View Full Version : Life begins at conception...
bullypulpit
02-03-2009, 09:17 AM
If you accept this premise, there are some issues you need to think about.
Given that around half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant in the wall of the uterus, and are flushed down the toilet, are we as a society failing to try and preserve these unborn babies?
What of the embryos at IVF clinics which are no longer needed and are disposed of with the rest of the medical waste? Do we force women to have these embryos implanted and carried to term?
What of oral contraceptives? Their primary action prevents ovulation and thins the endometrium of the uterus, helping to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the wall of the uterus. With some 10 million women using oral contraceptives...and more using other forms of hormonal birth control...are all of these women defacto abortionists for using birth control?
And, of course there is emergency contraception which uses a more concentrated dose of the same hormones used in regular oral contraceptives. Like their weaker cousin, they act to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the wall of the uterus. With so many on the religious right wanting to ban emergency contraception, it is logically consistent to them that regular oral contraceptives should be banned as well.
And never mind the IUD...They make fertilization difficult and implantation of a fertilized egg even more difficult. They are abomination.
tasteless, clueless
:lame2:
bullypulpit
02-03-2009, 11:09 AM
tasteless, clueless
:lame2:
Only to the RWN's.
DannyR
02-03-2009, 11:13 AM
tasteless, cluelessI fail to see how. I've argued many times with people who have no problem using birth control pills, but then argue that life begins at conception. They never see the disconnect there! Pretty much only the Roman Catholics have it consistent on the issue, not only prohibiting abortion, but also prohibiting birth control too.
There have been several proposed laws stating that human life begins at conception. As such, most of the issues addressed here would have LEGAL ramifications. Oral contraceptives, IUDs and 0-day contraceptives could be outlawed.
Likewise the woman who recently had octuplets was highly motivated to do so because she didn't want her frozen embryo's being tossed.
So what is clueless about his statements?
if the sperm, using contraception, doesn't reach the egg...how do you have conception?
PostmodernProphet
02-03-2009, 11:54 AM
If you accept this premise, there are some issues you need to think about.
Given that around half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant in the wall of the uterus, and are flushed down the toilet, are we as a society failing to try and preserve these unborn babies?
you are talking about incidents that are caused naturally and not the result of human action.....that's like saying we can't be upset about murder because people die of old age...
What of the embryos at IVF clinics which are no longer needed and are disposed of with the rest of the medical waste? Do we force women to have these embryos implanted and carried to term?
we should and ought to prevent these embryos from being destroyed......there are many who would be happy to accept these children as their own because they are unable to produce viable embryos of their own...
What of oral contraceptives? Their primary action prevents ovulation
which means they block conception, not destroy it.....
And, of course there is emergency contraception which uses a more concentrated dose of the same hormones used in regular oral contraceptives. Like their weaker cousin, they act to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the wall of the uterus. With so many on the religious right wanting to ban emergency contraception, it is logically consistent to them that regular oral contraceptives should be banned as well.
if you are talking about the morning after pill.....the only type I would permit would be one that prevents contraception.....not the one which is an abortificant......
And never mind the IUD...They make fertilization difficult and implantation of a fertilized egg even more difficult. They are abomination.
no, they are a contraceptive.....YOU are an abomination.....see the difference?.......
LiberalNation
02-03-2009, 11:57 AM
old skool iuds are abortion inducers not contreceptives, irritates the lining, egg can be fertilized but wont implant on the uterus wall.
you are talking about incidents that are caused naturally and not the result of human action.....that's like saying we can't be upset about murder because people die of old age...
we should and ought to prevent these embryos from being destroyed......there are many who would be happy to accept these children as their own because they are unable to produce viable embryos of their own...
which means they block conception, not destroy it.....
if you are talking about the morning after pill.....the only type I would permit would be one that prevents contraception.....not the one which is an abortificant......
no, they are a contraceptive.....YOU are an abomination.....see the difference?.......
that is my understanding as well....
manu1959
02-03-2009, 01:07 PM
if life doesn't begin at conception what does....
LiberalNation
02-03-2009, 02:39 PM
cells are alive before conception, a continuation of life at conception.
Mr. P
02-03-2009, 03:00 PM
if life doesn't begin at conception what does....
A biological process of cell division that could lead to human life, or not.
PostmodernProphet
02-03-2009, 05:12 PM
cells are alive before conception, a continuation of life at conception.
they are cells prior to conception, they are a human being after.....the DNA changes......
manu1959
02-03-2009, 05:26 PM
A biological process of cell division that could lead to human life, or not.
so it isn't a human life till when.....
cells are alive before conception, a continuation of life at conception.
Cells are in fact alive - but NOT a LIFE...
so it isn't a human life till when.....
until the stork comes :poke:
DannyR
02-03-2009, 05:43 PM
Stork? I thought it was a cabbage patch.
Mr. P
02-03-2009, 05:50 PM
so it isn't a human life till when.....
That's under review. I'm sure that when "that" question is answered we'll all know.
manu1959
02-03-2009, 05:52 PM
That's under review. I'm sure that when "that" question is answered we'll all know.
chicken..........:poke:
Mr. P
02-03-2009, 06:39 PM
chicken..........:poke:
No, just smart enough to know there is no argument on either side.
I'm pissed at Bully for starting what will surly become another endless abortion thread! :laugh2:
manu1959
02-03-2009, 09:28 PM
No, just smart enough to know there is no argument on either side.
I'm pissed at Bully for starting what will surly become another endless abortion thread! :laugh2:
well abortion kills something otherwise you wouldn't need to have one.......
PostmodernProphet
02-03-2009, 09:48 PM
chicken..........:poke:
he's just looking for someone with a higher pay grade.....
bullypulpit
02-04-2009, 05:01 AM
you are talking about incidents that are caused naturally and not the result of human action.....that's like saying we can't be upset about murder because people die of old age...
Bad analogy...plus equating the potential represented by a fertilized egg with the actuality of an adult is untenable.
we should and ought to prevent these embryos from being destroyed......there are many who would be happy to accept these children as their own because they are unable to produce viable embryos of their own...
Really? I don't see folks lining up to have them implanted...unless you want to force women to have it done.
which means they block conception, not destroy it.....
The effects are multifold...preventing ovulation...preventing fertilization and thin the endometrium thus inhibiting implantation in the wall of the uterus.
if you are talking about the morning after pill.....the only type I would permit would be one that prevents contraception.....not the one which is an abortificant......
See above...
no, they are a contraceptive.....YOU are an abomination.....see the difference?.......
Wow...a silly ad hominem attack. Who would have expected it from you.
PostmodernProphet
02-04-2009, 08:06 AM
Bad analogy...plus equating the potential represented by a fertilized egg with the actuality of an adult is untenable.
you're going to have to do better than that.....why would it be a bad analogy.....from where I stand, it's perfect.....argue against it......natural end of pregnancy is to abortion and natural death is to murder.......
Really? I don't see folks lining up to have them implanted...unless you want to force women to have it done.
the line forms here.....http://www.embryodonation.org/adoption.html
The effects are multifold...preventing ovulation...preventing fertilization and thin the endometrium thus inhibiting implantation in the wall of the uterus.
if it is a method that prevents a conception I have no problem with it.....it if is one that kills a conceived child it is immoral...
Wow...a silly ad hominem attack. Who would have expected it from you.
any homonid.....
eighballsidepocket
02-11-2009, 02:22 PM
If you accept this premise, there are some issues you need to think about.
Given that around half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant in the wall of the uterus, and are flushed down the toilet, are we as a society failing to try and preserve these unborn babies?
What of the embryos at IVF clinics which are no longer needed and are disposed of with the rest of the medical waste? Do we force women to have these embryos implanted and carried to term?
What of oral contraceptives? Their primary action prevents ovulation and thins the endometrium of the uterus, helping to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the wall of the uterus. With some 10 million women using oral contraceptives...and more using other forms of hormonal birth control...are all of these women defacto abortionists for using birth control?
And, of course there is emergency contraception which uses a more concentrated dose of the same hormones used in regular oral contraceptives. Like their weaker cousin, they act to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the wall of the uterus. With so many on the religious right wanting to ban emergency contraception, it is logically consistent to them that regular oral contraceptives should be banned as well.
And never mind the IUD...They make fertilization difficult and implantation of a fertilized egg even more difficult. They are abomination.
Bully: Don't you think that man playing God's role, is a rather tenuous position at most?
Mr. P
02-11-2009, 03:15 PM
Bully: Don't you think that man playing God's role, is a rather tenuous position at most?
Is the practice of contraception playing god? I know Catholics thought so until maybe 30 yrs ago. I know some still feel that way while many now use the pill.
What about laws that prohibit sex with minors (a form of contraception) that could become pregnant, is that playing God's role too?
darin
02-11-2009, 03:37 PM
Is the practice of contraception playing god? I know Catholics thought so until maybe 30 yrs ago. I know some still feel that way while many now use the pill.
What about laws that prohibit sex with minors (a form of contraception) that could become pregnant, is that playing God's role too?
