Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Gorgo None that humans do not 'arbitrarily' assign to me.

You are in a weak position and your answer shows it. You are damned glad that you have a right to live and you know it. Wouldn't it suck to have to worry about your neighbor sniping you every time you went out to get the paper?

So since you, as a human being, have an inalienable right to live, why would an unborn, also a human being not. If we are going to assign a right to life to human beings, how is it that one group of human beings gets left out?

Sucks when you paint yourself into a corner doesn't it?

[Osborn F Enready]

"life" obviously begins at conception, but you are not a human, or an individual until birth.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready "life" obviously begins at conception, but you are not a human, or an individual until birth.

How about some actual science to back that statement up. I have provided plenty of credible evidence that states that we are human being from the moment of our conception. So far, you have only provided opinion. That won't cut it.

You seem very sure of yourself. You must have gotten your information somewhere, lets see it. Or did you just make it up to suit your PC position? Lots of pro choicers just make stuff up you know, because the sicence doesn't support their stance. If you aren't simply making it up, lets see a source.

[Prometheus]

Pale Rider - If I've said it once, I've said it 10 times - you cannot present evidance for either side of this point. It is not a scientifically valid question! Youi cannot provide evidance or research for this point.

[Dirty Name]

Pale Rider - If I've said it once, I've said it 10 times - you cannot present evidance for either side of this point. It is not a scientifically valid question! Youi cannot provide evidance or research for this point. ____________

Of course you can. Just because you dismiss the evidence doesn't mean there isn't any.

On the other hand, I find it amusing that the pro-choice side is pure philosophy and arbitrary cutoffs in terms of when life begins, where the pro-life side is on fairly solid ground - conception is a "bright line" standard - inarguable, unmoveable, black and white, totally unarbitrary.

If you KNOW you are pregnant, then you have a resposibility to that fetus. I see no wiggle room there at all. The same can't be said for you pro-choicers. Wiggle away.

[Two Cents]

Osborn, what are you if not human from the beginning. You cannot be anything else if your parents are human.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Prometheus Pale Rider - If I've said it once, I've said it 10 times - you cannot present evidance for either side of this point. It is not a scientifically valid question! Youi cannot provide evidance or research for this point.

Of course I can, and I have. I presented the better part of a dozen credible medical textbooks that state quite clearly that we are living human beings from the moment of our conception. It is the pro choice side that has yet to produce anyting suggesting that we are not.

That we are living human beings from the very beginning is my postion. Human beings have an inalienable right to live. If you are arguing for killing those human beings without legal consequence while maintaining that the rest of us human beings should have the protection of the law, then the onus is on you to demonstrate that they are not human. You know you can't so why engage in the argument unless you are prepared to argue against your own right to live?

[Savant]

PR: Medical textbooks provide scientific proof fetus' are living humans with inalienable rights.

Somoene: Science can't answer subjective questions.

PR: Yes it does!

Somoene: No it can't. (Explains.)

PR: Life is not subjective.

Someone: Yes it is. (Explains)

PR. No it's not!

Someone: (yawn)
Someone else: Hi!

PR: Medical textbooks provide scientific proof fetus' are living humans with inalienable rights.

Somoene else: Science can't answer subjective questions.
Someone: (yawn)

PR: Yes it does!

Somoene: No it can't. (Explains.)
Someone: (yawn)

PR: Life is not subjective.

Someone else: Yes it is. (Explains)
Someone: (yawn)

PR. No it's not!

rinse and repeat

[Prometheus]

I've been saying the same thing, Savant, for the lst 15+ pages. Pearl and swine. Peals and Swine my friend.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Savant PR: Medical textbooks provide scientific proof fetus' are living humans with inalienable rights.

Read for comprehension Savant. I said that I have provide sufficient evidence to prove that unborns are living human beings. No one has posted squat to refute that.

The fact that human beings have an inalienable right to live is encoded into our legal system. It has nothing to do with science.

This one is a no brainer.

Science has stated quite clearly that unborns are human beings.
It is enconded into our legal system that human beings have a right to live.

Can you, in any way, demonstrate that unborns are not living human beings?

I didn't think so.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Prometheus I've been saying the same thing, Savant, for the lst 15+ pages. Pearl and swine. Peals and Swine my friend.

You have said, and you have opined.

What you have not done is offer up a single piece of evidence to corroborate your position.

[Dirty Name]

What you have not done is offer up a single piece of evidence to corroborate your position.

You people are just LIARS. He's posted REAMS of evidence.

The fact you choose to REJECT it does not mean he didn't post it. Sheesh.

[Dirty Name]

And another thing. This is a debate/discussion forum. He says he has posted evidence. I've read it.

Here is just ONE of his posts that I've seen:

Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

It's rather comprehensive, it may take you a while. My guess is you'll post some dismissive retort long before reviewing the evidence.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Dirty Name You people are just LIARS. He's posted REAMS of evidence. The fact you choose to REJECT it does not mean he didn't post it. Sheesh.

