Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Prometheus Shit - I leave this debate for a week, and it still blows. Pale rider running around like a decapitated chicken, while blathering on in a pretentious manner, while religious zelots can't stop ranting. Go count wall tiler or something.

:Moderator hat on:

This is uncalled for, it breaks the forum rules, I would ask that you please respect other forum users, even if you disagree with them.

As for your monty python insult post, thats just rude spam, and I will be deleting it.

Good day.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: YourTokah Life-like activity (expenditure of energy) begins at conception, but human life does not begin until AFTER week 8, imho. At this time, the brain is forming along with other internal organs. Until there exists a stable platform for life to exist seperate from a mother's body, I don't think that the fetus counts as a "human" life.

What species do you suppose it is?

Science says that the offspring of two human beings is never anything but a human being at whatever stage of life it happens to be in whether it be the moment of conception or the 105th birthday.

[ihaQ]

Quote by: Pale RIder I would suggest as well that anyone who would kill a human being for no better reason than convenience should be deterred as well.

Ok, but that suggestion does not take into account the central ethic of my beliefs on this matter while similarily being contradictory of them .

So why do you support that behavior?..because you have certainly not proved in even the smallest way that unborns are any less human than you or those you hold dear.

That is because the quality of being biologically human is irrelevant to my argument. My contention was never that unborns are not as 'human' as I am.

You have asked me many questions based in the assumption that I somehow hold the beliefs of the average abortion proponent which is clearly untrue and have not even attempted to directly refute a single point I have made. This debate would be a little more productive if I could actually get some actual feedback instead of all these incessant, immaterial queries.

Contradictory are we?

Facetious actually.

Mmmm...doesn't the aroma of the diatribic rhetoric of the street level ideologue remind one of the farm from which the manure was bought from? The intellectual prose so eloquently presented previously must have faltered, stumbled and fallen upon its sword sharp tongue. You merely revealed your base nature and confirmed my primary assessment of your personal and idealogical inclination.

That's good, because you've certainely proved my primary assessment that you are pretentious and phony, while failing to engage the debate with more than your pseudo-intellectual attempt at condescension.

Intellectual section indeed. Never thought referencing a dictionary would be considered as such.

Because you can't recognize sarcasm.

I would add to the definition,"The unjustifiable termination of a human life." Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

Somehow this was missed in your damnation of my post.

Umm, I believe you're confused:

I did not ever state that the death of a fetus was not the death of a human, I just realise that it can be rationally justified and thus don't really care.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intellectual I am not. I merely speak my opinion based upon over a half century of life. My experiences as a father, grandfather and foster father for three generations of children have taught much more than any school ever could. I would add to that equation service in the US Army as 11B and field security employment. My experiences in life and travels have taught me much about the Human Condition. Intellectual? No. Experienced in life? I would say yes.

Well, I'm speaking from less than two decades of life and a basic understanding of logic, but I'll take your word for it that you're not an intellectual.

Reviewing my post I do not see where you were accused of that.

Because half a century of life has apparently taken its toll on your memory - or revision skills.

How many times throughout history have we heard the idealogy of the superior versus the inferior? How many countless millions have suffered and died because one group viewed another as subhuman and/or less than human?

I don't know, how many times must I tell you that you are misunderstanding my argument and that I don't believe fetuses are subhuman nor inferior?

How many more millions must suffer and die because they are not considered Human or fully so?

Trying to combat realism and logic with poetry is categorically lame.

[YourTokah]

Quote by: Pale RIder What species do you suppose it is? Science says that the offspring of two human beings is never anything but a human being at whatever stage of life it happens to be in whether it be the moment of conception or the 105th birthday.

It is obviously of the human species. I do not believe that what we define as life as We, birthed humans, live it, exists until a fetus is able to function without the mother. Until such a time, it is a parasite within a host organism, feeding off of and surviving solely because of the carrier. A cluster of cells replicating doesnt equal human life, to me. You wouldn't look at a few cells stuck together in a petri dish and say, "There's Joe, don't flush him or it'll be murder."