Carrying that out - what about doctors trying to save lives?? Where does it end?
eighballsidepocket
02-11-2009, 03:44 PM
Is the practice of contraception playing god? I know Catholics thought so until maybe 30 yrs ago. I know some still feel that way while many now use the pill.
What about laws that prohibit sex with minors (a form of contraception) that could become pregnant, is that playing God's role too?
My only concern is when man determines death or life for the fate of humans both in the womb and outside the womb.
I think God has endowed man with brains and wisdom(if he choose to be wise with his smarts) to alleviate suffering, to help or be instrumental in the healing, and "fixing" of maladies of humanity. I don't see that has playing God.
My main thought or thrust is in the area of deciding the fate of human life, and deciding when life is viable using a limited amount of parameters, and conveniently overlooking the sanctity of it.
Mr. P
02-11-2009, 03:45 PM
Carrying that out - what about doctors trying to save lives?? Where does it end?
Yep..religious beliefs do complicate life.
I guess we have to do the best we can...the best we can may be what needs questioning.
Where does it end? Death.
darin
02-11-2009, 03:58 PM
I'm saying the 'playing god' argument is silly because in just about every instance of interference by Men, others can accuse them of not-trusting God.
It's plain silliness to think God gave us the capacity for such intelligence and so many ppl refuse to use it (by either hiding behind religion, OR hiding behind their fear of God himself, etc.).
Mr. P
02-11-2009, 04:57 PM
I'm saying the 'playing god' argument is silly because in just about every instance of interference by Men, others can accuse them of not-trusting God.
It's plain silliness to think God gave us the capacity for such intelligence and so many ppl refuse to use it (by either hiding behind religion, OR hiding behind their fear of God himself, etc.).
Playing God was not my suggestion..that was eighballsidepocket's comment. I just responded with one way we do it under the Law, which is accepted
The point is we accept various God like actions by man everyday. The death penalty, killing cells gone wild (cancer), vaccines and all kinds of other stuff..
I'm just saying we need to look at the whole snowman not just one part when talkin about playing God.
To do otherwise would be hypocritical...IMO.
eighballsidepocket
02-11-2009, 05:29 PM
Playing God was not my suggestion..that was eighballsidepocket's comment. I just responded with one way we do it under the Law, which is accepted
The point is we accept various God like actions by man everyday. The death penalty, killing cells gone wild (cancer), vaccines and all kinds of other stuff..
I'm just saying we need to look at the whole snowman not just one part when talkin about playing God.
To do otherwise would be hypocritical...IMO.
Maybe we need to stand back a moment and think about this word "killing". Is killing a cancer cell the same as killing an embryo? Is there ethical implications. Likewise is abortion to be placed in the same league as removing a diseased cell? Is a living soul, pre-emminent compared to a tumorous, malignant mass?
Sadly, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd term babys are treated as malignant mass's to the tune of 1.5 million Americans per year.
Actually malignant mass's get more respect. ;)
Missileman
02-11-2009, 06:29 PM
Is a living soul, pre-emminent compared to a tumorous, malignant mass?
Do you believe that an egg gets a soul upon fertilization?
bullypulpit
02-11-2009, 06:40 PM
Bully: Don't you think that man playing God's role, is a rather tenuous position at most?
Which god and what role? ;)
Mr. P
02-11-2009, 08:19 PM
Maybe we need to stand back a moment and think about this word "killing". Is killing a cancer cell the same as killing an embryo? Is there ethical implications.
Yes, both are a mass of cells.
Likewise is abortion to be placed in the same league as removing a diseased cell?
Sometimes yes.
Is a living soul, pre-eminent compared to a tumorous, malignant mass?
A soul is a religious concept not scientific. It exists in faith unproven by science. There is debate on when a soul might actually enter a body by many.
Sadly, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd term babys are treated as malignant mass's to the tune of 1.5 million Americans per year.
In the view of some that's true but not by all.
Actually malignant mass's get more respect. ;)
I don't know anyone that would agree with that. ALL malignant mass's are targeted for destruction, not ALL embryos are.
actsnoblemartin
02-11-2009, 09:42 PM
I think he has a point.
if life begins at conception, and we throw away half of all embreyos
arent we failing/killing life?
tasteless, clueless
:lame2:
eighballsidepocket
02-12-2009, 12:04 PM
Do you believe that an egg gets a soul upon fertilization?
Missileman: In all honesty, I don't know. Because I and science, and all of mankind don't know when the "Mind, Will, Emotions, Free Thought(Soul)" component is endowed within that growing human embryo. It is best to go with one's conscience IMO, and not "presume" there isn't a soul.
To assume, when we don't know, is more than tenuous, it's downright scarey IMO.
I don't want to meet my Maker one day and try to explain to Him how I flippantly made assumptions about what I didn't really know for sure, that thwarted His creative genius/plan/will, involving creatures "made in His image".
:salute:
Missileman
02-12-2009, 06:30 PM
Missileman: In all honesty, I don't know. Because I and science, and all of mankind don't know when the "Mind, Will, Emotions, Free Thought(Soul)" component is endowed within that growing human embryo. It is best to go with one's conscience IMO, and not "presume" there isn't a soul.
I would substitute "if" and "is".
To assume, when we don't know, is more than tenuous, it's downright scarey IMO.
No offense, but your assumptions are just as "scarey" as mine.
PostmodernProphet
02-12-2009, 06:38 PM
whether you call it "soul" or not, obviously there needs to be some distinguishing time to start considering this new life to be a 'human being'.....to me, it seems logical to pick the time that it becomes a different creature than either of it's parents.....which would be the time of conception.....
Missileman
02-12-2009, 07:03 PM
whether you call it "soul" or not, obviously there needs to be some distinguishing time to start considering this new life to be a 'human being'.....to me, it seems logical to pick the time that it becomes a different creature than either of it's parents.....which would be the time of conception.....
Logic would dictate that the life of a human being begins and ends with brain function.
eighballsidepocket
02-12-2009, 07:58 PM
Logic would dictate that the life of a human being begins and ends with brain function.
How do we know for sure that there isn't brain function too faint to be picked up by our most sensitive test equipment we have at this time?
:salute:
Missileman
02-12-2009, 08:05 PM
How do we know for sure that there isn't brain function too faint to be picked up by our most sensitive test equipment we have at this time?
:salute:
What kind of function do you think a dead brain cell might be accomplishing? Do you think the brain of your long dead great, great, great, great grandfather is still ticking away somewhere?
PostmodernProphet
02-12-2009, 08:49 PM
Logic would dictate that the life of a human being begins and ends with brain function.
which brain function......control of heart beat? (which occurs before most women even know they are pregnant).....sense of smell?....solving complex mathematical problems?.....should recognition of human status be dependent upon something not measurable?.....
Mr. P
02-12-2009, 09:21 PM
How do we know for sure that there isn't brain function too faint to be picked up by our most sensitive test equipment we have at this time?
:salute:
I think function needs to be defined as what it is, as opposed to development. From what I've read full anatomical development takes 175days from conception.
Yes each part of the brain has a function. But we all know that if one part becomes damaged the individual is not whole anymore..a stroke is a good example.
So, it's logical there can't be any "function" as we know it, thinking, feeling , a sense of self etc. nor a whole until at least the 175fth day at best..IMO
Hey, 175 days is right at the end of the second trimester.
Just some thoughts.
moderate democrat
02-12-2009, 09:28 PM
early, pre-reformation Christian theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas, held that the soul did not enter the body until at least forty days after conception. Why do Christians place so much stock in their other writings, but disregard those opinions when it does not suit them?
Mugged Liberal
02-12-2009, 09:44 PM
Why do Christians??? It’s not a Christian trait. It’s a human trait. Many time we make up our mind and than find rational arguments to support our made up mind.
Missileman
02-12-2009, 09:46 PM
which brain function......control of heart beat? (which occurs before most women even know they are pregnant).....sense of smell?....solving complex mathematical problems?.....should recognition of human status be dependent upon something not measurable?.....
The existence of a developed brain is measureable.
DannyR
02-12-2009, 10:09 PM
whether you call it "soul" or not, obviously there needs to be some distinguishing time to start considering this new life to be a 'human being'.I'd agree you are right, and so did the Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade. However where that point lies is open to debate between people, as this thread shows.
And this is why the Supreme Court left it up the the States to define this, allowing them to restrict abortions in the 2nd and 3rd trimester. Since a woman's pregnancy in the 1st trimester is sometimes difficult to determine, and there are many methods of birth control that prevent pregnancy even after conception, I think they rightly decided to say hands off that early.
---
For those of you who think a fetus should be given full "human" rights, what are your opinions on mother who smokes, drinks or even goes jogging and causes a miscarriage or deformity. Should she be charged with murder, child endangerment or abuse? Should every miscarriage require a full medical inquiry and police investigation? Seems to me if you don't think such charges are warranted, then you are still classifying a fetus as something less than a full citizen, so where are you different than those who don't set the date at conception?
moderate democrat
02-12-2009, 10:13 PM
Why do Christians??? It’s not a Christian trait. It’s a human trait. Many time we make up our mind and than find rational arguments to support our made up mind.
good point...although I would think that the vast majority of folks who place a great deal of value in the writings of Thomas Aquinas are, in fact, Christians.
eighballsidepocket
02-13-2009, 04:30 PM
good point...although I would think that the vast majority of folks who place a great deal of value in the writings of Thomas Aquinas are, in fact, Christians.