Are you saying that I haven't corroborated my position?...or that the pro choice side has substantiated theirs.

I haven't seen any evidence from that side of the discussion...only opinion.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Dirty Name You people are just LIARS. He's posted REAMS of evidence. The fact you choose to REJECT it does not mean he didn't post it. Sheesh.

Well I don't know that I've posted evidance - I've posted arguments. I have held that since this is a non-scientific question (because it's scientifically arbitrary, hence, no scientific answer is availible), that there is no evidance.

He has ignored my *arguments. Not my *evidance*.

Either way, it's all the same.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Pale RIder I haven't seen any evidence from that side of the discussion

I agree. I have held from the beginning that no objective evidance is possible for this non scientific question.

...only opinion.

A logical argument is more than an opinion. A logical argument is the backing for an opinion.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Pale RIder [b] Science has stated quite clearly that unborns are human beings.

The only definition of "human being" that science can say anything about are the genetics that identify a homo sapiens.

So in that, you are technically correct - a blastocyst is a human lacking time and situation to become mature. But if you are going to retreat to definitions like that, you have to also see that sperm and egg are also human lacking time and situation to become mature also. Using any scientific definition, you cannot draw that bright line.

The problem with using this definition that you keep throwing around is that, since you can't make any delineation with it, it is totally useless. The second problem with using this definition, is that "human being" carries much more meaning then the genetic definition of "homo sapiens". These additional meanings - a soul, sentience, self awareness, self will, conscience, etc cannot be adressed by science.

So obviously this definition is useless. Any evidance you offer that supports this definition is a red herring.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Prometheus So in that, you are technically correct - a blastocyst is a human lacking time and situation to become mature. But if you are going to retreat to definitions like that, you have to also see that sperm and egg are also human lacking time and situation to become mature also. Using any scientific definition, you cannot draw that bright line.

Both sperm and egg are mature. But you know that already don't you? (more intellectual dishonesty) They are what they are and alone, they are of no more consequence than toenail clippings. When either egg or sperm is mature, they have had all the time that they need to become what they are. It is only when they get together and both cease to exist that their potential is realised. At that point, a new human's life begins. Science is not ambiguious on this point.

Quote by: Prometheus The problem with using this definition that you keep throwing around is that, since you can't make any delineation with it, it is totally useless. The second problem with using this definition, is that "human being" carries much more meaning then the genetic definition of "homo sapiens". These additional meanings - a soul, sentience, self awareness, self will, conscience, etc cannot be adressed by science. So obviously this definition is useless. Any evidance you offer that supports this definition is a red herring.

Can't make a delineation with it? What are you talking about? Maybe you don't know what delineation means and another word would be more apropriate. Conception draws a perfect, inarguable picture of when a human being's life begins. That makes it the only accurate definition that may be used. All others are subjective and therefore useless.

Human is human. It is a simple concept. All the attributes that you would like to toss in are completely arbitrary and therefore also useless.

I am sorry that you can't make your case. I suppose that it must be frustrating for you. I have presented plenty of evidence to support my position. You and all the rest of the pro choicers have presented nothing but opinion and not only that, opinion that doesn't hold true to all human beings, opinion that may only be appled to a very limited group of humans.

Feel free to keep trying if you like.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Prometheus I agree. I have held from the beginning that no objective evidance is possible for this non scientific question. A logical argument is more than an opinion. A logical argument is the backing for an opinion.

You assume that your logic is correct and are using that assumption to corroborate your position. That isn't backing, that is circular reasoning. You need to present some evidence that supports your logical conclusions. So far, you haven't.

[Osborn F Enready]

ROFLMAO..... oh this is tiring.

Two Cents said:
Osborn, what are you if not human from the beginning. You cannot be anything else if your parents are human.

I say:
Never said it wasn't life, never said it wasn't human. IT IS A DEVELOPING HUMAN. A human doesn't end up being complete, until DELIVERY when it becomes independent.

Why would I post proof of this, isn't science proof enough?

Does it take a genius to see an umbilical cord cut, that seperates mother from child?
Does it take a genius to see that at all stages prior to birth, the fetus is a DEVELOPING HUMAN?

People like Pale Rider and Dirty Name think because it is biologically technically a human, regardless of its development stage, it is entitled rights as well as protection even if it means negating the rights of the mother.

Most rational people understand that a grown, responsible adults right supercede that of a developing, unfeeling, unthinking, unaware group of cells that will one day be a DEVELOPED HUMAN.

Pale Rider expects there to be clear proof that there is not a human growing, well any moron would know that isn't possible or realistic, since it is a process of human development from the time the sperm meets the egg.

This is as realistic as expecting science to prove God doesn't exist, or insisting the Bible is proof that he does.

Rational people understand that abortion is a realistic, viable alternative to having a child you can't support, don't want, can't afford nor justify, if all other methods of birth control fail.