Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Savant]

Hmm. The universal Pee Wee Herman defense. "I know you are, but what am I ?"

As far as I know, there's no counter for it, short of stealing your hat and not giving it back until I've given it koodies by stuffing it down my pants.

[carriew]

wow the level of conversation around here has just gone downhill hasnt it...

[northtexan]

Quote by: carriew wow the level of conversation around here has just gone downhill hasnt it...

I agree with you on that. Who would have guessed that it would show sufficient elevation to have gone downhill?

[Savant]

Quote by: northtexan I agree with you on that. Who would have guessed that it would show sufficient elevation to have gone downhill?

Hehe, that took me a second, but that is great!

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: northtexan I agree with you on that. Who would have guessed that it would show sufficient elevation to have gone downhill?

Pointless sarcasm...Still smells like victory.

You guys shouldn't be such bad losers. You knew from the beginning that you couldn't offer up even the smallest bit of actual evidence that the offspring of two humans is ever anything but human. Your defeat shouldn't come as a surprise.

[Isaiah]

Quote by: Savant Hmm. The universal Pee Wee Herman defense. "I know you are, but what am I ?" As far as I know, there's no counter for it, short of stealing your hat and not giving it back until I've given it koodies by stuffing it down my pants.

I am still waiting any logical or constructive, or even intelligent reply to Pale Rider’s point:

Pale Rider: "You made no valid points the first time you wrote it and there is nothing new there so there are still no valid points. Maybe because you had no actual evidence to present, you assume that your mere opinion constitutes a valid point in the face of science that says quite bluntly that you are wrong."

I have read through this very very long thread (possibly one of the longest in Volconvo’s history) and I would have to go with his assertion here that his points have been backed up with good scientific evidence and that he has many times posted points that no one has been able to answer, except with the level of immaturity demonstrated in your post. Apparently the anonymity here seems to engender some to be less than hospitable, logical, or competent in answering the points of others.

[Two Cents]

Savant, I guess you never read any of the posts that Pale Rider put up with the explainations and references. If you had a basic grasp of biology you would know that no person living or dead was a sperm or an egg. This is not possible. Sperm is CREATED by a male while a female (human) is born with all the ovum she will ever have. How would either one of these cells be a human? When they combine they do create a new "human" being. I have never heard of a woman giving birth to anything but a human baby. What do you suppose the offspring of a human couple is previous to birth? An Orangutan?

While not everyone will agree with Pale Rider about everything he posts at least get a grip on human biology before putting forth these suppositions.

[Savant]

Quote by: Isaiah I am still waiting any logical or constructive, or even intelligent reply to Pale Rider’s point: I have read through this very very long thread (possibly one of the longest in Volconvo’s history) and I would have to go with his assertion here that his points have been backed up with good scientific evidence and that he has many times posted points that no one has been able to answer, except with the level of immaturity demonstrated in your post. Apparently the anonymity here seems to engender some to be less than hospitable, logical, or competent in answering the points of others.

I wont repost everything, but because I do think you are sincerely interested in
the topic, the short version:
Becoming alive is a complex and subjective process. Becoming a person worthy of
inaliable rights is even more complex and subjective. We all have a right to
decide for ourselves based on our experiences, observations, culture, language,
philosophy, yatta yatta. Anyone who tries to claims to have absolute knowledge
of the subject is lamezor.

Once you have decided upon a position, you may find evidence to support it in
the dictionary, or in a medical book, or in a bible.

And you are absolutely right - as long as you don't think your definition should
work for everyone else. If you think your scientificly - literaly -
religiously- lawfully-metaphoricly validated opinion is now more than an
opinion, you are sadly mistaken. Because another person will read the same
books, talk to the same folks, witness the same things, use the same science -
to validate a completely different position. And they will also be right,
because it is subjective.

I also posted my (and my wife's) personal stance on the meaning of life and
abortion.
Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

If it doesn't work for you, so be it. If you think it requres more biology to
be valid - I can live with your disaproval. But it will be hard.

Quote by: Two Cents Savant, I guess you never read any of the posts that Pale Rider put up with the explainations and references.

You guess wrong...

Quote by: Two Cents If you had a basic grasp of biology you would know that no person living or dead was a sperm or an egg. This is not possible. Sperm is CREATED by a male while a female (human) is born with all the ovum she will ever have. How would either one of these cells be a human?

