Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Kuldeep No, to know exactly what the fact is, we have to develop mind reading technique first, as pointed out earlier in my post!!! Tell me, who teaches just born baby to suck mother's breast???? Fetus is aware of himself before birth, this is sure but since when that is the main point. How mother's connection through embrical chord gets diconnected with fetus and independent breathing starts?? How much science know about this?? At least I am ignorant about this. PI is requested to teach me in gist!!

How much does science know about this? Nothing. These are not questions that science can answer. You speak of "self awareness" as if it's some explicit definition, but the term has no real scientific meaning. That dosen't mean it's a bad condept to discuss from a humanity point of view, but science can say basically nothing about it.

For decades, biologists, animal behaviorists, and anthropologists has tries to come up with some aspect of humans that seperates us definitively from animals. They have all failed. True, we are a lot smarter, and everything we do with out mind, we do exponentially better, but that is only a quantitative difference.

In science, quantitative differences are basically arbitrary. To diferentiate between humans and animals, we need a *qualitative* difference. There just isn't one

You speak of th infant instince to suck, but that really dosen't demonstrate our similarities to instinct ruled animals, because that's all it is.

Now I am not trying to say that because of this we should kill fetuses (I am not taking a position in this debate), and I'm not saying that humans aren't "special", but from a *scientific* point of view we can say very little.

So feel good about this - your lack of biological training dosrn't hinder you very much at all in this discussion, because this is essentially a humanist discussion. Just remember that both conception and birth are totally arbitrary events, biologically speaking. And ignore the spat between me and Pale Rider. It isn't going anywhere, and he's just confusing people.

[Prometheus]

Pale Rider -

You continue to do the following, even after I have pointed out several times what you are doing:

(1) You straw man my position. Your posts treat me as if I am debating for pro choice. I HAVE EXPLICITLY SAID THAT I AM NOT TAKING SIDES. By doing this you totally devalue my points by acting as if there is an agenda behind them.

(2) You use appeals to authority in a definitional debate(which is explicitly illegal in many debate formats). We are debating loaded terms like "human" "self aware" and "life", that have all kind of meanings outside of thier explicit definitions. In spite of this, you refer to narrowley defined textbook statements. There is no research that goes into those textbook statements. They are *definitions*!

Until you disist these behaviors, I have nothing to say to you. My points are layed out multiple times in this post. If you want to re-read them and respond appropriately, we can continue, otherwise, good day.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Prometheus Pale Rider - You continue to do the following, even after I have pointed out several times what you are doing: (1) You straw man my position. Your posts treat me as if I am debating for pro choice. I HAVE EXPLICITLY SAID THAT I AM NOT TAKING SIDES. By doing this you totally devalue my points by acting as if there is an agenda behind them.

So why argue at all? SImply to argue?

Quote by: Prometheus (2) You use appeals to authority in a definitional debate(which is explicitly illegal in many debate formats). We are debating loaded terms like "human" "self aware" and "life", that have all kind of meanings outside of thier explicit definitions. In spite of this, you refer to narrowley defined textbook statements. There is no research that goes into those textbook statements. They are *definitions*! Until you disist these behaviors, I have nothing to say to you. My points are layed out multiple times in this post. If you want to re-read them and respond appropriately, we can continue, otherwise, good day.

Appeal to authority is not illegal if the authority is speaking within his or her field of knowledge and if the specific source is cited, and if the appeal is in the form of an exact quote.

I am not debating self awareness. Life is not a loaded term, nor is human.

And maybe you can provide some evidence to suggest that no research has gone into those textbook statements. If they are "just definitions" and not generally accepted within the scientific community, it should be easy to provide alternate definitions.

I am not a nit picker, prone to pointing out spelling and gramatical errors and such but I suppose that if we are going to stoop to pointing out possible logical falacies, then l suppose that I am obligated to point your argument from spurious similarity, your obvious attempt to poison the wells, your bad analogy, and your copius use of prestigious jargon.