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: YourTokah It is obviously of the human species. I do not believe that what we define as life as We, birthed humans, live it, exists until a fetus is able to function without the mother. Until such a time, it is a parasite within a host organism, feeding off of and surviving solely because of the carrier. A cluster of cells replicating doesnt equal human life, to me. You wouldn't look at a few cells stuck together in a petri dish and say, "There's Joe, don't flush him or it'll be murder."

There are also those in this world who "believe" in Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, The Easter Bunny, and even a few, I would suppose, who believe in The Great Pumpkin. But when scientific fact says otherwise, belief in fantasy is at best nothing more than mental masturbation.

Your characterization of an unborn as a parasite clearly displays your lack of basic biological knowledge. Such a characterization is nothing more than an attempt to dehumanize a human being. Such language is no more and no less than the language used by racists in an attempt to dehumanize.

Since you seem not to understand what constitutes a parasite, please allow me to enlighten you.

1) a parasite is an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host).

2) an unborn human is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.

3) a parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source

4) an unborn is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote.

5) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.

6) an unborn developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.

7) a parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).

8) an unborn makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

9) when a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue

10) when an unborn attaches to the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being

11) a parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.

12) an unborn is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of Her offspring.

13) a parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).

14) an unborn has a temporary association with its mother, remaining only until it is able to survive outside her body.

So...YourTokah...since you have obviously misunderstood the relationship between a mother and her unborn and have mistakenly characterized it as a parasite when this is obviously not the case, does this mean that you will be adjusting your position. Or does it simply not matter to you whether your opinion is based in any actual truth?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: ihaQ You have asked me many questions based in the assumption that I somehow hold the beliefs of the average abortion proponent which is clearly untrue and have not even attempted to directly refute a single point I have made. This debate would be a little more productive if I could actually get some actual feedback instead of all these incessant, immaterial queries.

The only point that it appeared that you were making was that you believe that no life has value unless you assign that value to it. I pointed out that it is quite possible that there are those who would assign no value to your life. I asked if it were ok if they simply decided that it would be best if you didn't exist since they assigned no value to your life or of those close to you.

If you believe that you deserve the protection of the law, then it would be hypocritical in the extreme to argue that all human beings do not deserve the same protection.

[dliw]

Wow...you really butchered that one. What's the name of the clinic you are employed by?

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: Pale RIder A mature adult might apologize for wasting my time on such a thoughtless misinterpretation, but I won't expect that from you. Just a response to what I actually said will be sufficient.

I am really sorry for misinterpreting you for your DNA. I am feeling proud to extend apology when, it is my mistake and that too a silly one!

Coming back to point of debate,

Since that fertilized egg was all that existed of you, and the DNA fingerprint surely matched, that fertilized egg was you in your entirety.

Fertilized egg was you in your entirety. What you call your entirety are (egg+sperm), DNA, Genes and all other physical constitutions which get developed with passage of time after conception. My point of view is that your entirety is to be additionally associatecd with "Life Force" (Some thing) which is the main part of the entirety. This life force, in fact, is actual you and enters sometime later than conception but before birth. I am unable to prove that super natural force and its time of entering fetus which, you should have disproved that it does not exist at all that too scientifically. Surprisingly, you do not agree to touch upon that aspect!! Saying confident NO it does not exist, which is not fare for a good debater!!!

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Kuldeep Fertilized egg was you in your entirety. What you call your entirety are (egg+sperm), DNA, Genes and all other physical constitutions which get developed with passage of time after conception. My point of view is that your entirety is to be additionally associatecd with "Life Force" (Some thing) which is the main part of the entirety. This life force, in fact, is actual you and enters sometime later than conception but before birth. I am unable to prove that super natural force and its time of entering fetus which, you should have disproved that it does not exist at all that too scientifically. Surprisingly, you do not agree to touch upon that aspect!! Saying confident NO it does not exist, which is not fare for a good debater!!!