And what did Thomas Aquinas base his 40 day rule, on? ;)
moderate democrat
02-13-2009, 06:05 PM
And what did Thomas Aquinas base his 40 day rule, on? ;)
his beliefs, I would imagine. I never actually had the chance to ask him.
manu1959
02-13-2009, 06:28 PM
The existence of a developed brain is measureable.
define "developed" brain......able to function i society developed....able to breathe on ones own......
the is a legal standard of human life....then there is a biological fact of what is life and when a human life starts......
no one wants to losse and argument but the process begins once the sperm fertilizes the egg...you all can argue till the cows come home if you should be able to kill "it"......but you are killing it......becuase if you weren't kiliing it there would be no need for an abortion......currently the government condones killing human life in the womb up to a certain point......then you can't anymore......so the government has already agreed that it is a human life when it is in the womb.....
Missileman
02-13-2009, 06:45 PM
define "developed" brain......able to function i society developed....able to breathe on ones own......
the is a legal standard of human life....then there is a biological fact of what is life and when a human life starts......
no one wants to losse and argument but the process begins once the sperm fertilizes the egg...you all can argue till the cows come home if you should be able to kill "it"......but you are killing it......becuase if you weren't kiliing it there would be no need for an abortion......currently the government condones killing human life in the womb up to a certain point......then you can't anymore......so the government has already agreed that it is a human life when it is in the womb.....
Human life is killed when a cancer tumor is excised. Human life at the cellular level is killed through violent contact in sports, masturbation, smoking, drinking, etc.
The argument is about at what point in time in a pregnancy does an abortion cross the line from killing human life(acceptable) to killing a human being(unacceptable).
PostmodernProphet
02-13-2009, 07:38 PM
The existence of a developed brain is measureable.
I take it from this that you mean the brain must be "finished" before you consider it functional?.......
PostmodernProphet
02-13-2009, 07:40 PM
Human life is killed when a cancer tumor is excised.
??....no it isn't....human cells aren't humans. they are the cells of a human.....that isn't even a valid symantical argument......
manu1959
02-13-2009, 07:53 PM
Human life is killed when a cancer tumor is excised. Human life at the cellular level is killed through violent contact in sports, masturbation, smoking, drinking, etc.
The argument is about at what point in time in a pregnancy does an abortion cross the line from killing human life(acceptable) to killing a human being(unacceptable).
taking a human life is not acceptable......however it is legal for a woman and her doctor to kill a human life and in some cases a human being under certain conditions....and for the government to take the life of certain criminals .....
the other things you cite are of no merrit in the discussion you have framed...
Missileman
02-13-2009, 08:13 PM
??....no it isn't....human cells aren't humans. they are the cells of a human.....that isn't even a valid symantical argument......
I didn't say a cancer tumor was a human being...but it is most undeniably human life...or maybe you want to argue that human cancer cells are reptilian life.
Missileman
02-13-2009, 08:17 PM
taking a human life is not acceptable......however it is legal for a woman and her doctor to kill a human life and in some cases a human being under certain conditions....and for the government to take the life of certain criminals .....
the other things you cite are of no merrit in the discussion you have framed...
See...now you want to assign a fertilized egg "human being" status. And there absolutely is merit to the other things I cited as your definition of a human being includes an undefined mass of cells with human DNA.
Missileman
02-13-2009, 08:19 PM
I take it from this that you mean the brain must be "finished" before you consider it functional?.......
No, developed to the point where the fetus could survive outside the womb.
manu1959
02-13-2009, 08:40 PM
No, developed to the point where the fetus could survive outside the womb.
define survive.....
manu1959
02-13-2009, 08:41 PM
See...now you want to assign a fertilized egg "human being" status. And there absolutely is merit to the other things I cited as your definition of a human being includes an undefined mass of cells with human DNA.
no i didn't i was very careful what terms i picked....the mas of cells you cited can not survive .....
PostmodernProphet
02-13-2009, 11:19 PM
I didn't say a cancer tumor was a human being...but it is most undeniably human life...or maybe you want to argue that human cancer cells are reptilian life.
no, it isn't human life.......it's a living cancer cell, or a living skin cell or bone cell or brain cell OF a human......the hundreds of millions cells that comprise the human body total ONE human life, not hundreds of millions of them......this argument is getting ridiculous.....
PostmodernProphet
02-13-2009, 11:25 PM
See...now you want to assign a fertilized egg "human being" status. And there absolutely is merit to the other things I cited as your definition of a human being includes an undefined mass of cells with human DNA.
I suspect everyone here. except perhaps you, can tell the difference between a fertilized egg and a lump of cancer cells......the fertilized egg becomes an embryo becomes a fetus becomes a child becomes an adult becomes an old man becomes a corpse........a lump of cancer cells becomes......a lump of cancer cells.......
you say "undefined mass", I say a baby.....you say tomayto, I say tomahto.......
Missileman
02-14-2009, 12:09 AM
define survive.....
Pretty self-explanatory
Missileman
02-14-2009, 12:11 AM
no i didn't i was very careful what terms i picked....the mas of cells you cited can not survive .....
Says who?
Missileman
02-14-2009, 12:20 AM
no, it isn't human life.......it's a living cancer cell, or a living skin cell or bone cell or brain cell OF a human......the hundreds of millions cells that comprise the human body total ONE human life, not hundreds of millions of them......this argument is getting ridiculous.....
It sure as hell is...but you're the one being ridiculous. You keep adding "a" or "ONE" to human life which changes the context and the meaning of the term. Human life doesn't mean a single human being as you keep insisting. Any living cell that contains human DNA is human life.
Missileman
02-14-2009, 12:26 AM
I suspect everyone here. except perhaps you, can tell the difference between a fertilized egg and a lump of cancer cells......the fertilized egg becomes an embryo becomes a fetus becomes a child becomes an adult becomes an old man becomes a corpse........a lump of cancer cells becomes......a lump of cancer cells.......
you say "undefined mass", I say a baby.....you say tomayto, I say tomahto.......
Why stop at baby? If you're going to project the fertilized egg into the future, let's call it what it ultimately becomes as even you acknowledge...a corpse.
PostmodernProphet
02-14-2009, 06:58 AM
It sure as hell is...but you're the one being ridiculous. You keep adding "a" or "ONE" to human life which changes the context and the meaning of the term. Human life doesn't mean a single human being as you keep insisting. Any living cell that contains human DNA is human life.
that's an absurdity.....when you see a man walking down the street do you say, "oh, there go a hundred million human lives"?......when a scientist does a skin scraping and puts it on a microscope slide does he say "I have sacrificed a few dozen human lives in order to determine what your illness is"?.......do police officers charge a man with multiple counts of murder after they count the blood cells lost when he punched somebody in the nose?........
PostmodernProphet
02-14-2009, 07:00 AM
Why stop at baby? If you're going to project the fertilized egg into the future, let's call it what it ultimately becomes as even you acknowledge...a corpse.
????....because the issue in this thread is when life begins, not when it ends.....
Missileman
02-14-2009, 08:45 AM
that's an absurdity.....when you see a man walking down the street do you say, "oh, there go a hundred million human lives"?......when a scientist does a skin scraping and puts it on a microscope slide does he say "I have sacrificed a few dozen human lives in order to determine what your illness is"?.......do police officers charge a man with multiple counts of murder after they count the blood cells lost when he punched somebody in the nose?........
Out of context again! There is a difference between "life" and "a life". Adding human to them both only makes them more specific, it doesn't eliminate the difference.
Missileman
02-14-2009, 08:54 AM
????....because the issue in this thread is when life begins, not when it ends.....
The end can be used to ascertain the beginning.
PostmodernProphet
02-14-2009, 10:40 AM
The end can be used to ascertain the beginning.
fine....then we look at what happens to "human life" aka cells at the end....when the opposite thing happens at the other end of "human life" we have the beginning.....
do you agree that at the point an egg and a sperm come together we have a transition between two human "lifes" and one human "life"?.....and that therefore that transition marks the beginning of a different human "life".......
Missileman
02-14-2009, 11:00 AM
fine....then we look at what happens to "human life" aka cells at the end....when the opposite thing happens at the other end of "human life" we have the beginning.....
The clinical definition of death is when the brain stops functioning, not when all the cells in the body are dead, that's why I consider brain function a requisite for defining the beginning.
do you agree that at the point an egg and a sperm come together we have a transition between two human "lifes" and one human "life"?.....and that therefore that transition marks the beginning of a different human "life".......
There is a merging of DNA at the beginning, but no "unmerging" at death, so this isn't going to work for an "opposite thing at the other end" argument.
manu1959
02-14-2009, 11:53 AM
Says who?
deflection.....there is a reason you can't stay on topic......
human life begins the moment a sperm fertelizes an egg.....abortion ends that life......as i said, even the government admits it is a human life in the womb.....as you can't have an abortion after a certain date and there have been people charged with murder for killing that same human life.....unless it is the mother and the doctor in which case it is just fine.....
currently abortion is legal and given the self indulgence of our society i imagine it always will be......
but it is still the taking of a human life......
emmett
02-14-2009, 01:20 PM
If you accept this premise, there are some issues you need to think about.