I guess none of us is perfect.

[Savant]

You made your points very well Prometheus, I wish I could articulate it so well. I think it's clear that from the number of us that have drudged through several rounds of PR's word game and said relatively the same thing - that he's not really missing the point. He's just deliberately pretending to

On a positive note I have really enjoyed several members posts in this thread have found a few new things to consider in what I expected to be the same old dead horse. SteveA's post regarding Roe V Wade comes to mind. While I still doubt overturning it would be good for our community, I can agree that it may have been bad that the court decided to reach decision. It seems to me if our states were more diverse and less defined by federal law, USA might be a bit better off.

It would certainly allow changes in our culture to trickle in more smoothly as opposed to the sudden jerking changes we see now.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Pale RIder So why argue at all? SImply to argue?

You invited me to this thread when I stated that many issues are more complex then they appear, and that therefore, taking an iron clad position on them is disengenuous.

That has been my only attempt in this thread. To try and moderate extreme claims from both sides. Both sides claim certainty that is not there. All I am doing here is breaking up false certainty.

Appeal to authority is not illegal if the authority is speaking within his or her field of knowledge and if the specific source is cited, and if the appeal is in the form of an exact quote. I am not debating self awareness. Life is not a loaded term, nor is human.

I have already laid out the explination on why the authority you cite is not valid. Science cannot adequately differentiate what makes an organism "human" or what makes him "alive". To answer that question in the appropriate context would require a panel of theologians, philosophors and humanists. And they would not agree.

And maybe you can provide some evidence to suggest that no research has gone into those textbook statements. If they are "just definitions" and not generally accepted within the scientific community, it should be easy to provide alternate definitions.

You are asking me to prove a negative? There is no such thing as evidance that certain reserch has not taken place. What evidance would you provide to demonstrate that no serious research has been done into unicorn breeding behaviors? It's a silly thing to ask for. The only evidance in lack of it - and that is not good evidance.

You can't do reasearch on when something becomes "alive", especially when such life arises from cells and organisms that are already alive. There is no such thing as a "life-o-meter". You can't measure what it is that makes it immoral to kill a human. You can't subjectively define "human" and certainly can't measure it. It is outside the realm of scientific inquirey.

I am not a nit picker, prone to pointing out spelling and gramatical errors and such but I suppose that if we are going to stoop to pointing out possible logical falacies, then l suppose that I am obligated to point your argument from spurious similarity, your obvious attempt to poison the wells, your bad analogy, and your copius use of prestigious jargon.

There's nothing "stooping" about pointing out logical fallacies. As for my "spurious similarity" and "bad analogy", you are welcome to call them that is you wish, but we have already discussed them and are not going to come to an agreement on thst count. As for prestigious jargon, shove it. You claim a biological education, and can handle it just fine. I used no complex terms that are not defined in high school, so drop that one. Poisoning the well I will leave for the assembly to decide. I have made no grevious breach of standard debate ettiquite, and any that exits were mearly returning like.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Savant You made your points very well Prometheus, I wish I could articulate it so well. I think it's clear that from the number of us that have drudged through several rounds of PR's word game and said relatively the same thing - that he's not really missing the point. He's just deliberately pretending to On a positive note I have really enjoyed several members posts in this thread have found a few new things to consider in what I expected to be the same old dead horse. SteveA's post regarding Roe V Wade comes to mind. While I still doubt overturning it would be good for our community, I can agree that it may have been bad that the court decided to reach decision. It seems to me if our states were more diverse and less defined by federal law, USA might be a bit better off. It would certainly allow changes in our culture to trickle in more smoothly as opposed to the sudden jerking changes we see now.

Thanks for that. I was wondering if anyone was reading our gargantuenly long posts. I am probably done with this thread unless someone makes a good point I have not responded too already. Or if PR decides to start pontificating about his supposed victory on this topic.

[dejadee]

(There's no way I would read through 135 pages so I don't know if this has been brought up yet but...)

