Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: larsiepan any scientist will tell you that human life begins at conception. it's a fact and shouldn't be debated on.

Not true. Every scientist will tell you life is a continum before and beyond conception. The question being debated would not be the scientists view of what is life.

[fraidofconsrv]

Funny so much time is wasted on this issue what about the issue of the execution of the innocent ie. Texas etc. What about the number of people who die on our nations road's or from cigarettes or our nations industrial polution, or the deaths caused by medical malpractice. Hunger and disease and mental illness and are left opon the streets to fend for themselves.One out of every 5 to 4 children go to bed hungry every night. The largest number group of homeless in th U.S. is women and children go figure. If you don't want an abortion don't have one. Educate the young and provide family planning access counter fundamental religious influence, educate educate educate. also arrest and imprisson those over 18 who have sex with minors and impregnate them. These in itself should in my opinion reduce the american abortion rate. Yes or No

[Chris]

I agree. If you restrict things like alcohol etc to kids they are just going to go and do it anyway with more desire.

[26 XWorldChamps]

Quote by: |Chris| I agree. If you restrict things like alcohol etc to kids they are just going to go and do it anyway with more desire.

Life is full of choices and one of the most basic, to me, is the choice that a woman has in regards to her body. No one has a right to tell her how to take care of her body. The unborn fetus in a human being until it is born, and it does not have any civil rights until then, IMHO.

[CoffeeSaint]

All right: I have finally managed to read through this entire thread; in the end, I can say it was probably a mistake. Ah, well. C'est la guerre.

I have not changed my position, though I doubt anyone truly does, in arguments like this one; when they do, it is usually because they really felt more comfortable on the other side in the first place, and just couldn't justify it to themselves. Witness Pale Rider, if you have read through any of the last 163 pages: his proudest accomplishment was being convinced that his original position was wrong, and because he changed his mind, he refused to believe that anyone else's arguments could possibly be better than his; he argued this as well as it could possibly be argued, he seemed to say, and so his current position could be the only right-thinking one. Similarly, none of his opponents, from Prometheus to Technosoul to poor, benighted Starboy, ever agreed with him, despite the power of his very simple argument. Why, then, do we argue ethical dilemmas such as abortion? It seems that most people worm around in this issue until they find a compromise they are comfortable with. Those who are unwilling to compromise always see this as a personal issue, from either side: either they have had direct involvement with abortion, and so cannot condemn themselves or their loved ones by condemning abortion, or they object to it on religious grounds, and so cannot see any compromise of God's truth, whichever God they are adhering to.

Here is my position, finally (as if anyone cares at this point, heh): the right to an abortion is mandated in our society by the civil rights we grant to women, and the fact that our technology cannot yet deal with a human fetus that could not survive outside of the womb. I personally do not agree with the statement that life begins at conception, but only because of my personal definition of life as something that must be earned: you are given existence by the biological processes that make you move and grow, but to be alive, you have to think and feel and care, etc., etc.

But for the sake of argument, let us imagine that life as a human being did begin at conception: the fetus, under our government, has the inalienable right to life. However, the mother also has the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; if her decision is that she no longer wants to be pregnant, the state cannot mandate that she remain pregnant against her will, without first proving that she is not of sound enough mind to make such a decision. To force a woman to carry an unwanted child to term is slavery, and it is no less illegal, and no less abhorrent, than the killing of the fetus. The rights of the two people involved are equal in weight, which means that there is no easy answer as to which one should win the fight, the mother or the fetus. There is, however, an easy answer in terms of the law: we must allow for both people to potentially win, so to speak; it must be possible for the child to survive, and it must be possible for the woman to end he pregnancy when she wishes to do so. For the child's sake, we cannot mandate abortions, no matter what situation we encounter: if a woman chooses to sacrifice her life for the life of her child, and she is of sound mind in making that decision, not the state nor any other person should be able to force her to abort her pregnancy. Should we ever find ourselves in crisis in terms of overpopulation, we still cannot ccountenance mandatory abortions; this would be removing all right to life from every fetus.