Given that around half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant in the wall of the uterus, and are flushed down the toilet, are we as a society failing to try and preserve these unborn babies?
What of the embryos at IVF clinics which are no longer needed and are disposed of with the rest of the medical waste? Do we force women to have these embryos implanted and carried to term?
What of oral contraceptives? Their primary action prevents ovulation and thins the endometrium of the uterus, helping to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the wall of the uterus. With some 10 million women using oral contraceptives...and more using other forms of hormonal birth control...are all of these women defacto abortionists for using birth control?
And, of course there is emergency contraception which uses a more concentrated dose of the same hormones used in regular oral contraceptives. Like their weaker cousin, they act to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the wall of the uterus. With so many on the religious right wanting to ban emergency contraception, it is logically consistent to them that regular oral contraceptives should be banned as well.
And never mind the IUD...They make fertilization difficult and implantation of a fertilized egg even more difficult. They are abomination.
I have rethought this issue carefully in recent months and wa-lah, I have reached a new conclusion. It is my new contention that life begins at 50. Not conception. Having concluded this I realize that I now have about 39 days or so to decide whether to abort my life. I'm so confused!
If a do-over is part of the deal I think I would like to exercise my option!
actsnoblemartin
02-14-2009, 02:01 PM
havingly had profound discussions on dp, ive come to realize god not man, decides when life begins.
and that it does begin at conception
Missileman
02-14-2009, 04:39 PM
as i said, even the government admits it is a human life in the womb.....as you can't have an abortion after a certain date and there have been people charged with murder for killing that same human life
The government doesn't consider a fertilized egg a human being for which murder charges would be filed.
PostmodernProphet
02-14-2009, 05:48 PM
The clinical definition of death is when the brain stops functioning, not when all the cells in the body are dead, that's why I consider brain function a requisite for defining the beginning.
try to stick with one thing at a time......your cluster of cancer cells don't have a brain....if you were trying to be consistent you would have to negate your claim that a cluster of cancer cells was ever "life" at all.....
at the end of life ALL cells stop functioning. therefore, at the beginning of life we have ALL cells begin functioning, brain cells or otherwise.....
PostmodernProphet
02-14-2009, 05:49 PM
The government doesn't consider a fertilized egg a human being for which murder charges would be filed.
a failing of government.....
Missileman
02-14-2009, 06:13 PM
try to stick with one thing at a time......your cluster of cancer cells don't have a brain....if you were trying to be consistent you would have to negate your claim that a cluster of cancer cells was ever "life" at all.....
Neither does a fetus for the first few weeks of development.
I've never claimed a brain is necessary for something to be alive, my arguments remain consistent. You on the other hand refuse to acknowledge that the cells within a human body are alive...AKA "life".
at the end of life ALL cells stop functioning. therefore, at the beginning of life we have ALL cells begin functioning, brain cells or otherwise.....
A person is dead when their brain ceases to function. A person can be dead and still have living organs and other tissues. Connected to a machine or transplanted into another person, those organs and tissues can live well beyond a person's death.
Missileman
02-14-2009, 06:15 PM
a failing of government.....
Rather a recognition of reality.
PostmodernProphet
02-14-2009, 07:00 PM
Neither does a fetus for the first few weeks of development.
I've never claimed a brain is necessary for something to be alive, my arguments remain consistent. You on the other hand refuse to acknowledge that the cells within a human body are alive...AKA "life".
absurdity.....what I REALLY refused was your claim that a partial birth abortion was the equivalent of cutting your fingernails......
Missileman
02-14-2009, 07:17 PM
absurdity.....what I REALLY refused was your claim that a partial birth abortion was the equivalent of cutting your fingernails......
That is a lie...making you a liar in yet another thread!
PostmodernProphet
02-14-2009, 10:25 PM
That is a lie...making you a liar in yet another thread!
climb off your high horse, Miss.....your the one who started tossing bullshit....what is it that turned you into a fucking idiot lately?......
Missileman
02-14-2009, 10:33 PM
climb off your high horse, Miss.....your the one who started tossing bullshit....what is it that turned you into a fucking idiot lately?......
No need to act indignant...you lied so I called you a liar...retract it or live with the label.
PostmodernProphet
02-14-2009, 10:53 PM
No need to act indignant...you lied so I called you a liar...retract it or live with the label.
fuck off, twit.....you claimed all human cells were the equivalent of human life.....thus cutting your fingernails is the equivalent of a partial birth abortion.....to a dumbfuck who thinks as you do......
don't call me a liar for correctly identifying your fucked up ideas.....
Missileman
02-14-2009, 11:28 PM
fuck off, twit.....you claimed all human cells were the equivalent of human life.....thus cutting your fingernails is the equivalent of a partial birth abortion.....to a dumbfuck who thinks as you do......
don't call me a liar for correctly identifying your fucked up ideas.....
Look dummy...I've never posted a single thing on this message board that would indicate I'm a proponent of partial birth abortion...never. As a matter of fact, as I've posted several times, I am against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions except to save the mother's life, cases of rape/incest, and I will add catastrophic deformation/disability.
And in keeping with your inability to comprehend English, I never said human cells were the eqivalent of human life, I said THEY ARE human life. So post a quote of mine where I wrote "partial birth abortion was the equivalent of cutting your fingernails" or retract YOUR LIE that I claimed such.
P.S. Let's keep our discussion out here in public...I'm not interested in exchanging PMs with you.
bullypulpit
02-15-2009, 07:35 AM
Wow...You two have gone off on a tear.
The undifferentiated cells that make up the blastocyst are living, in the biological sense that they metabolize and reproduce. But to state, unequivocally, that these cells are a human being is completely mistaken.
<a href=http://www.peikoff.com/essays/abortion_rights_are_prolife.html>Leonard Peikoff</a> sums it up quite nicely:
<blockquote>The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; <b>only the mystical notions of religious dogma</b> treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.
<b>We must not confuse potentiality with actuality.</b> An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman’s choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman’s body.(<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>
And that is the issue here. Whether the potential represented by this mass of undifferentiated cells trumps the actuality of the woman carrying them and her circumstances.
Peikoff goes on to say,
<blockquote>That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm, exists as a part of a woman’s body. It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person. That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. <b>Rights belong only to individuals</b>, not to collectives or to parts of an individual.</blockquote>
Ultimately, the anti-abortion movement is not about life, it is about control...the ability to say to others "Thou shalt and thou shalt not...". The lives of the parents are irrelevant to them in their pursuit of this power.
PostmodernProphet
02-15-2009, 08:06 AM
Look dummy...I've never posted a single thing on this message board that would indicate I'm a proponent of partial birth abortion...never. As a matter of fact, as I've posted several times, I am against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions except to save the mother's life, cases of rape/incest, and I will add catastrophic deformation/disability.
And in keeping with your inability to comprehend English, I never said human cells were the eqivalent of human life, I said THEY ARE human life. So post a quote of mine where I wrote "partial birth abortion was the equivalent of cutting your fingernails" or retract YOUR LIE that I claimed such.
P.S. Let's keep our discussion out here in public...I'm not interested in exchanging PMs with you.
Fuckwit, apparently you are incapable of seeing the natural consequence of your foolish conceptions.....but that is no reason to say something insultingly stupid by calling me a liar.....you've made obvious claims and I pointed out what that means.....if you don't mean that, retract your stupid argument....
and if you want the discussion public, fine....this is the second time you have called me a liar with no basis, what the fuck's wrong with you lately......
PostmodernProphet
02-15-2009, 08:10 AM
Ultimately, the anti-abortion movement is not about life, it is about control...
the only "control" issue involved is whether a mother has the right to control the existence of a child AFTER she has brought about it's existence....
Missileman
02-15-2009, 08:41 AM
Fuckwit, apparently you are incapable of seeing the natural consequence of your foolish conceptions.....but that is no reason to say something insultingly stupid by calling me a liar.....you've made obvious claims and I pointed out what that means.....if you don't mean that, retract your stupid argument....
and if you want the discussion public, fine....this is the second time you have called me a liar with no basis, what the fuck's wrong with you lately......
There IS a basis for calling you a liar:
your claim that a partial birth abortion was the equivalent of cutting your fingernails
I've made no statements in this or any other thread that would lead to the conclusion that I equate a late term fetus to skin cells...it's a notion made purely of your imagination and reading disability...it's not true...IT'S A LIE!
bullypulpit
02-15-2009, 10:23 AM
the only "control" issue involved is whether a mother has the right to control the existence of a child AFTER she has brought about it's existence....
<blockquote>The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; <b>only the mystical notions of religious dogma</b> treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.
