actual science that says that that the offspring of two humans is something other than a human being.

And again, you have presented no evidence at all. You have presented your opinion but it is meaningless in the face of the actual evidence that I and other pro lifers have provided during the course of this discussion. Your logical falacy is that you assume that your opinion constitutes evidence. It does not.

Quote by: northtexan Inalienable rights have been defined by U.S. law, by the Constitution itself, as starting with birth. It takes strong arguments to support altering that, but I am open to conferring some rights before on the basis of giving the benefit of the doubt. Now, if America were to at some point decide to extend unalienable rights for some period before birth, then that might require amendment to the Constitution – e.g., the granting of citizenship at some point before birth.

Please point out to me where the constitution states that inalienable rights begin at birth. Perhaps the rights that are yours by virtue of citizenship (voting rights, eligibility to be president etc.) begin at birth, but clearly human beings in this country who are not citizens still have an inalienable right to live. The fact is that unless it can be demonstrated that unborns are not living human beings, they have the same inalienable right to live that you do. The only way to void that right is to write it specifically into the constitution.

continued...

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Pale RIder
So by that statement are you saying that from the time brainwaves are detectable forward that abortion should not be an option except in cases where the mother's life is genuinely in danger?

Quote by: northtexan Close, but no cigar! I say the mother’s life and health, including mental health, must be taken into account. I say that because the mother is (except in the case of the brain-dead mother whose body is being kept alive to the point of fetal viability) undoubtedly a human person and because the fetus is present in her body. Her undoubted rights take precedence over any rights that might be extended to the brain-born fetus. I note, by the way, that many anti-choice attempts to outlaw some forms of late-term abortions do not make the exception even for genuine danger to the life of the mother. What an anti-life position that reflects!

Mental health? OK, suppose that mom has a 2 month old at home and it cries a lot. She is getting depressed at the thought of raising it through college. In order to save her mental health, is she justified in killing it? Your philosophical argument fails because you have failed to demonstrate how her infant is more human than it was prior to its birth.

All your arguments are going to fail until you can demonstrate in some real way that an unborn is less human than you or I.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Pale RIder Unless you can clearly demonstrate that unborns are not humans, they have the same 14th amendment protections that you enjoy. There is no difference between the court decision that allowed slavery than the decision that allows abortion. Either way, one human becomes the property of another and lives or dies at the whim of the owner.

Does it matter if they are humans or U.S. citizens?

It's pointless to have this argument without a clear definition from the constitution. We need an amendment on what exactly a human being is, and if, for that matter, the human, born or unborn, is/isn't covered by the constitution and thus giving the 14th amendment rights to him or her. Whew.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: carriew There is only 2 things I believe in without proof GOD and the love for/from my children...

Some who are not believeing even these two things without proof, are bound to believe their respective mothers who tell us all who is our father and that too without proof. I think all believe their mother without asking any proof for father. However, science has developed a method to prove that. But then, still the belief about this is without proof.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Does it matter if they are humans or U.S. citizens? It's pointless to have this argument without a clear definition from the constitution. We need an amendment on what exactly a human being is, and if, for that matter, the human, born or unborn, is/isn't covered by the constitution and thus giving the 14th amendment rights to him or her. Whew.

We know what a human being is. Science has defined what a human being is quite nicely. You have been a human being from the moment of your conception. You have matured and you have changed and you will continue to mature and change untill you die. If you haven't always been a human, tell me what species you belonged to before you became human.

Unless the constitution specifically denies rights to unborn human beings, they are included. That is the nature of our constitution.

[Savant]

So there you have it. Pale Rider knows exactly what humanity involves and can isolate the meaning of life. He has proven beyond any doubt that a fetus deserves the same rights as any other "person".

I therefor propose that all pregnant women be immediately arrested for false imprisonment / child abuse and that these innocent fetus' be set free immediately.

All miscarriages should now warrant an autopsy to determin if the mother's involvment in the death was criminal. If it can be proven that a mother's diet or activitys contributed to the demise of the person that she held captive in her womb, penalties should range from manslaughter to murder.

The implications of Pale Rlder's are mind boggling. The list of crimes commited by pregnant women and absently tolerated by our ignorant society is endless!

Force feeding. Suffocation. Torture - when you consider the sensory deprovation/overload of the womb. Do you have any idea how loud it is in there, OSHA would throw a fit if it were a workplace!! And don't get me started on the brutal act of childbirth. Women have been known to break a childs bones and even go so far as killing them during that terrible practice.

We can tolerate this no more. FREE THE FETUSES!!!

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Savant So there you have it. Pale Rider knows exactly what humanity involves and can isolate the meaning of life. He has proven beyond any doubt that a fetus deserves the same rights as any other "person".

I love the smell of pointless sarcasm in the morning. Smells like....victory.

The fact, savant, is that the pro life side of this discussion has offered up a wealth of actual evidence that unborns are living human beings from the moment of conception. The pro choice side of the argument has offered up nothing...not even one teensy tiny shred of evidence to suggest that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a living human being. Absent any evidence from you and yours to the contrary, I would say that the issue is proven beyond doubt. Your opinion (which is all that your side has offered) hardly carrys enough weight to cast doubt on accepted science.

Quote by: Savant All miscarriages should now warrant an autopsy to determin if the mother's involvment in the death was criminal. If it can be proven that a mother's diet or activitys contributed to the demise of the person that she held captive in her womb, penalties should range from manslaughter to murder.

If I failed to feed my children properly and they showed up to school with health problems that were obviously caused by my neglect, I could most certainly be held accountable. Should a woman who caused the death of a human being due to her neglect be any less accountable simply because the child was unborn? Here we are again waiting for you to provide some evidence that suggests that unborns are less human than you or I in order for your argument to stick.

So..if you have finished your small, impotent sarcastic paroxysm, I suggest that you go to your nearest library or medical university and do some actual research. When you know something, come back. We can talk about what you have learned. I have little interest in unsupported, uncoroborated opinion.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Pale RIder Starboy referenced wikipedia in an effort to prove that all single cells were organisms. Does life begin at conception? I think it does. 2nd post down. He didn't read far enough to realize that his on reference stated that he was wrong. I put together a bibloiography of at least 8 or 10 medical textbooks and a few medical journals that stated quite clearly that we are living human beings from the moment of our conception.

What are we; if we are not living human beings at the moment of conception? We are not non-human. What we are is little itty bitty human beings, who have just started to grow into adults.