Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: 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.

Thanks for stating your opinion. Now I could state mine and we'd be going no where.

[carriew]

did I miss something where we goin?

[Savant]

I think most everyone here could agree that a fetus isn't self aware... but I dont think that helps or hurts either "side" of the abortion debate.

[MerlinsByte]

I think most everyone here could agree that a fetus isn't self aware... but I dont think that helps or hurts either "side" of the abortion debate.

mb sez...Everyone on the planet could agree that you aren't self aware, but only you would know for sure, so the consensus of a misinformed majority doesn't make it right.

Self awareness has everything to do with abortion being right or wrong, because if it is self aware it is human.

mb

[MerlinsByte]

Thanks for stating your opinion. Now I could state mine and we'd be going no where

merlin ...see post # 1285

[Athena]

Quote by: Pale RIder 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.

A decade after legal abortions, the crime rate went way down.

[The Kid]

Life begins when there is a heart beating and a pulse pulsating. There is a difference between stem cell research and what conservatives (mostly) are upset about. Neither of which destroys embryos that can be used to produce humans. The government has a large cache of embryos that have been discarded by fertility clinics. They are sitting in storage units and are being put in the trash after so many years. The people are not using them and they will not be used to create humans either way. I am a conservative kid but there is a difference between removing them for the sole purpose of destruction to get at stem cells and using those discarded by parents. You are assuming that the parent would ask for them after they gave approval to destroy them. As with most good things bad can come with it. But the good of the advancements is far greater. Also children at young ages still contain the unaltered or ‘coded’ stem cells and it can be extracted without damage. Much like a blood donation.

[The Kid]

Quote by: 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.

abortion is wrong, stem cell research the proposed way with discarded embryos is not. no one is dying because they were never fertillized. and if you thin kthat there is the possiblity they could be used, ask yourself... with so many eggs i nthe female body, wil lthey all create children? thats thousands kids per mom. also, why did they discard them? because chances are they already had their kid or gave up trying and no longer need it... they are not even a them, they are not living.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Athena A decade after legal abortions, the crime rate went way down.

Pre-emptive death penalty....Great. You libs think of everything. Odd though, that you would allow a woman to hand out a death penalty on her say so alone yet your heart bleeds for those who get the benefit of trial and appeal upon appeal.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: The Kid abortion is wrong, stem cell research the proposed way with discarded embryos is not. no one is dying because they were never fertillized. and if you thin kthat there is the possiblity they could be used, ask yourself... with so many eggs i nthe female body, wil lthey all create children? thats thousands kids per mom. also, why did they discard them? because chances are they already had their kid or gave up trying and no longer need it... they are not even a them, they are not living.

I would suggest regulating the fertility industry in such a way that no human beings get "discarded" That practice is no better than abortion. It denies a human being his or her inalienable right to live.

[ihaQ]

I would suggest regulating the fertility industry in such a way that no human beings get "discarded" That practice is no better than abortion. It denies a human being his or her inalienable right to live.

Inalienable? What gives you the idea that the 'right to live' is inalienable?

[The Kid]

Quote by: Pale RIder I would suggest regulating the fertility industry in such a way that no human beings get "discarded" That practice is no better than abortion. It denies a human being his or her inalienable right to live.

Unfortunately there is no way to regulate as the process of extraction for the afore mentioned in your case would mean every time they tried to have a kid the embryo would have to be extracted, instead of the already used method of extracting many eggs. They actually don’t have the inalienable right, because in a life time a woman only uses a few at beat of the thousand of eggs. It’s arguable that it is a random lottery of selection for a child form the eggs but the fact remains that they mostly will not be used. point again is debatable but i would think the overall good of it is worth it because they are not living and those that can be considered living have been fertillized and are living.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: 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.

Out of these 1280 posts, you have not gone through some of my posts ( #1259 ) which, explain self awareness somewhat, but without proof. This so because, we have not developed a mind reading machine as yet and that too for a fetus mind!!!!!! We may have to wait for that indefinitely!!!