<b>We must not confuse potentiality with actuality.</b> An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman’s choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman’s body.(<i>emphasis mine</i>) - Leonard Peikoff</blockquote>
Nice bit of dancing around the issue. :dance:
PostmodernProphet
02-15-2009, 11:27 AM
There IS a basis for calling you a liar:
I've made no statements in this or any other thread that would lead to the conclusion that I equate a late term fetus to skin cells...it's a notion made purely of your imagination and reading disability...it's not true...IT'S A LIE!
you've called me a liar again, Fuckwit......you have said there is no difference between cancer cells and a fetus....that they are equally human life.....there should be no difference then between a fetus and fingernail clippings....disposing of a fetus, disposing of cancer cells, disposing of fingernail clippings.....all equal in your mind.....what would be the difference between a fetus and skin cells in that event?........now, certainly you must agree that under your views, except for a higher functionality held by the latter, there would be no difference between your brain cells and an expended ejaculation of sperm, no?.......it would appear you have two valid choices....either admit that what I stated was true, or admit that your argument holds no merit.......
PostmodernProphet
02-15-2009, 11:32 AM
The embryo is clearly pre-human
demonstrate scientifically that an embryo differs from a "human".........
bullypulpit
02-15-2009, 12:56 PM
demonstrate scientifically that an embryo differs from a "human".........
No need to do so "scientifically". But the, "scientifically" speaking, it is an undifferentiated mass of cells at conception.
Is a skin cell "human"? Only in that it carries human DNA. So too with an embryo. It is not a human being, and shouldn't be considered so, until it is viable <i>ex utero</i>, the lower limit on that being 22 weeks.
Missileman
02-15-2009, 01:47 PM
you've called me a liar again, Fuckwit......you have said there is no difference between cancer cells and a fetus....that they are equally human life.....there should be no difference then between a fetus and fingernail clippings....disposing of a fetus, disposing of cancer cells, disposing of fingernail clippings.....all equal in your mind.....what would be the difference between a fetus and skin cells in that event?........now, certainly you must agree that under your views, except for a higher functionality held by the latter, there would be no difference between your brain cells and an expended ejaculation of sperm, no?.......it would appear you have two valid choices....either admit that what I stated was true, or admit that your argument holds no merit.......
You left out the third choice of maintaining that YOUR LIE has not yet been retracted and as such you are still a liar. It was you who attempted to misrepresent my position when you said I claim a fully developed fetus is equal to a fingernail clipping. I've never said anything of the sort.
PostmodernProphet
02-15-2009, 04:05 PM
No need to do so "scientifically". But the, "scientifically" speaking, it is an undifferentiated mass of cells at conception.
.
If I recall, you criticized doing it in a non-"scientific" manner.....it is, however, not an undifferentiated mass......by DNA identification, it can be differentiated from every other mass of cells.....
PostmodernProphet
02-15-2009, 04:06 PM
You left out the third choice of maintaining that YOUR LIE has not yet been retracted and as such you are still a liar.
sorry, Fuckwit.....not an option....
Missileman
02-15-2009, 05:42 PM
sorry, Fuckwit.....not an option....
Unfortunately for you, you have no say in my options so I will go with mine.
PostmodernProphet
02-15-2009, 06:03 PM
Fuckwits don't get options, they just get ridicule......you can only change that by apologizing for your idiocy....
bullypulpit
02-15-2009, 08:53 PM
If I recall, you criticized doing it in a non-"scientific" manner.....it is, however, not an undifferentiated mass......by DNA identification, it can be differentiated from every other mass of cells.....
Nice try...Well, not really. Undifferentiated as in the cells contained therein have yet to differentiate into specific tissue types...nerve, circulatory, integumentary, skeletal and so forth.
My conviction as to your true ignorance in this issue grows with each of your posts.
PostmodernProphet
02-15-2009, 10:29 PM
Nice try...Well, not really. Undifferentiated as in the cells contained therein have yet to differentiate into specific tissue types...nerve, circulatory, integumentary, skeletal and so forth.
My conviction as to your true ignorance in this issue grows with each of your posts.
in that case, how about the scientific reality that only the fetus CAN differentiate.....reproducing skin cells produce only skin cells....
Missileman
02-15-2009, 11:41 PM
Fuckwits don't get options, they just get ridicule......you can only change that by apologizing for your idiocy....
Right after you apologize for lying.
bullypulpit
02-16-2009, 05:31 AM
in that case, how about the scientific reality that only the fetus CAN differentiate.....reproducing skin cells produce only skin cells....
Keep dancing Tappy. To hold that life begins at conception is to assert that an undifferentiated mass of cells, which has a 50-50 chance of implanting in the uterine wall absent any interference, is equivalent in <i>every</i> way with a fully functioning human being, infant or adult. You equate the potential with the actual.
PostmodernProphet
02-16-2009, 07:39 AM
which has a 50-50 chance of implanting in the uterine wall absent any interference
sounds like a stawman to me....tell you what, I will withdraw all objections to abortions which occur prior to the cell implanting on a uterine wall.....
bullypulpit
02-16-2009, 09:47 AM
sounds like a stawman to me....tell you what, I will withdraw all objections to abortions which occur prior to the cell implanting on a uterine wall.....
Only the ones you're constructing. If it hasn't implanted, there's no pregnancy, hence no abortion.
MtnBiker
02-16-2009, 10:07 AM
When does life not begin?
Is it possible to have a life without being concieved?
PostmodernProphet
02-16-2009, 10:20 AM
If it hasn't implanted, there's no pregnancy, hence no abortion.
..../psssst, Bully....don't tell anybody, but that's WHY I was calling your argument a strawman.....
bullypulpit
02-16-2009, 01:29 PM
..../psssst, Bully....don't tell anybody, but that's WHY I was calling your argument a strawman.....
Yeah, I know. Which is why yours IS, in arguing that life begins at conception.
PostmodernProphet
02-16-2009, 02:01 PM
Yeah, I know. Which is why yours IS, in arguing that life begins at conception.
I have to admit, I can't see where the argument draws us anywhere near to a conclusion about whether or not life begins at conception.....the only thing it draws us near to is a rationalization about why we don't give a shit about whether what we kill qualifies as "life" or not....at best it's a "since we don't know, we don't have to feel guilty" solution.....
My Winter Storm
02-16-2009, 08:10 PM
Life does and does not begin at conception. What we have at conception is only a potential life in the sense that it cannot be separated from it's host (mother) or it would die. It must rely on her to keep it alive and make it stronger so the potential for living outside the womb grows.
When it is born that is when life officially begins, because the potential for life is now gone, the fetus is outside the womb and breathing on it's own. This is no longer a potential life but an actual life.
Life does and does not begin at conception. What we have at conception is only a potential life in the sense that it cannot be separated from it's host (mother) or it would die. It must rely on her to keep it alive and make it stronger so the potential for living outside the womb grows.
When it is born that is when life officially begins, because the potential for life is now gone, the fetus is outside the womb and breathing on it's own. This is no longer a potential life but an actual life.
so what do you call someone who is hooked up to machines and without those machines would die...say like oxygen aftering being in a serious accident...
PostmodernProphet
02-16-2009, 09:29 PM
so what do you call someone who is hooked up to machines and without those machines would die...say like oxygen aftering being in a serious accident...
that would be a potential dead person.....
bullypulpit
02-17-2009, 06:53 PM
that would be a potential dead person.....
From the moment we are born...
theHawk
02-18-2009, 01:52 AM
Life does and does not begin at conception. What we have at conception is only a potential life in the sense that it cannot be separated from it's host (mother) or it would die. It must rely on her to keep it alive and make it stronger so the potential for living outside the womb grows.
When it is born that is when life officially begins, because the potential for life is now gone, the fetus is outside the womb and breathing on it's own. This is no longer a potential life but an actual life.
Rediculous. How can any living thing be "potential life"? It is either alive or not. Just because the lifeform gets its energy from its mother doesn't make it less of a lifeform. After birth a baby still needs someone else to provide food for it, humans don't burst out of the womb ready to kill with its bare hands in order to eat. They are just as dependant on their mother or another human to provide for it. So by your definition a small infant is not an "actual life" but a "potential life".
ALL living things intake energy from other sources in order to survive. To suggest that the manner in which they intake their energy defines them as being alive or not alive is utter nonesense.
bullypulpit
02-18-2009, 05:58 AM
Rediculous. How can any living thing be "potential life"? It is either alive or not. Just because the lifeform gets its energy from its mother doesn't make it less of a lifeform. After birth a baby still needs someone else to provide food for it, humans don't burst out of the womb ready to kill with its bare hands in order to eat. They are just as dependant on their mother or another human to provide for it. So by your definition a small infant is not an "actual life" but a "potential life".
ALL living things intake energy from other sources in order to survive. To suggest that the manner in which they intake their energy defines them as being alive or not alive is utter nonesense.
You haven't been paying attention.
<blockquote>The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; <b>only the mystical notions of religious dogma</b> treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.
<b>We must not confuse potentiality with actuality.</b> An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman’s choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman’s body.(<i>emphasis mine</i>) - Leonard Peikoff</blockquote>
PostmodernProphet
02-18-2009, 07:25 AM
You haven't been paying attention.
it isn't that he isn't paying attention, bully, it's that he recognizes the fallacy in your argument.....there is no rational basis for claiming a distinction between the pre-born and the post born.....scientifically both are ACTUALLY human beings.....
bullypulpit
02-19-2009, 05:28 AM
it isn't that he isn't paying attention, bully, it's that he recognizes the fallacy in your argument.....there is no rational basis for claiming a distinction between the pre-born and the post born.....scientifically both are ACTUALLY human beings.....