Actually, "fertilized egg" is a misnomer since there is, in reality, no such thing but the term persists because it paints a verbal picture that lets one grasp what has actually happened without having to actually understand what has happened which is clearly what has happened in your case. Upon fertilization, both sperm and egg cease to exist. In their place is a newly concieved human being.

The problem is kuldeep that your "life force" theory is about as valid an argument in this discussion, and in court where it will ultimately be decided, as verses from the Bible.

And I never said that it does not exist, I said that if you are going to use it as an argument, the onus is upon you to prove it. I could easily extract verses from the Bible, or any of a number of holy books to offer evidence that abortion is wrong, but as surely as I did, someone would ask for evidence (proof) that those verses had any basis in reality. "Life force" is no more valid than any other spiritual argument without evidence. Do you have any? Evidence of it would be required if you want to attempt to demonstrate that unborns are less than human even though their DNA proves quite convincingly that they are as human as you. Otherwise, you may as well argue for the spirit of the stork or some such silliness. I am arguing from a position of reality. From a position of fact. You are arguing from the realm of the gypsies and the necromancers. Got any facts?

By the way, since it is scientifically provable that we are indeed alive from the first moment of conception, you would also need to prove that your "life force" isn't infused into us at the very first moment of conception. We, after all, do not become more alive with the passage of time, only more mature. And as I said, if you can prove it, it will be the death knell for abortion in any form other than cases where the mother's life is in danger more surely than any argument that science can make.

Interesting that you would take a position that it is ok to kill unborns when within your position, or philosophy, or argument, or whatever you call it there are so many unknowns and things that you can neither prove nor disprove upon which you base your decision.

What if hunters used the same rationale before taking a shot at an unknown rustling in the bushes?

[YourTokah]

Quote by: Pale RIder So...YourTokah...since you have obviously misunderstood the relationship between a mother and her unborn and have mistakenly characterized it as a parasite when this is obviously not the case, does this mean that you will be adjusting your position. Or does it simply not matter to you whether your opinion is based in any actual truth?

Well, as a mother myself, I think I'm entitled to my opinion of the relationship between a mother and her unborn.

A fetus may not scientifically be a parasite, but it functions like one. And the question of whether it is a parasite or not comes down to simple semantics.
A parasite is a foreign organism that resides in or on another organism for the purpose of consuming nutrients from the host, correct? "Another" organism does not disqualify that additional organism from being of the same species.
A fetus is (according to pro-lifers, including you) is a foreign organism that resides in or on another organism for the purpose of consuming nutrients from the host, but you will not call it a parasite, because that's a very imagetic and unambiguous term, much like the terms pro-lifers use when defining when "life" begins, as these words are meant to evoke an emotional response.
A parasite is a parasite at any stage in its life.
And a fetus has a parasitic function until it is born, until it ceases being a fetus. Those two are actually VERY close in basic function. Thanks for that argument, very compelling line of reasoning against some of the more silly pro-life claims.
Whether you want to call it a human life or a mass of human cells, either way you will refuse to call it anything like a parasite, but its method of existence can certainly be called "parasitic." Recent research into the biology of miscarriages reveals that most miscarriages are the result of the host female's (mother's) immune system attacking the invading fetus cells. The immune system has even been employed as a sort of birth control device in animals using a technique called immunocontraception. Our immune system also attacks such things as the cold virus, bacteria, and the HIV virus. For these, we have developed antibiotic and anti-viral medications, with very little debate as to whether mounting such an attack against these microscopic invaders is ethically proper. Little attention is placed on the some 600,000 women that die each year as a result of the invading fetal cells (World Health Organization), yet diseases such as Huntington's Disease which kills far fewer people per year, has scientists scrambling to come up with newer and better treatments and defenses against it.
Given that fetal cells are clearly an invader to be attacked by the immune system at every opportunity, and that fetal cells kill 600,000 people every single year, why is our government doing nothing to combat these deadly organisms? And why does the religious right use particularly manipulative tactics in their opposition to the development of antifetal drugs and other methods for removing this dangerous organism from the millions of women who are invaded by it every year?
Note:I am not using the strict biological definition of parasite. Rather, I am using it in its more general sense as defined by dictionary.com. But if that isn't good enough, here's the definition from Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"sIt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return
Here's a little blurb from the World Health Organization:
http://www.who.int/reproductive-heal...lity_chap1.htm
DO check it out. It makes for interesting reading, especially when they say that in order to decrease the UNBELIEVABLE number of deaths around the globe each year,
"Rights relating to life, liberty and security of the person, which require governments to ensure both access to appropriate health care during pregnancy and childbirth, and women's rights to decide whether, when, and how often to bear children. Governments must therefore address factors within the economic, legal, social, and health systems that deny women these fundamental rights."
Also,
"Rights relating to health care and the benefits of scientific progress, including health information and education, which require governments to provide access to good sexual and reproductive health care with appropriate referral systems. The measures needed to ensure safe motherhood can be provided through primary health care irrespective of a country's level of economic development. Central to these rights is information on a range of reproductive health issues, including family planning, abortion, and sex education."