My simple testing method, sensing first movement of fetus by the expecting mother should be the indication of self awareness in fetus, has gone haywire in the discussion of Pale RIder and Savant. No other measure of scientific indication of awareness in fetus is given even by Pale RIder. Therefore, before scientifically declaring brain development in the fetus, one can make use of unwanted fetus (due to any of genuine reasons like health of mother or fetus, medical complication, or even any other social bindings etc.) for medical research. Thus scientifically speaking, it won't provide any physical or mental pain to the fetus in the absence of brain and nervous system.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: ihaQ Inalienable? What gives you the idea that the 'right to live' is inalienable?

The founding documents of the US. If you live somewhere else, perhaps humans don't have an inalienable right to live in which case, I am sorry for you. But here, it is encoded into our very founding documents.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: The Kid Unfortunately there is no way to regulate as the process of extraction for the afore mentioned in your case would mean every time they tried to have a kid the embryo would have to be extracted, instead of the already used method of extracting many eggs. They actually don’t have the inalienable right, because in a life time a woman only uses a few at beat of the thousand of eggs. It’s arguable that it is a random lottery of selection for a child form the eggs but the fact remains that they mostly will not be used. point again is debatable but i would think the overall good of it is worth it because they are not living and those that can be considered living have been fertillized and are living.

It seems that perhaps you don't quite understand the science behind the fertility clinics. Of course eggs don't have a right to live. A woman's eggs by themselves are of no more consequence than toenail clippings. The embryos that are the object of stem cell research's eye, however, aren't eggs. They once were eggs but they were fertilized and as such they are human beings.

The fertility industry could operate by fertilizing and implanting only one ovum at a time. It would take longer, and cost more, but then we wouldn't have human beings frozen in labs waiting to be discarded.

Once an egg meets sperm, both egg and sperm cease to exist. What results from their meeting is a new human being. If you believe it is something else, please provide some documentation to validate your point.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Kuldeep Out of these 1280 posts, you have not gone through some of my posts ( #1259 ) which, explain self awareness somewhat, but without proof. This so because, we have not developed a mind reading machine as yet and that too for a fetus mind!!!!!! We may have to wait for that indefinitely!!! My simple testing method, sensing first movement of fetus by the expecting mother should be the indication of self awareness in fetus, has gone haywire in the discussion of Pale RIder and Savant. No other measure of scientific indication of awareness in fetus is given even by Pale RIder. Therefore, before scientifically declaring brain development in the fetus, one can make use of unwanted fetus (due to any of genuine reasons like health of mother or fetus, medical complication, or even any other social bindings etc.) for medical research. Thus scientifically speaking, it won't provide any physical or mental pain to the fetus in the absence of brain and nervous system.

I have not pursued the self awareness line of thought kulldeep because it goes no where. The fact remains that newborns are not self aware and a good deal of research suggests that humans do not achieve a level of self awareness for about 15 months. If you want to use self awareness as a measure of humanity, you are obligated to argue that until at least 1 year past their birth, mothers should be able to kill children they are having second thoughts about. One honest pro choicer stepped up and said that he was ok with that practice. Are you number two?

[Savant]

You keep looking for that sacred on/off switch. Self awareness alone as a measure of humanity would not help pro-life ideas, and would make a poor pro-choice argument. I agree there. However self awareness can still be a consideration when deciding at what point in development a human fetus becomes a living person.

It doesn't mean that anyone who dares to consider self awareness must then advocate killing infants or risk becoming a "dishonest pro-choicer". Rather, the lack of self awareness could be one of many factors weighed in.

One might consider that it can not sense pain, is not viable, is not self aware, is not wanted, is not healthy, is not a boy, is not in the appropriate environment, and I'm sure a milion other possible factors.

Acknowledge that self-awareness is one factor does not require that you eliminate all things that are not self-aware.

[Prometheus]

If you guys are looking a definite answer on this one, then don't listen to me. The problem is that this is a very ambiguous issue.

What is "life"? Scientists haven't come up with a good consistant definition. We consider bacteria alive. A sperm is nearly as alive as a bacteria. Given the right conditions, it can reproduce. If you look at the life cycles of plants, with the haploid and diploid generations, it adds some insight to this. In different plants, different life stages are dominant. In humans, the diploid stage is dominant, but there is nothing intrinsically better about it. You could argue that the gametes themselves are just as alive as we are. Under the right conditions they reproduce.