You are making a
reference to the word games that I was saying are irrelevent. I am glad
you seem to agree... You can tack "human" or "living" onto whatever part of the
process you like, but it false short of "proof" whatever you are observing is the meaning
of human life. So what if it's a human sperm, or a human corpse, or a human
fetus. Proving it's human does not mean you have stumbled across the meaning of
human life. Or living. Or being.

Quote by: Two Cents When they combine they do create a new "human" being. I have never heard of a woman giving birth to anything but a human baby. What do you suppose the offspring of a human couple is previous to birth? An Orangutan?

The fact is they will eventually make a human fetus (with any luck).
If it meets your critera for a "being" thats great. Go start a college fund for
it. Some one else sees a clump of cells untill it can feel, or think, or
breath. They are looking at the same thing you are. Living being - cluster of cells - a god's work - collection of stardust - disgusting piece of biomatter. Depends on what you make of it, and what you are looking for.

[Pale RIder]

Thanks guys. I appreciate that you pointed out that there is one side of this discussion that is posting information that is backed up by multiple references and one side that is posting unsubstantiated opinion and calling names.

Quote by: Savant Once you have decided upon a position, you may find evidence to support it in the dictionary, or in a medical book, or in a bible. .

Since the rest of your statement rests upon this one, lets just stick with this one. You obviously have decided upon an opinion so lets see the evidence that supports your position. Do keep in mind that I have referenced the better part of a dozen medical textbooks teaching the subject of human reproduction and development and a 3rd or 4th entry in a dictionary is not going to carry much weight in the face of that sort of evidence.

So you have said that you can find evidence to support your position in medical texts. Lets see it. If the evidence to support your position actually exists don't you think that at least one pro choicer would have posted it in 127 pages?

Quote by: Savant Some one else sees a clump of cells untill it can feel, or think, or breath. They are looking at the same thing you are. Living being - cluster of cells - a god's work - collection of stardust - disgusting piece of biomatter. Depends on what you make of it, and what you are looking for.

This perfectly describes the flaw in your logic. What we see, and what is are very often two entirely different things unless we take the time to build enough knowledge to know what it is that we are seeing.

Have you ever seen a rough diamond? It looks like a piece of quartzite that you might find in your driveway. To someone who doesn't have the knowledge base to recognize it for what it is, it is just a rock...worthless. BUT to a gemologist who has that knowledge base it is a treasure that only needs to be cut and polished. Some would recognize it as a diamond, some would simply pass over it but the fact that some would not recognize in no way changes the reality of what it is. It only demonstrates what some people know and what some people don't know.

The fact that you don't presently posess enough knowledge of human developmental biology to know cor certain that the offspring of two human beings is a human being doesn't change what that offspring is at all. It only reflects on what you know and what you don't/

Like I said, I used to be pro choice and I did an amount of research that would satisfy the work needed for a doctoral dissertation in an attempt to find information to prove that I was right and my pro life adversary was wrong. (I never claimed that I was not obsessive) I have at least paged through every textbook that is printed in english that touches on the subject of human reproduction or developmental biology.

I can say with confidence that you can't find information in medical books that supports your position because if it existed, I would have used it to support the pro choice position that I used to hold. Difference between you and I is that when presented with substantial, coroborated evidence that I was wrong, I was intellectually honest enough to simply admit that I was wrong. Being intellectually honest isn't easy. Once you admit that you are wrong, you are left with the choice of holding an ideology that you know is based in lies, or modifying your position to reflect what you know to be the truth no matter how initially distasteful it is.

This is an old thread. It really is time to put up your evidence (or not) and demonstrate what sort of person you actually are.

[Savant]

Quote by: Pale RIder Since the rest of your statement rests upon this one, lets just stick with this one. You obviously have decided upon an opinion so lets see the evidence that supports your position.

Fine. (It won't go away, might as well feed it.) How about you dig into one in the vast array of medical books you have read and comprehended and tell me at what point a fetus is considered "viable". In other words, what milestone(s) must be passed in order for doctors to make some attempt to birth the fetus in an instance of premature labor / car accident - etc.

Quote by: Pale RIder Do keep in mind that I have referenced the better part of a dozen medical textbooks teaching the subject of human reproduction and development and a 3rd or 4th entry in a dictionary is not going to carry much weight in the face of that sort of evidence.