On the other hand, we also cannot ban abortion, as this would violate women's rights. At this point in time, the only method we have of discontinuing a pregnancy is abortion; therefore, abortion must remain a legal option for women in the U.S. There is no situation in this society in which all choices are taken away from a person of sound mind; a parent does not have to raise their children after birth, because the children could be relinquished to the care of another. Everyone always has the choice to walk away, with the exception of convicted felons and military personnel; unwilling mothers, however, are neither guilty of a felony, nor have they sworn any oath to obey anyone but the dictates of their own consciences. Therefore, they must have a choice, and right now, the only choice available is pregnancy or abortion.

I would personally recommend that people who want abortion banned should promote the invention of a mechanical womb and a safe transplantation procedure; that way, every human life could be saved, without enslaving women, and everyone wins. Until that happens: women must be given an alternative to pregnancy, no matter how horrible it is. Slavery is not better than murder, and if abortion is murder, forced pregnancy is slavery.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint All right: I have finally managed to read through this entire thread; in the end, I can say it was probably a mistake. Ah, well. C'est la guerre.

Hurrey! Congrats for reading the entire thread. I am also a person who have read it more or less full.

Your summery of 163 pages is appreciable. Even your recommendations are not bad. But, throughout the thread point of discussion should have been when fetus becomes a Indiviual person. Everybody agreed including Pale RIder that nobody can know it through Scientific/materialist means for sure. In view of this, for the sake of avoiding trouble/pain to both mother and detus, the abortion should be made as soon as possible. That way only women would suffer less, at the same time possibility of development of Individuality in fetus is remoute in first few weeks of pregnancy.

Let us leave aside few religions's claim about the point /period of time when the soul enters the fetus!!!!

[CoffeeSaint]

While I agree with your recommendations, they are only that; our laws cannot reflect what we would like in this, or any, situation; I want many things that should not become mandated by law, starting with a ban on stupidity. Yes, absolutely, an abortion is best performed as early as possible; but the argument in this counry is about the laws, as it should be.

In terms of the philosophical debate? I do not believe in a soul, thus do not believe in ensoulment; I believe that as our minds grow, we gather energy from the universe around us and concentrate it into ourselves; when we die, the energy is returned to the universe -- though it is deceptive to imply the energy was ever separated from the universe. We are a part of the universe, and thus the energy is only moved around, from here to there, never dissipated or destroyed. An individual fetus, which has taken in very little of the energy, means little to me; the mother has taken in more, and means more. But then, I feel elders deserve respect; clearly not the position of most of my countrymen.

For this thread, then: a life has begun at or around conception, but it isn't very much of a life.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint I believe that as our minds grow, we gather energy from the universe around us and concentrate it into ourselves; when we die, the energy is returned to the universe -- though it is deceptive to imply the energy was ever separated from the universe. We are a part of the universe, and thus the energy is only moved around, from here to there, never dissipated or destroyed. An individual fetus, which has taken in very little of the energy, means little to me; the mother has taken in more, and means more.

Be truthful! Are you sure what you say about energy in take and throwing out at death. Agreeing energy in take by way of food, oxygen, water etc make our life continue, but which force by makes intake to start and out throw stops that force goes out??? When you say "Our mind grows" it is obvious we are not the mind. Science is yet to understand even mind fully. Science can go up to only material of mind, but not beyond. Some force working beyond material has been termed SOUL. Due to this soul individuality is established and exchange of energy takes place with help of that force only. Nobody can prove scientifically that force. :)

[fushigi]

Oh yeah, and we can't agree on when life ends either, it seems.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: fushigi Oh yeah, and we can't agree on when life ends either, it seems.

Right from the begining of this thread, a confusion existed between LIFE & INDIVIDUAL LIFE. Right from the begining I am discussing individual life while members get confused with life. The two are entirely different.