<blockquote><b>ac·tu·al</b>
Pronunciation: \ˈak-ch(ə-w)əl, -sh(ə-w)əl; -chü-əl, -shü-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English actuel, from Late Latin actualis, from Latin actus act
Date:14th century
<b>2 a:</b> existing in act and not merely potentially <b>b:</b> existing in fact or reality
<b>po·ten·tial</b>
Pronunciation:\pə-ˈten(t)-shəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English potencial, from Late Latin potentialis, from potentia potentiality, from Latin, power, from potent-, potens
Date: 14th century
<b>1:</b> existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality
<i>Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary</i></blockquote>
Now that we've got the definitions cleared up, a fertilized human egg simply represents the potential to become a human. The actualization of this potential is the carrying to term of said egg to birth where the potential represented by the egg is actualized in the form of a human being.
As for the "pre-born", that is nothing more than a term created by the right-to-life movement to create a false analogy between a fetus and a baby.
PostmodernProphet
02-19-2009, 05:35 AM
<blockquote><b>ac·tu·al</b>
Pronunciation: \ˈak-ch(ə-w)əl, -sh(ə-w)əl; -chü-əl, -shü-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English actuel, from Late Latin actualis, from Latin actus act
Date:14th century
<b>2 a:</b> existing in act and not merely potentially <b>b:</b> existing in fact or reality
<b>po·ten·tial</b>
Pronunciation:\pə-ˈten(t)-shəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English potencial, from Late Latin potentialis, from potentia potentiality, from Latin, power, from potent-, potens
Date: 14th century
<b>1:</b> existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality
<i>Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary</i></blockquote>
Now that we've got the definitions cleared up, a fertilized human egg simply represents the potential to become a human. The actualization of this potential is the carrying to term of said egg to birth where the potential represented by the egg is actualized in the form of a human being.
As for the "pre-born", that is nothing more than a term created by the right-to-life movement to cloud a false analogy between a fetus and a baby.
nothing wrong with the definitions, just with your perception.....North Dakota has just found a cure for your disease.....
bullypulpit
02-20-2009, 08:11 AM
nothing wrong with the definitions, just with your perception.....North Dakota has just found a cure for your disease.....
Nothing wrong with my perception. The reality is that a fertilized egg IS NOT a child...reality trumps your dogma each and every time. Now as for diseases, I'm sure a good shot of penicillin will take care of yours.
PostmodernProphet
02-20-2009, 09:55 AM
The reality is that a fertilized egg IS NOT a child...reality trumps your dogma each and every time.
well, if that is reality instead of dogma, I expect you can prove it scientifically, neh?.......
that would be a potential dead person.....
ok....however, what they are claiming about fetuses, is that they cannot survive on their own, yet these same folks (no surprise bully ignored the question) will not say that a person who cannot live without machines, like i mentioned, is not a human being. their main thrust seems to be that since the fetus cannot survive outside the womb on its own, it is not a human.
PostmodernProphet
02-20-2009, 10:14 AM
sorry, I forgot to put on my "sarcasm" hat when I posted that.....
Missileman
02-20-2009, 07:19 PM
ok....however, what they are claiming about fetuses, is that they cannot survive on their own, yet these same folks (no surprise bully ignored the question) will not say that a person who cannot live without machines, like i mentioned, is not a human being. their main thrust seems to be that since the fetus cannot survive outside the womb on its own, it is not a human.
Depending on the condition of the person on the machine, they very well might not be a human being anymore e.g. totally, irreversibly, brain dead.
Depending on the condition of the person on the machine, they very well might not be a human being anymore e.g. totally, irreversibly, brain dead.
are fetuses brain dead?
moderate democrat
02-20-2009, 08:38 PM
are fetuses brain dead?
at what point in their development are they "brain alive"?
Missileman
02-20-2009, 08:46 PM
at what point in their development are they "brain alive"?
Hint...they at least have to have one first.
moderate democrat
02-20-2009, 08:47 PM
Hint...they at least have to have one first.
does a zygote have a brain?
Missileman
02-20-2009, 08:56 PM
does a zygote have a brain?
Your question is a no-brainer!
PostmodernProphet
02-20-2009, 09:29 PM
at what point in their development are they "brain alive"?
again, at what level do you want to measure brain "activity"......
Broadly considered, the brainstem consists of the medulla, pons, and midbrain, and matures in a caudal to rostral arc--a process that begins around the 6th to 7th week of gestation and continues well into the first year of postnatal life
http://brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html
the brain is not completely developed at the point of birth, so if you are going to use the standard of full development, it ought to be proper to kill a child well into the first year following birth.......
PostmodernProphet
02-20-2009, 09:35 PM
Week Five
*
*
*
*
• First heartbeats begin - If you have an early ultrasound you may not be able to recognize this tiny being as a baby, but there is no mistaking what it feels like seeing your child's heartbeat on that screen. That rhythmic beat is echoed in your own heart.
hmm.....probably not fair to use this site....even though it's secular, it's directed at people who DON'T want to kill their kids...by the way, without brain activity, the heart wouldn't beat......
http://www.pregnancy.org/fetaldevelopment
moderate democrat
02-20-2009, 09:44 PM
again, at what level do you want to measure brain "activity"......
http://brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html
the brain is not completely developed at the point of birth, so if you are going to use the standard of full development, it ought to be proper to kill a child well into the first year following birth.......
sixth or seventy week of gestation? that certainly does not square with "life begins at conception", does it?
I mean...if "you" were never aware that "you" were "alive", it hardly makes any sense that "you" would know that ""you" were no longer "alive", would it?
PostmodernProphet
02-20-2009, 09:52 PM
sixth or seventy week of gestation? that certainly does not square with "life begins at conception", does it?
/shrugs.....depends on if you define "life" based upon brain activity, I expect....after all, the organism which produced those brain cells was hardly "dead"......but I am a compromising soul......we could always settle for a solution which prohibits all abortions if a heart beat is detectable......that would be a clear sign of brain activity.....
I mean...if "you" were never aware that "you" were "alive", it hardly makes any sense that "you" would know that ""you" were no longer "alive", would it?
how "aware" is a five month old that they are "alive"?......
moderate democrat
02-20-2009, 10:02 PM
how "aware" is a five month old that they are "alive"?......
I have no idea, but that is not the issue, is it?
PostmodernProphet
02-20-2009, 10:40 PM
I have no idea, but that is not the issue, is it?
it is if you are measuring life by "awareness"......
an oak tree sapling, barely out of the acorn, is a future oak tree. thus, killing that sapling, kills a future oak tree.
once conception happens, a future human is created. the zygote, with no sin, no harm, no disease, etc...will in fact create a human life. without a doubt if there was no death, that zygote is a future human.
Missileman
02-22-2009, 08:59 PM
an oak tree sapling, barely out of the acorn, is a future oak tree. thus, killing that sapling, kills a future oak tree.
once conception happens, a future human is created. the zygote, with no sin, no harm, no disease, etc...will in fact create a human life. without a doubt if there was no death, that zygote is a future human.
A sapling is a baby tree...already born. There is no comparison between a sapling and a fetus.
Without any outside intervention at least 15% of zygotes never become anything at all.
A sapling is a baby tree...already born. There is no comparison between a sapling and a fetus.
Without any outside intervention at least 15% of zygotes never become anything at all.
sure there is, before that, it is but an acorn. surely you are not going to compare a fetus to an acorn.....
outside intervention is a weak argument for life....barring any difficulties, is it not true that the zygote will in fact become a human?
Missileman
02-22-2009, 09:14 PM
sure there is, before that, it is but an acorn. surely you are not going to compare a fetus to an acorn.....
outside intervention is a weak argument for life....barring any difficulties, is it not true that the zygote will in fact become a human?
There is no valid comparison between an acorn or sapling and a fetus.
If you include outside intervention the number is much higher. The 15% in fact do not become a human. Conception is not a guarantee of birth. Interesting wording of your argument though...it implies that you believe a certain amount of development must occur before a fertilized egg becomes a human being.
There is no valid comparison between an acorn or sapling and a fetus.
If you include outside intervention the number is much higher. The 15% in fact do not become a human. Conception is not a guarantee of birth. Interesting wording of your argument though...it implies that you believe a certain amount of development must occur before a fertilized egg becomes a human being.
if everything happens as it normally does, does this not result in a human?
Missileman
02-22-2009, 11:47 PM
if everything happens as it normally does, does this not result in a human?
No...because "as it normally does" includes a 15% failure rate.
No...because "as it normally does" includes a 15% failure rate.
alright...if everything happens perfectfully......what results?
a human?
a __________________?
PostmodernProphet
02-23-2009, 05:57 AM
alright...if everything happens perfectfully......what results?
a human?
a __________________?
http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:Y8kW5cfwPiWN6M:http://www.arkive.org/media/B214F964-009B-4B2A-8A03-DE72406FA3FC/Presentation.Large/photo.jpg
Missileman
02-23-2009, 09:49 AM
alright...if everything happens perfectfully......what results?
a human?
a __________________?