Do keep in mind you have been the one trying to use the dictionary here - and that I have not pretended to have read any medical texts.

Quote by: Pale RIder So you have said that you can find evidence to support your position in medical texts. Lets see it. If the evidence to support your position actually exists don't you think that at least one pro choicer would have posted it in 127 pages?

Medicine supports life, it doesn't explain it.

Quote by: Pale RIder This perfectly describes the flaw in your logic. What we see, and what is are very often two entirely different things unless we take the time to build enough knowledge to know what it is that we are seeing.

So you are saying that at some point, all persons who attain the appropriate abount of knowledge on a topic will always reach the same conclusion?

Quote by: Pale RIder Have you ever seen a rough diamond? It looks like a piece of quartzite that you might find in your driveway. To someone who doesn't have the knowledge base to recognize it for what it is, it is just a rock...worthless. BUT to a gemologist who has that knowledge base it is a treasure that only needs to be cut and polished. Some would recognize it as a diamond, some would simply pass over it but the fact that some would not recognize in no way changes the reality of what it is. It only demonstrates what some people know and what some people don't know.

And a person who is stranded on a desert island with a giant diamond but no way of starting a fire would trade that diamond for a 99 cent lighter. Not because they don't understand the value, but because value is subjective.

Quote by: Pale RIder The fact that you don't presently posess enough knowledge of human developmental biology to know cor certain that the offspring of two human beings is a human being doesn't change what that offspring is at all. It only reflects on what you know and what you don't

Do you think this tactic of accusing others of not understanding reproduction might be an example of why folks are calling you dishonest in this debate? I don't think anyone here would believe that there is a single poster here who is not well versed in the sperm meets egg story. Nor is there anyone here who would believe that you were sincerely unaware that x + y is common knowledge.

Quote by: Pale RIder Like I said, I used to be pro choice and I did an amount of research that would satisfy the work needed for a doctoral dissertation in an attempt to find information to prove that I was right and my pro life adversary was wrong. (I never claimed that I was not obsessive) I have at least paged through every textbook that is printed in english that touches on the subject of human reproduction or developmental biology.

If you ever were pro choice, the fact that your opinion has changed over time only proves my point about absolutes. And yay, you read things! I am currently rereading the Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy series, and puting my daughter to sleep at night with Harry Potter. There's a little bit about the meaning of life in both. As far as medical text books go, dummies like me will have to wait for the audio books to come out. I am more interested in physics anyhow.

Quote by: Pale RIder I can say with confidence that you can't find information in medical books that supports your position because if it existed, I would have used it to support the pro choice position that I used to hold. Difference between you and I is that when presented with substantial, coroborated evidence that I was wrong, I was intellectually honest enough to simply admit that I was wrong. Being intellectually honest isn't easy. Once you admit that you are wrong, you are left with the choice of holding an ideology that you know is based in lies, or modifying your position to reflect what you know to be the truth no matter how initially distasteful it is. This is an old thread. It really is time to put up your evidence (or not) and demonstrate what sort of person you actually are.

Isn't it powerful, this "I used to be like you, but then I got smart and now I am the other way" Argument we see so many topics - even this one - get started with. Watch them repeat it over and over. "I was like you but now I am not!!!". OMG! You were! Oh wel then... in that case...

[Two Cents]

Savant, scarcasim is not facts. You have no basic grasp of biology or the human body. I hope it is not you who teaches your daughter the facts of life. She'll think humans come from a cabbage patch.

[Savant]

Quote by: Two Cents Savant, scarcasim is not facts.

True. Also, happy is not math. Glad we got that strait.

Quote by: Two Cents You have no basic grasp of biology or the human body.

That is a ridiculous thing to accuse someone of. You base that on my saying I was once a sperm and an egg? Or that theres is such a thing as a human sperm? I'll ask you this then: If someone went back in time and blocked the sperm that made it to the egg just before you were "created", and the next sperm in line scored, would you still have been born? And if you took canine sperm and compared it to human sperm, would there be any difference?

Quote by: Two Cents I hope it is not you who teaches your daughter the facts of life. She'll think humans come from a cabbage patch.

Ok lets act silly. Yarrr, that insult makes me so mad I curses ya like a pirate. Yarrr...

[Two Cents]

Nothing you've written makes any sense and you are the role model for your daughter?