Most probably you are also refering to individual life only. If it is so here is my answer:

Doctor use to pick up person's pulse and declare him dead or not dead. Common man would attentively watch his breathing. If no breathing, to him the person is dead. In both the cases one can pin point the last beat or last breath and thus decide when the life of a person ended. With modern technology terms like clinical death or brain have come up and electronically doctors can pin point when actual death has taken place. Yeah, forensic people predict from dead body, the probable point of death. In view of this, I would say to larger extent we can say when individual life ends but when it begins, we have no scietific/non scientific method to know that. Till the method is discovered, let us believe religious statement only which, say around 120 day of conception. :eek:

[wonker]

life begins when sperm meets egg can it be any other way. Then agian? you never know.life will be life it will fight for every breath.

[underbear1]

Folks that get all sanctimonious about life have no problem disinfecting their toilets and counters, those bacteria are ALIVE. I doubt many of the pro-life folks hesitate swatting insects either, and they're ALIVE. I even bet some of those pro-life folks eat meat or plants, and both are living things,or were.
An unviable fetus is about a comparable life form of a tadpole. I'll never have to make the decision to abort a fetus, so I leave that decision to the person who is willing to live with their decision, and with their conscious.

[Col. Pepper]

The question is a bit tricky. Technically, sperm and eggs are alive, and when they merge to conceive a zygote, they just change form and become new life. So if you want to get technical, life starts before conception.

However, we view life in different ways. At conception, the zygote--or blastocyst--is comprised of 50 to 150 blank cells, commonly referred to as stem cells. At this point, none of the cells even remotely resemble human tissue. It takes the environment within the womb to activate these cells to change into the human tissues we are familiar with as human life.

If you look at it as being human tissue, then life technically begins a week or so after conception; however, if you look at it in the former frame of mind, it starts even before conception. It's all subjective.

[samsara15]

Maybe life is not definable. If not, it makes for spirited debates, doesn't it?

[luke virtual kh]

Quote by: Col. Pepper The question is a bit tricky. Technically, sperm and eggs are alive, and when they merge to conceive a zygote, they just change form and become new life. So if you want to get technical, life starts before conception. However, we view life in different ways. At conception, the zygote--or blastocyst--is comprised of 50 to 150 blank cells, commonly referred to as stem cells. At this point, none of the cells even remotely resemble human tissue. It takes the environment within the womb to activate these cells to change into the human tissues we are familiar with as human life. If you look at it as being human tissue, then life technically begins a week or so after conception; however, if you look at it in the former frame of mind, it starts even before conception. It's all subjective.

Thanks For that. But a sprem being aliveAll living things are
1 composed of cells
2 require energy
3 reproduce
4 display heredity
5 respond to the environment
6 maintain homeostasis
7 evolve and adapt
( http://www.ibiblio.org/astrobiology/...?page=origin06 )


But eggs/sperm don't reproduce - they're rather a means by which living things do so.

I'd say life begins at conception.

[Osborn F Enready]

Life may begin at conception, but does not another life have the means to control their own life, which means controlling to "allow"a life to be produced? If a person takes valid steps to prevent another life from being formed, how can it be wrong to allow them to prevent that life from being allowed to "develop" into a self-aware being if it will literally alter their life plans, especially KNOWING that the only reason the life exists is because the CONTRACEPTION failed?

A woman has a right to birth, or not to birth, and no law can change that.

A mother can starve herself, and the child until the child dies. Is the government going to strap this woman to the chair to force feed her, or force her to endure the cruelty to herself and her soon to be dead fetus, of self starvation and constant monitoring, watching the whole cruel scene, and her soon to be dead fetus, that the "government" claims to be trying to protect with the law in the first place?

Government can not control the unwilling, and that is why the reach of government has to be limited so as to prevent cruel and unusual punishment, for personal choice.