Why does there have to be a point in time where life begins? Couldn't life gradually develop? I'd bet most states in nature do not have a specific start. You might as well ask when does spring start? or is a seed alive? or when did apes evolve into humans?

Of course this isn't incredibly useful for legislating abortions but would an randomly chosen point during the preganacy be better? Personally, I like the reasoning behind Planned Parenthood v. Casey which is that before viability (23 weeks, I think?) the baby depends on the mother for life, so the mother gets to make the decision. After viability, the state can limit or ban abortions because the baby's life is independent of the mother. This isn't the "best" answer but it seems to make the most sense to me.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: dejadee (There's no way I would read through 135 pages so I don't know if this has been brought up yet but...) Why does there have to be a point in time where life begins? Couldn't life gradually develop? I'd bet most states in nature do not have a specific start. You might as well ask when does spring start? or is a seed alive? or when did apes evolve into humans? Of course this isn't incredibly useful for legislating abortions but would an randomly chosen point during the preganacy be better? Personally, I like the reasoning behind Planned Parenthood v. Casey which is that before viability (23 weeks, I think?) the baby depends on the mother for life, so the mother gets to make the decision. After viability, the state can limit or ban abortions because the baby's life is independent of the mother. This isn't the "best" answer but it seems to make the most sense to me.

Since you haven't read this outrageously long thread, you don't know this, but the last 10 or so pages are a debate between me and Pale Rider on exactly that - the ambiguity of "life" and "humanity".

I have been saying for ages that birth and conception are basically arbitrary events.

If you want a quick look at where we are at, read my initial post #1299 and PR's rebuttal #1300. The debate gradually degrades by #1343.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Prometheus Since you haven't read this outrageously long thread, you don't know this, but the last 10 or so pages are a debate between me and Pale Rider on exactly that - the ambiguity of "life" and "humanity". I have been saying for ages that birth and conception are basically arbitrary events. If you want a quick look at where we are at, read my initial post #1299 and PR's rebuttal #1300. The debate gradually degrades by #1343.

As I have already stated, conception is not an arbitrary time to say that a new human life has begun. Any time but conception must arbitrary as you would not be able to adequately explain why you chose that time and not 5 minutes earlier or 5 minutes later.

We do not become more human or more alive by virtue of the time that passes from our conception. If that were true, adults would be considered more human than children. We know that this is not the case.

[ihaQ]

We do not become more human or more alive by virtue of the time that passes from our conception. If that were true, adults would be considered more human than children. We know that this is not the case.

Well, if you can't even objectively define humanity (as a value; wothy of social protection) then this statement is speculative. Conception and birth do, in said context, happen to be arbitrary because of their non-relation to a defined life-value.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: ihaQ Well, if you can't even objectively define humanity (as a value; wothy of social protection) then this statement is speculative. Conception and birth do, in said context, happen to be arbitrary because of their non-relation to a defined life-value.

I agree that birth is an arbitrary time to choose to grant human rights. The child is no more a child when it was born than it was minutes or days before it was born. Conception, on the other hand is not arbitrary at all. It is the beginning of a human being's life. In fact, conception is the only time that is not arbitrary.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: ihaQ Well, if you can't even objectively define humanity (as a value; wothy of social protection) then this statement is speculative. Conception and birth do, in said context, happen to be arbitrary because of their non-relation to a defined life-value.

By the way, are you saying that you don't believe that you have an inalienable right to live and that it should be OK for anyone who finds you inconvenient to simply kill you without legal consequence?

[ihaQ]

Quote by: Pale RIder I agree that birth is an arbitrary time to choose to grant human rights. The child is no more a child when it was born than it was minutes or days before it was born. Conception, on the other hand is not arbitrary at all. It is the beginning of a human being's life. In fact, conception is the only time that is not arbitrary.