Of course a human being, but I've seen no argument to the contrary. As a matter of fact, your latest arguments mirror what a lot of us have been saying; that a zygote is a potential human being, that it will become a human being when sufficient time and development has occurred.
Mr. P
02-23-2009, 11:03 AM
Of course a human being, but I've seen no argument to the contrary. As a matter of fact, your latest arguments mirror what a lot of us have been saying; that a zygote is a potential human being, that it will become a human being when sufficient time and development has occurred.
And as anyone with children knows that's sometime after age 21. :)
PostmodernProphet
02-23-2009, 12:53 PM
definitly after........
Of course a human being, but I've seen no argument to the contrary. As a matter of fact, your latest arguments mirror what a lot of us have been saying; that a zygote is a potential human being, that it will become a human being when sufficient time and development has occurred.
then abortion is killing a human being. it is a willful, premeditated act to stop a human being from living, that is murder is it not?
you will probably say, well it isn't human YET so no it can't be murder by murder's very own definition. you can split that hair, fact is, you are willfully murdering a human being by killing the process....but for abortion (in my perfect scenario, which obviously does result in humans) a human would have been born into this world.
thats causation
Missileman
02-23-2009, 07:36 PM
then abortion is killing a human being. it is a willful, premeditated act to stop a human being from living, that is murder is it not?
you will probably say, well it isn't human YET so no it can't be murder by murder's very own definition. you can split that hair, fact is, you are willfully murdering a human being by killing the process....but for abortion (in my perfect scenario, which obviously does result in humans) a human would have been born into this world.
thats causation
Nonsense! Even in your own posts you wrote that a zygote becomes a human being...a clear acknowledgement that a zygote "isn't a human yet", so I don't have to say it...you already have.
By your lame-brain reasoning, every act of masturbation is mass homocide.
Further, you have no way to determine how many aborted pregnancies would have mis-carried on their own.
PostmodernProphet
02-23-2009, 08:03 PM
I hate it when people try to equate a sperm and a zygote....it demonstrates either a total lack of knowledge about biology or a deliberate intent to mislead......
Nonsense! Even in your own posts you wrote that a zygote becomes a human being...a clear acknowledgement that a zygote "isn't a human yet", so I don't have to say it...you already have.
By your lame-brain reasoning, every act of masturbation is mass homocide.
Further, you have no way to determine how many aborted pregnancies would have mis-carried on their own.
so jacking off creates humans :poke:
your understanding of my reasoning is.....jacked
Missileman
02-23-2009, 10:04 PM
I hate it when people try to equate a sperm and a zygote....it demonstrates either a total lack of knowledge about biology or a deliberate intent to mislead......
No different than equating a zygote and a baby as is your habit.
PostmodernProphet
02-23-2009, 10:11 PM
No different than equating a zygote and a baby as is your habit.
???....of course it is.....I presume you are aware of the biological difference between a sperm before and after it has joined with an egg....if you aren't aware of the difference, you have no reason to be participating in this debate until you educate yourself and if you are, you have no business making the comparison......
Missileman
02-23-2009, 10:17 PM
so jacking off creates humans :poke:
your understanding of my reasoning is.....jacked
If as you say, things go perfectly, isn't every sperm and every egg a potential human being?
Missileman
02-23-2009, 10:23 PM
???....of course it is.....I presume you are aware of the biological difference between a sperm before and after it has joined with an egg....if you aren't aware of the difference, you have no reason to be participating in this debate until you educate yourself and if you are, you have no business making the comparison......
Don't presume to lecture me on biology, dipshit! If you're going to argue that a zygote is a potential human being it doesn't make any sense to argue that the two living cells required to make a zygote aren't also potential human beings.
If as you say, things go perfectly, isn't every sperm and every egg a potential human being?
you said jacking off :poke:
care to retract that comment....
and i said, when the beginning happens, apparently a "zygote", that is when, barring any troubles, a human will in fact be born. abortion is a willful killing of that human.
but for
your abortion, a human would be born.
Missileman
02-23-2009, 10:31 PM
you said jacking off :poke:
care to retract that comment....
and i said, when the beginning happens, apparently a "zygote", that is when, barring any troubles, a human will in fact be born. abortion is a willful killing of that human.
but for
your abortion, a human would be born.
You didn't answer my question.
You didn't answer my question.
you never answered mine...
Missileman
02-23-2009, 10:42 PM
you never answered mine...
I've answered every one of yours so far.
I've answered every one of yours so far.
no you didn't
Missileman
02-23-2009, 10:48 PM
no you didn't
Which one are you saying I haven't answered?
Which one are you saying I haven't answered?
and i said, when the beginning happens, apparently a "zygote", that is when, barring any troubles, a human will in fact be born. abortion is a willful killing of that human.
but for
your abortion, a human would be born.
yes or no...
Missileman
02-23-2009, 11:03 PM
yes or no...
No. Murder is the killing of a human being, not the killing of something that might become a human being.
Now please answer: If as you say, things go perfectly, isn't every sperm and every egg a potential human being?
BTW, your unanswered "question" was in the non-answer reply to mine...if you're going to play the "you didn't answer mine" game, you shouldn't be guilty of it yourself.
PostmodernProphet
02-23-2009, 11:16 PM
Don't presume to lecture me on biology, dipshit! If you're going to argue that a zygote is a potential human being it doesn't make any sense to argue that the two living cells required to make a zygote aren't also potential human beings.
????....first, I'm not lecturing you on biology.....I'm pointing out to all our readers that you are ignoring biology to make an invalid point.......second, I'm not making the argument that a zygote is a "potential" human being.....only an idiot would make that argument...it already IS a human being........and third, I think everyone is aware of the difference between the two living cells necessary to make a zygote and the zygote that they made.....
can an egg reproduce itself?.....can a sperm?......a zygote can reproduce a multitude of cells.......
UOTE=Missileman;351431]No. Murder is the killing of a human being, not the killing of something that might become a human being.
as i already predicted you would say the very same thing. read my post again.
Now please answer: If as you say, things go perfectly, isn't every sperm and every egg a potential human being?
no. when they get together, and we have a potential human...you know, the "thing" you want to kill....
BTW, your unanswered "question" was in the non-answer reply to mine...if you're going to play the "you didn't answer mine" game, you shouldn't be guilty of it yourself.
i'm innocent of all charges, i don't want to kill a "substance" that is going to be a human being. you do.
bullypulpit
02-24-2009, 04:52 AM
No. Murder is the killing of a human being, not the killing of something that might become a human being.
Now please answer: If as you say, things go perfectly, isn't every sperm and every egg a potential human being?
BTW, your unanswered "question" was in the non-answer reply to mine...if you're going to play the "you didn't answer mine" game, you shouldn't be guilty of it yourself.
Bingo! It's just a short logical step from claiming a blastocyst is a human being to claiming the unfertilized egg and sperm are potential human beings. It's but another short step from banning abortion to banning all birth control methods.
Crap, every adolescent boy will become a murderer, a whole generation will be decimated.
Missileman
02-24-2009, 07:13 AM
as i already predicted you would say the very same thing. read my post again.
no. when they get together, and we have a potential human...you know, the "thing" you want to kill....
i'm innocent of all charges, i don't want to kill a "substance" that is going to be a human being. you do.
And you have twice in this post acknowledged that abortion is not murder.
PostmodernProphet
02-24-2009, 10:00 AM
Bingo! It's just a short logical step from claiming a blastocyst is a human being to claiming the unfertilized egg and sperm are potential human beings. It's but another short step from banning abortion to banning all birth control methods.
Bully, please tell me.....are you unaware of the difference between a sperm and a zygote or are you just pretending to be unaware so you can make an invalid argument?......since there is a logical basis upon which to distinguish a sperm and a zygote, there is a logical basis upon which to distinguish between contraceptives and abortion......
Missileman
02-24-2009, 06:20 PM
second, I'm not making the argument that a zygote is a "potential" human being.....only an idiot would make that argument...it already IS a human being.....
Then by your own words you condone murder. You alter your positions so often on arguments that it's hard for you to keep track.
PostmodernProphet
02-24-2009, 11:14 PM
Then by your own words you condone murder. You alter your positions so often on arguments that it's hard for you to keep track.
I have altered nothing.......MY words have nothing to do with "murder".....unless you are talking about human beings....which has nothing to do with sperm or eggs.....
Missileman
02-25-2009, 06:14 PM
I have altered nothing.......MY words have nothing to do with "murder".....unless you are talking about human beings....which has nothing to do with sperm or eggs.....
You've put forth two different lines for the determination of a human being...conception and detectable hearbeat. As you've agreed to aborting up to 6-7 weeks when a heartbeat can be detected, but now want to designate a zygote as a human being, that means you condone murder...as long as you get to draw the line.
PostmodernProphet
02-25-2009, 08:30 PM
You've put forth two different lines for the determination of a human being...conception and detectable hearbeat. As you've agreed to aborting up to 6-7 weeks when a heartbeat can be detected, but now want to designate a zygote as a human being, that means you condone murder...as long as you get to draw the line.