The sticky issue is that when we kill a blastocyst, people often call it murder because "under the right conditions it would be a person just like you and me". But if you logically extend this argument, then a man kills thousands of lives a month and a woman one a month, because those gamaetes could become just like you or me "under the right conditions". Given, the right conditions are more extranious for a single sperm, but that is only a quantitative matter. And if you draw the line with a quantitative matter, then it is totally arbitrary. A decision is really only philosophically and ethically valid if it is based on qualitative criteria.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Prometheus If you guys are looking a definite answer on this one, then don't listen to me. The problem is that this is a very ambiguous issue. What is "life"? Scientists haven't come up with a good consistant definition. We consider bacteria alive. A sperm is nearly as alive as a bacteria. Given the right conditions, it can reproduce. If you look at the life cycles of plants, with the haploid and diploid generations, it adds some insight to this. In different plants, different life stages are dominant. In humans, the diploid stage is dominant, but there is nothing intrinsically better about it. You could argue that the gametes themselves are just as alive as we are. Under the right conditions they reproduce. The sticky issue is that when we kill a blastocyst, people often call it murder because "under the right conditions it would be a person just like you and me". But if you logically extend this argument, then a man kills thousands of lives a month and a woman one a month, because those gamaetes could become just like you or me "under the right conditions". Given, the right conditions are more extranious for a single sperm, but that is only a quantitative matter. And if you draw the line with a quantitative matter, then it is totally arbitrary. A decision is really only philosophically and ethically valid if it is based on qualitative criteria.

This is one of the most straight forward issues that you are likely to encounter. It only becomes ambiguious when one side of the argument begins to run from the straight forward truth.

Actually, a sperm can never reproduce. That is not how sperm cells are created. A sperm either contributes its half set of chromosomes to an egg's half set of chromosomes and a new human comes into being, or it lives out a pre programmed life span and is reabsorbed into your body.

What is life? Science has come up with a perfectly adequate definition. Life is the property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism

You also seem to be just a bit unclear as to what constitutes potential human beings and what constitutes actual human beings. Sperm and eggs represent potential humans because they are unique cells. They are the only cells in our bodies that have only half a set of chromosomes and they are like this for a specific reason. Alone though, they are no more important than any other cell in your body. Once they meet, however, both sperm and egg cease to exist. Their potential is realized and a new living human being comes into being.

I have asked repeatedly for someone, anyone from the pro choice side of this discussion to provide reference to any actual science that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything other than a human being. I have referenced the better part of a dozen medical textbooks that say specifically that we are living humans from the moment of our conception. If, as the pro choice sided argues, we are not human from the beginning, it shoud be very easy to provide credible documentation to prove the point. None is forthcoming. Perhaps you can provide it.

[Savant]

Quote by: Pale RIder This is one of the most straight forward issues that you are likely to encounter. It only becomes ambiguious when one side of the argument begins to run from the straight forward truth.

You should capitlize your Truth's, makes them more convincing.

Quote by: Pale RIder Actually, a sperm can never reproduce. That is not how sperm cells are created. A sperm either contributes its half set of chromosomes to an egg's half set of chromosomes and a new human comes into being, or it lives out a pre programmed life span and is reabsorbed into your body.

Or, one might see us (humans) as the byproduct of the sperm's comlicated reproductive process.... I like that.

Quote by: Pale RIder What is life? Science has come up with a perfectly adequate definition. Life is the property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism

That definition could prove both my sperm and my laptop are alive.

Quote by: Pale RIder You also seem to be just a bit unclear as to what constitutes potential human beings and what constitutes actual human beings. Sperm and eggs represent potential humans because they are unique cells. They are the only cells in our bodies that have only half a set of chromosomes and they are like this for a specific reason. Alone though, they are no more important than any other cell in your body. Once they meet, however, both sperm and egg cease to exist. Their potential is realized and a new living human being comes into being.

Says you.

Quote by: Pale RIder I have asked repeatedly for someone, anyone from the pro choice side of this discussion to provide reference to any actual science that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything other than a human being. I have referenced the better part of a dozen medical textbooks that say specifically that we are living humans from the moment of our conception. If, as the pro choice sided argues, we are not human from the beginning, it shoud be very easy to provide credible documentation to prove the point. None is forthcoming. Perhaps you can provide it.

What documentation would prove the point that the meaning of life can't be documented. If anyone found these documents wouldn't they negate their own existance...