Independency of function, sensory utilization, existence outside of the womb, existence itself, an entity's possession of human genetic material and an entity's potential for a fully developed homo-sapien are all defining characteristics argued as significant by those who contend that either life begins at conception or at birth. What is overlooked is that these characteristics are entirely incidental of the social necessity to protect life, which is in an entirely rational world, the singular concept that informs the right to life.

[ihaQ]

By the way, are you saying that you don't believe that you have an inalienable right to live and that it should be OK for anyone who finds you inconvenient to simply kill you without legal consequence?

I do not believe in an absolute right to life because life is existentially purposeless. That said, I believe the right to life is relative to social necessity and desirably (although secondarily): social concessions to compassion. One's ignorance of my personal wish to live is not absolutely condemnable, but should be punished accordingly as a deterrent to those who would cause further death and consequent unhappiness.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: ihaQ I do not believe in an absolute right to life because life is existentially purposeless. That said, I believe the right to life is relative to social necessity and desirably (although secondarily): social concessions to compassion. One's ignorance of my personal wish to live is not absolutely condemnable, but should be punished accordingly as a deterrent to those who would cause further death and consequent unhappiness.

So if one should be punished for ending your life for no good reason, why should not one be punished for ending the life of an unborn which is no less human than you? You were, after all, once an unborn and you are no more human today than you have been at any time along your life span. More mature, but not more human.

[ihaQ]

So if one should be punished for ending your life for no good reason, why should not one be punished for ending the life of an unborn which is no less human than you?

Allowing the murder of certain sentient human beings would have to be justified by their existence as superfluous or useless, unnecessitated ends of society and would mean pain (physical and emotional), conscious objection, dissent, potential for failure, articulated legal definition and expenses along with all other detrimental features that accompany the killings of conscious interactive beings. Besides, the societal goal of collective happiness is generally more desirable to have precedence over the societal goal of social advancement.

Abortion is efficient and unoccompanied by the above negative aspects of genocide, while providing conscious society a highly valuable service.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: ihaQ Allowing the murder of certain sentient human beings would have to be justified by their existence as superfluous or useless, unnecessitated ends of society and would mean pain (physical and emotional), conscious objection, dissent, potential for failure, articulated legal definition and expenses along with all other detrimental features that accompany the killings of conscious interactive beings. Besides, the societal goal of collective happiness is generally more desirable to have precedence over the societal goal of social advancement. Abortion is efficient and unoccompanied by the above negative aspects of genocide, while providing conscious society a highly valuable service.

Neuroscientists have held for decades that when any abortion is performed past 8 weeks, the unborn should be given a general anesthetic since it is perfectly capable of feeling the exquisite pain of being torn apart or drowned in salt water. Does that mean that you object to all abortion past 8 weeks?

And killing at the beginning of life can not be justified on the basis of a superfluous or useless existence. 40 million have been killed in the US alone so far. Statistically speaking, we have killed at least 560,000 people who would fall in the 95th percentile for intelligence. And by what measure do we determine who is contributing enough? I suppose that there are those who contribue so much to society that relatively speaking, you and I contribute no more than an unborn and thus are no more worthy of basic human rights than they.

Killing before we know whether an individual will be a burden on society or a contributor at the most rarified level, as your logic seems to dictate, seems very short sighted at best, and a deliberate dodge to hide your true motiviations for holding a pro choice stance at the worst.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Pale RIder I agree that birth is an arbitrary time to choose to grant human rights.

Just like being human is an arbitrary way to choose to grant human rights. At some point, all of it is arbitrary. So what? Are you still carrying on this same tired argument, page after page after page?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Gorgo Just like being human is an arbitrary way to choose to grant human rights. At some point, all of it is arbitrary. So what? Are you still carrying on this same tired argument, page after page after page?

So you are saying that you have no fundamental right to live, and that should someone decide that you are simply inconvenient, that they should have the right to kill you without legal consequence?

The argument is not tired, only the objections to it.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Pale RIder So you are saying that you have no fundamental right to live

None that humans do not 'arbitrarily' assign to me.