I didn't put forward two different criteria.....I have simply offered to let you baby killers continue to have your way with human beings under the age of six weeks (assuming you can notice they are there) so long as you give up your evil ways with those older.....since I figure that will save about 95% of the children you usually kill, I take that as a fair trade for now......I realize how hard it is for you folks to give up killing cold turkey.....(besides, that only give you about a two week window to identify the woman as pregnant before it's illegal to abort)
Missileman
02-25-2009, 08:52 PM
I didn't put forward two different criteria.....I have simply offered to let you baby killers continue to have your way with human beings under the age of six weeks (assuming you can notice they are there) so long as you give up your evil ways with those older.....since I figure that will save about 95% of the children you usually kill, I take that as a fair trade for now......I realize how hard it is for you folks to give up killing cold turkey.....(besides, that only give you about a two week window to identify the woman as pregnant before it's illegal to abort)
P-l-a-n-e-t s-l-o-w-i-n-g d-o-w-n...e-x-c-e-s-s-i-v-e g-y-r-o-s-c-o-p-i-c f-o-r-c-e-s a-t-w-o-r-k.
PostmodernProphet
02-25-2009, 10:16 PM
P-l-a-n-e-t s-l-o-w-i-n-g d-o-w-n...e-x-c-e-s-s-i-v-e g-y-r-o-s-c-o-p-i-c f-o-r-c-e-s a-t-w-o-r-k.
/shrugs....that's what you get for trying to detract from the main issue.....the long and short of it is this....I believe life begins at conception, but I will take any shortening of the time abortion is allowed as a temporary success....eventually, we will end all of it......I don't "condone" murder, I just recognize that so long as you folks have a taste for it, I won't be able to see the end of it.....
Missileman
02-25-2009, 10:35 PM
/shrugs....that's what you get for trying to detract from the main issue.....the long and short of it is this....I believe life begins at conception, but I will take any shortening of the time abortion is allowed as a temporary success....eventually, we will end all of it......I don't "condone" murder, I just recognize that so long as you folks have a taste for it, I won't be able to see the end of it.....
Baloney...just shows your principles are a sham. It's either murder or it isn't. If you're willing to allow it to happen, you're condoning it. You might as well argue that you're okay with rape as long as it's limited to one day a month.
Baloney...just shows your principles are a sham. It's either murder or it isn't. If you're willing to allow it to happen, you're condoning it. You might as well argue that you're okay with rape as long as it's limited to one day a month.
come on...thats not what he said at all...what he said is like you saying rape is ok one day a month, and he will consider that a success when you said rape was ok every day....however, he will continue to fight for zero says.
Mr. P
02-25-2009, 11:09 PM
Baloney...just shows your principles are a sham. It's either murder or it isn't. If you're willing to allow it to happen, you're condoning it. You might as well argue that you're okay with rape as long as it's limited to one day a month.
Exactly
moderate democrat
02-26-2009, 07:10 AM
come on...thats not what he said at all...what he said is like you saying rape is ok one day a month, and he will consider that a success when you said rape was ok every day....however, he will continue to fight for zero says.
how can anyone consider monthly rape "a success"?
PostmodernProphet
02-26-2009, 07:46 AM
how can anyone consider monthly rape "a success"?
how can anyone consider one abortion a success?.....when the alternative is a million abortions......Miss's argument simply tells me he is unwilling to compromise his right to kill ANY AND EVERY child he wishes.....
PostmodernProphet
02-26-2009, 07:50 AM
Baloney...just shows your principles are a sham. It's either murder or it isn't. If you're willing to allow it to happen, you're condoning it. You might as well argue that you're okay with rape as long as it's limited to one day a month.
my principles are a sham?....at least yours are obvious....you accept no restrictions on murdering children....you're position is that since it isn't proper to restrict rapes to one day a month, we must allow them whenever.....
my position has nothing to do with being "okay" with rape....but I am prepared to live with your propensity to rape so long as I can restrict you to doing it only one day in thirty, or better one day in ten thousand, which brings us closer to the number of abortions that occur before the sixth week of pregnancy......
Missileman
02-26-2009, 01:19 PM
my principles are a sham?....at least yours are obvious....you accept no restrictions on murdering children.... In response to your first strawman: That's not what I've posted by any stretch of a reasonable person's imagination. I haven't put forth a single argument that indicates I'm a proponent of killing children. As a matter of fact I have posted several times that I am in favor of restricting abortion.
you're position is that since it isn't proper to restrict rapes to one day a month, we must allow them whenever..... In response to your second strawman: No, my position is that rape isn't acceptable at any time. You're the one whose principles would condone murder...not mine.
PostmodernProphet
02-26-2009, 02:46 PM
You're the one whose principles would condone murder...not mine.
???...../boggle....you raise arguments in favor of keeping it legal.....
Missileman
02-26-2009, 06:50 PM
???...../boggle....you raise arguments in favor of keeping it legal.....
I don't believe that 1st trimester abortions are murder, so no, I'm not raising the argument you claim.
PostmodernProphet
02-26-2009, 09:18 PM
I don't believe that 1st trimester abortions are murder, so no, I'm not raising the argument you claim.
sorry, I thought you were the one that said if an organism had brain waves it was a human being....that of course happens before the end of the first trimester....and you claimed I had two standards....
Mr. P
02-26-2009, 09:23 PM
sorry, I thought you were the one that said if an organism had brain waves it was a human being....that of course happens before the end of the first trimester....and you claimed I had two standards....
:link:
I think you'll find 24 weeks before brain "waves" are detected..I may be wrong.
PostmodernProphet
02-26-2009, 09:53 PM
:link:
I think you'll find 24 weeks before brain "waves" are detected..I may be wrong.
I believe it's in this thread somewhere.....heart beat is detectable around six weeks......heart beat is triggered by brain activity.....
Missileman
02-26-2009, 10:23 PM
sorry, I thought you were the one that said if an organism had brain waves it was a human being....that of course happens before the end of the first trimester....and you claimed I had two standards....
No, you were the one who said brain waves. The more sensible position would be a brain developed to the point where the fetus is viable outside the womb.
Mr. P
02-26-2009, 10:59 PM
I believe it's in this thread somewhere.....heart beat is detectable around six weeks......heart beat is triggered by brain activity.....
Primal brain function doesn't equal brain "waves".
PostmodernProphet
02-26-2009, 11:29 PM
No, you were the one who said brain waves. The more sensible position would be a brain developed to the point where the fetus is viable outside the womb.
wasn't me...I'm the "conception" guy....
PostmodernProphet
02-26-2009, 11:30 PM
Primal brain function doesn't equal brain "waves".
a great.....now we get to go through some convoluted argument about what we will accept as brain waves.....take it to the "brain wave guy".....
My Winter Storm
02-26-2009, 11:31 PM
Rediculous. How can any living thing be "potential life"? It is either alive or not. Just because the lifeform gets its energy from its mother doesn't make it less of a lifeform.
Is a seed a tree or just a potential tree?
PostmodernProphet
02-26-2009, 11:42 PM
Is a seed a tree or just a potential tree?
not if it's a radish......
Missileman
02-27-2009, 12:17 AM
wasn't me...I'm the "conception" guy....
No, brain waves was part of your "compromising soul" argument.
PostmodernProphet
02-27-2009, 07:50 AM
No, brain waves was part of your "compromising soul" argument.
lol....okay I wasted the time to go back and look....brain activity entered the debate on page 9, starting with post #123 made by somebody named Missileman.....and as you will see, my responses discussed brain activity, not brain waves......you fail again, Mighty Miss.....
Missileman
02-27-2009, 06:31 PM
lol....okay I wasted the time to go back and look....brain activity entered the debate on page 9, starting with post #123 made by somebody named Missileman.....and as you will see, my responses discussed brain activity, not brain waves......you fail again, Mighty Miss.....
I'm still trying to figure out how you managed to take science in Kansas and English in Borneo. You made the first use of the term "brain waves" in post #182 and referred back to them in #184 even though you used the word "activity".
PostmodernProphet
02-27-2009, 06:41 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how you managed to take science in Kansas and English in Borneo. You made the first use of the term "brain waves" in post #182 and referred back to them in #184 even though you used the word "activity".
as usual, you exert every effort to divert the argument into absurdity....you can argue all you want about brain waves/brain activity but that is not the criteria I argued in favor of.....you were the one who brought it up.....are you afraid if you don't keep pushing the debate into blind alleys that someone will recognize the fact you have no argument on the issue?.....
Missileman
02-27-2009, 06:50 PM
as usual, you exert every effort to divert the argument into absurdity....you can argue all you want about brain waves/brain activity but that is not the criteria I argued in favor of.....you were the one who brought it up.....are you afraid if you don't keep pushing the debate into blind alleys that someone will recognize the fact you have no argument on the issue?.....
I clearly stated "brain function" as my criteria...spin all you want, but YOU are the one who got off on the "activity" tangent.
PostmodernProphet
02-27-2009, 07:41 PM
fine, back to basics.....life begins at conception.....screw the tangents....I take back my offer to let you murder six week olds.....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.