Hmmmmmmm, interesting.

Check this, too:

The United Nations even advocates abortion. http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1999/en/pr99-mat_mor.html

Now, do you want to rethink? Or is everything you have to say based on personal morals and opinion of eternally debated ambiguous definition of a scientific occurence?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: YourTokah Well, as a mother myself, I think I'm entitled to my opinion of the relationship between a mother and her unborn. A fetus may not scientifically be a parasite, but it functions like one. And the question of whether it is a parasite or not comes down to simple semantics.

You are entitled to your opinion and opinion is what you have. An unborn is scientifically, and actually not a parasite. If I found myself having to twist facts into a blend of fantasy, pseudoscience, and philosophy in order to justify my position, I, personally would reconsider my position. But then that is just me speaking from the viewpoint of an intellectually honest thinking person.

Also, most miscarriages are due to chromosomal abnormalities within the unborn. Just one more thing that you appear not to know.

And no, I don't need to rethink. My position is based purely in science. I don't have to unilatarally redefine words, I don't have to point to the UN and claim that because they agree with me that they are right. I only have to look at the facts and know that unborns are living human beings as surely as you are, and that you and yours advocate killing them for no better reason than convenience.

[YourTokah]

There are many reasons. The biggest of which comes down not to convenience but to FREEDOM. Freedom. Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? Well, it's just an illusion for pretty much everyone. Taking away a woman's right to choose what happens with her own body is just limiting freedom even more. Who wants to live in some pseudo-nouveau-fascist society where rights are continuously taken away and freedoms restricted? NOT ME! I'm moving to Canada.

[Prometheus]

Tokah - Nice anylisis of the parasite situation.

I think you are right when it comes down to semantics. It turns into a definitional debate that is complicated by th emotional connotation of the terms we are trying to define. It is because of complexities and ambiguities like these that I don't take a strong stance on this issue.

Maybe I've just spent too much time at debate tournaments, but I've debated both sides of this issue so many times that I have been forced to admit that a definite answer is nearly impossible. The only way to answer it is a personal conviction, or religion. And neither of those can be legislated.

[YourTokah]

Thanks, Prom. But what happens if Roe vs. Wade is overturned and abortion is outlawed? What kind of legislation is that, if not something based only on the personal convictions and moral, religious or otherwise of a (small) majority of Americans, or even merely by those with the majority of power?

I hope it doesn't happen. If it did, it wouldn't last through the next democratic president. Thank Goodness. But if it happens, I'm moving to friggin MExico and opening a wire coat-hanger store.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: YourTokah Thanks, Prom. But what happens if Roe vs. Wade is overturned and abortion is outlawed? What kind of legislation is that, if not something based only on the personal convictions and moral, religious or otherwise of a (small) majority of Americans, or even merely by those with the majority of power? I hope it doesn't happen. If it did, it wouldn't last through the next democratic president. Thank Goodness. But if it happens, I'm moving to friggin MExico and opening a wire coat-hanger store.