Canine sperm has different DNA, if the second sperm made it, no, I would be a different combination of DNA. Do you know what DNA is? You still have no grasp of biology.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Savant Fine. (It won't go away, might as well feed it.) How about you dig into one in the vast array of medical books you have read and comprehended and tell me at what point a fetus is considered "viable". In other words, what milestone(s) must be passed in order for doctors to make some attempt to birth the fetus in an instance of premature labor / car accident - etc.

This discussion isn't about when we become viable. This discussion is about when we become human. Viable is just another diversion put up to distract from the fact that abortion kills living human beings.

Quote by: Savant Do keep in mind you have been the one trying to use the dictionary here - and that I have not pretended to have read any medical texts.

Only when asked for a definition. The person who asked for the definition of human was obviously trying to lay a trap. I used the first entry in the most common dictionary on the internet to give a difinitive definition of human to render his trap impotent.

Quote by: Savant Medicine supports life, it doesn't explain it.

Medicine never attempted to explain life. One doesn't have to be able to explain a thing in order to say difinitively when a thing begins and ends.

So you are saying that at some point, all persons who attain the appropriate abount of knowledge on a topic will always reach the same conclusion?

Quote by: Savant And a person who is stranded on a desert island with a giant diamond but no way of starting a fire would trade that diamond for a 99 cent lighter. Not because they don't understand the value, but because value is subjective.

You missed the point entirely. You said that you see a clump of cells and I see a human being as if the fact that you don't see what I see means anything at all. The analogy was to illustrate that it doesn't matter whether you see a human being or not if what you are seeing is in fact a human being. It doesn't depend upon your understanding of what it is in order to be what it is, except for the sad fact that you would kill it because you don't recognize it for what it is.

Quote by: Savant Do you think this tactic of accusing others of not understanding reproduction might be an example of why folks are calling you dishonest in this debate? I don't think anyone here would believe that there is a single poster here who is not well versed in the sperm meets egg story. Nor is there anyone here who would believe that you were sincerely unaware that x + y is common knowledge.

What tactic? You clearly don't understand the biology at work except in a rudementary fashion. Blame public school if you like, but the fact remains... I have said nothing dishonest in this debate. Yes, I believe that most pro choicers are not well versed in the egg meets sperm story. You claim to have read this thread. There has not been an accurate description of the facts of human development presented by a pro choicer in the course of the entire thread. You certainly haven't demonstrated that you understand the process. What would lead me to believe that you do.

If you understood the process you would be stating that you are simply ok with killing human beings for no better reason than convenience.

Quote by: Savant If you ever were pro choice, the fact that your opinion has changed over time only proves my point about absolutes. And yay, you read things! I am currently rereading the Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy series, and puting my daughter to sleep at night with Harry Potter. There's a little bit about the meaning of life in both. As far as medical text books go, dummies like me will have to wait for the audio books to come out. I am more interested in physics anyhow.

Again you miss the point. The facts were what they were when I held a pro choice position. The facts did not change, I changed. The facts will never change. I was simply honest enough to face the fact that I was wrong.

Quote by: Savant Isn't it powerful, this "I used to be like you, but then I got smart and now I am the other way" Argument we see so many topics - even this one - get started with. Watch them repeat it over and over. "I was like you but now I am not!!!". OMG! You were! Oh wel then... in that case...

You do love your sarcasm don't you. You hold it up as if it were some sort of totem that would protect you from the truth.

Still waiting for something to substantiate your position. I see that it is not forthcoming. It will never be forthcoming because you could care less about what the truth is if it doesn't mesh with your ideology.

[Savant]

Quote by: Pale RIder This discussion isn't about when we become viable. This discussion is about when we become human. Viable is just another diversion put up to distract from the fact that abortion kills living human beings.

So, even though it may be discussed in the medical text... when a fetus becomes viable is not meaningful to you. Others find it meaningful. Just as you might find DNA meaningful, or energy meaningful. A medical text is never going to tell you when the inaliable rights should be applied. You do that yourself.

Quote by: Pale RIder You missed the point entirely. You said that you see a clump of cells and I see a human being as if the fact that you don't see what I see means anything at all. The analogy was to illustrate that it doesn't matter whether you see a human being or not if what you are seeing is in fact a human being. It doesn't depend upon your understanding of what it is in order to be what it is, except for the sad fact that you would kill it because you don't recognize it for what it is.