A fetus is a fetus until it is born, and then it is a child, and a citizen. A fetus may be a life, but it does not have rights if the mother didn't want it, doesn't want it, and refuses to birth it. If the child is born, it becomes a citizen, and there is now a case for human, and citizen rights.

The validity of rights for a fetus, derives from the "intention" of the mother. The fetus has no rights, while it resides in the mother, unless the mother wishes keep the child, and ANOTHER person violates HER rights to do so.

[luke virtual kh]

Foetus rights - Right to life after a few months of development. Also a right to be free from physical abuse (PERSON BEATING THE MOTHER'S BELLY) seems like a good idea - that ought to be a crime and punishable by law. Also foetus ought to have the right not to be administered any chemical which would grossly impair its development - alcohol not being quite borderline but I'm sure there are some chemicals out there which would do serious irreprable harm.

[Chilly]

Most people put human life above bacteria, insects, animals.....but not all.

If people believe it's a baby, which there is a strong argument in support of, then it is innocent. When society practices capital punishment, they (we presume) kill someone who is not innocent and who had the chance to defend himself or herself (again, not always the case, but that's the aim).

I am a woman, and I honestly believe FATHERS should have rights. We can decide to make they financially responsible for the next 18 years if we want, so why do they have no say in the matter before hand? Aand ABSENT FATHERS are the cause of many of society's problems. We've all seen the elephant documentary, by now.

Almost half of all abortions in America are performed on women who did not bother to use birth control (46%) http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3429402.html.

I have very little sympathy for these women. We're intelligent, responsible human beings and we need to act that way.

Abortionists often do not provide pain relief for the baby. At 22 weeks gestation, and some studies show as early as 8 - 10 weeks, they do feel pain. We don't allow vets to rip a dog to pieces to euthanize it, why do we allow it to happen to a baby?

Some states allow partial-birth abortions up to 8 months gestation. That is a perfectly viable baby and if the woman can deliver HALF the baby, delivering the other half alive is not going to pose any more of a risk. They crack the skulls or worse (too graphic for me to write) to destroy these babies, as the head exits the birth canal. I really have serious problems with any human that can do this. I don't want him or her near my children.

I COMPLETELY and fully understand and sympathize with any woman who does not want to be pregnant and I can understand simply getting rid of the baby as the easiest solution, but I do believe it's a baby that is being killed. I'm not advocating we punish women, or shun them, but there has to be a better way. Can't we just convince those 46% to use a condom and cut the abortion rate nearly in half?

Also, every day science is managing to lower the gestational survival period. Babies born at 22 weeks are surviving. We're aborting them even further along than that. http://www.muhc.ca/media/ensemble/2002june/premature/

Why can we kill one baby at 22 weeks and save another? Are we really willing to say only those who are wanted and loved deserve to live?

And why does America have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the developed world?

Chilly in Canada, stepping off soap box!!

[luke virtual kh]

Quote by: Kuldeep . But, throughout the thread point of discussion should have been when fetus becomes a Indiviual person. Everybody agreed including Pale RIder that nobody can know it through Scientific/materialist means for sure. In view of this, for the sake of avoiding trouble/pain to both mother and detus, the abortion should be made as soon as possible. That way only women would suffer less, at the same time possibility of development of Individuality in fetus is remoute in first few weeks of pregnancy. Let us leave aside few religions's claim about the point /period of time when the soul enters the fetus!!!!

* The feotus is always individual due to it's DNA. Personhood of the foetus is however a dirrefent issue.

* Science/materialism is the only plausible way of debating the personhood of the foetus/child ( when the brain develops etc).First define person empirically and then look for the scientific answer.

* How can you make conclusions about abortion based on a "lack of scientific knowledge". If theres no knowledge, then how do you base your morality?


Luke.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready A woman has a right to birth, or not to birth, and no law can change that.

You have yet to even attempt to make a case for this "right".