I would agree that overturning roe v wade would be destructive. I believe in small government, so when in doubt I prefer to err on the side of not legislating it. Unfortunately, lately, the trend seems to be the opposity - legislation is used to fix everything.

I'm just not comfortable voting for a law that tells a woman what to do with her body. On the other hand, I would never advocate an abortion for a friend, sister or spouse, becasue I prefer to err on the side of not killing, since I don't know if it's really murder or not.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: YourTokah There are many reasons. The biggest of which comes down not to convenience but to FREEDOM. Freedom. Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? Well, it's just an illusion for pretty much everyone. Taking away a woman's right to choose what happens with her own body is just limiting freedom even more. Who wants to live in some pseudo-nouveau-fascist society where rights are continuously taken away and freedoms restricted? NOT ME! I'm moving to Canada.

You know, in the old south, they would have equated the enslavement of blacks with some sort of freedom themselves. They were willing to go to war for "their" freedom but to them the black human beings that they enslaved didn't deserve any sort of freedom.

I would be willing to bet that the word freedom had a nice ring to the slaveholders as well. And I am sure that when the talk started about ending slavery, they started howling the equivalent of not wanting to live in a pseudo-nouveay-fascist society where rights are continuously taken away and freedoms were restricted. . It is easy to speak in those terms when it is not you who is working like a beast in the fields or being torn limb from limb by a hired killer because you are not convenient.

The whole issue comes down to whether a womans right to not be inconvenienced is a greater right than another human being's (who didn't ask to be brought into being) right to live. Does your right to convenience, or privacy, or any other right that you might claim other than self defense, outweigh any of your neighbor's right to live? If you say no, then you are left needing to prove that unborns are somehow less human than your neighbors and as such less deserving of the simple right to live.

Your parasite analogy failed because it simply was not true. You attempted to redefine what a parasite was in order to create a story for yourself that allows you to comfortably deny another human being the right to live.

When Roe is overturned (and it will be overturned as surely as Dred Scott was), the matter will fall to the individual states. Some states won't allow abortion at all. The bulk will allow abortion when the mother's life is in danger. I doubt that any states, even the most liberal, will continue to allow abortion on demand.

[ihaQ]

If you believe that you deserve the protection of the law, then it would be hypocritical in the extreme to argue that all human beings do not deserve the same protection.

Society grants us protection (as members of society) based upon the need to sustain society, not because members of society are incidentally human. If your life has no value to society, there is no reason society should offer you protection, is there?

[YourTokah]

Quote by: Pale RIder The whole issue comes down to whether a womans right to not be inconvenienced is a greater right than another human being's (who didn't ask to be brought into being) right to live.

It's a woman's right to do what she wishes with her body. The government has NO place telling her what she has to do with her reproductive organs. NONE whatsoever. They cannot force her to procreate. And the analogy fails because abortion is legal during the time period in which we currently do NOT consider the fetus to be an aware life, thus the fetus has not come into "being" at all, it merely exists as a conglomerate of developing cells transmitting energy solely due to the environment created for it by the host. You cannot argue that it is alive before it has a brain and functioning organs. It's still only receiving any energy because the mother's body is transmitting it through the cells. And you cannot use the argument that it's alive at conception because it has a "soul", because we can't legislate a religious, spiritual concept that will always be impossible to prove.

[Savant]

100% SCIENTIFIC FACT: Strands of DNA are held together by inalienable rights. Therefor all materials created by the joining of human egg and sperm are HUMAN BEINGS!*

I believe we could have almost this exact same conversation on the heading "Does turd begin at consumption, I think it does." We would get into vomit... is it poop, is it food? What is the value or meaning of poop... what poop is comprized of vs barf... im sure thats are stages all along the digestive process where strong arguments could be made for or against.




*may not be true, nor documented in medical texts