Actually as per my definition of life, if you see it that way, then I believe it is a human being. As long as we are discussing your child, and your wife is on board. Hoewever, if you had made a decision to not have a child, then it's little more than an unfortunate parasite in my eyes. Your decision is sovereign, no matter how I feel about your sexual practices, or your hypocracy, or what have you.

And I never said I see a clump of cells. Both of our pregnancies were unexpected, but because of our strong relationship and plenty of bread on the table, we decided to go ahead and have kids early. We have a boy and a girl. We are done. So I have a vasectomy. I am not preventing any person from living, I am not murdering an unborn child. We made a decision becasue we have a choice, and because we are parents. that decision has a meaning to me, and so I have destroyed the future DNA of millions of potential people. They don't exist.

Quote by: Pale RIder What tactic? You clearly don't understand the biology at work except in a rudementary fashion. Blame public school if you like, but the fact remains... I have said nothing dishonest in this debate. Yes, I believe that most pro choicers are not well versed in the egg meets sperm story. You claim to have read this thread. There has not been an accurate description of the facts of human development presented by a pro choicer in the course of the entire thread. You certainly haven't demonstrated that you understand the process. What would lead me to believe that you do. If you understood the process you would be stating that you are simply ok with killing human beings for no better reason than convenience.

Why you decide to have a child or not is not my concern. You are the parent of that potential child. What you decide goes.

Quote by: Pale RIder Again you miss the point. The facts were what they were when I held a pro choice position. The facts did not change, I changed. The facts will never change. I was simply honest enough to face the fact that I was wrong.

True, the facts never change. It just seems in the process of changing your perspective, you lost sight of what a fact is.

Quote by: Pale RIder You do love your sarcasm don't you. You hold it up as if it were some sort of totem that would protect you from the truth.

It's a nervous habit, you intimidate me. :eek:

Quote by: Pale RIder Still waiting for something to substantiate your position. I see that it is not forthcoming. It will never be forthcoming because you could care less about what the truth is if it doesn't mesh with your ideology.

You won't admit anything that I say has any substance. It's not my problem, I've been more than patient.

[Athena]

I would not want to have a child without the means of providing the child. I have favored abortion, because I think quality of life is important. However, since this discussion seems to interest many, I have another concept to throw in here.

People like John Edwards, who demonstrate what appears to be contact with the dead, are somehow aware of aborted entities. This means, even a the physical child is aborted, the entity lives and is connected to the parents. When the parents die, they will be in the same spiritual realm as the aborted child. Since this is beyond my experince, I have nothing more to say, except-

A philosopher asked, "who would miss you if you were never born"? He answered, "you would miss you if you were never born".

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Athena I would not want to have a child without the means of providing the child. I have favored abortion, because I think quality of life is important. However, since this discussion seems to interest many, I have another concept to throw in here. People like John Edwards, who demonstrate what appears to be contact with the dead, are somehow aware of aborted entities. This means, even a the physical child is aborted, the entity lives and is connected to the parents. When the parents die, they will be in the same spiritual realm as the aborted child. Since this is beyond my experince, I have nothing more to say, except- A philosopher asked, "who would miss you if you were never born"? He answered, "you would miss you if you were never born".

You paint a pretty picture. Too bad it is nothing more than a screen, erected to hide the fact that an unborn child is being torn limb from limb, or drowned in salt water every time an abortion is performed. Did you know that neuroscientists have held for decades that all unborns past the age of 8 weeks should be given a general anesthetic since they feel the exquisite pain of being torn limb from limb just the same as you would?

Pictures are nice, but there is something to be said for the naked truth as well.

[carriew]

babies are viabale at 19 weeks they have been born and lived. I posted a link previously of one such child...

[Two Cents]

The last I heard was 24 weeks for a viable fetus. Very young and very small. The chances of neurological damage is significant. I think there may be too much intervention in these cases. The doctors seem to think that bringing a highly damaged baby into the world and keeping it alive (inflicting life or life at any cost) is better than letting nature take it's course.

[MerlinsByte]

merlin writes...All 1280 posts on this thread boils down to one simple question. When is the fertilized egg self aware? Don't know huh? then dont kill it you may be committing murder, and that makes you a vile thing indeed. All the more vile if this murder is done for convenience or for birth control.