Life Begins at Conception

[DarkSun]

For what?

"You shall not murder." (Exodus 20: 13)

You seem to have a funny definition of the word 'murder'.
Your appeal to numbers is not the least bit impressive.

Do you disagree that aborting a fetus is murder? What about killing a baby? Is that murder? Could you please explain the difference between the two acts for me.

Nothing more than a count the hits and ignore the misses appeal to emotion.
Still not impressed.

Whether we're talking about Beethoven or Hitler is irrelevant here. The point I was trying to illustrate there was that every person born has their role to play in the world; their purpose.

Three opinions presented as fact.

The whole abortion argument is a clash of opinions anyway, so I don't see anything particularly wrong with what I did.

Agreed

Haha. Thanks.

Depends entirely on the specifics of each individual case.
But then, I will only be telling you what I would do.
Do I think that what I would do should be made into the law of the land?
No, I do not.

Okay. Try and see things from my perspective. Let's say that the norm in society was that murdering others is okay, but you held the same views that you do now: that the murder of grown people is wrong.

Given your current mindset, would you think it an overly bad thing that laws should be made to stop murder? But wouldn't you be controlling people in doing that?

That's the way I see it.

A sixteen month fetus?
Perhaps this is a typo?

Sixteen weeks, my bad.

The only sixteen month fetus I can think of is that of an elephant.....

Thanks for that, I had no idea.

Really?
Like what?

Do you seriously think that poorly of people?

 

[McBell]

"You shall not murder." (Exodus 20: 13)

Define 'murder'
Then please explain how it applieS, Biblically, to the conversation at hand.
especially given that it has already been shown that the Bible does not consider the unborn anything more than compensatory property.

Do you disagree that aborting a fetus is murder?

Yes I do disagree that killing a fetus is murder.
But once again I must ask you how you define 'murder'

What about killing a baby? Is that murder?

Yes it is.

Could you please explain the difference between the two acts for me.

Really?
You honestly do not know the difference between a parasite and a non-parasite?

Whether we're talking about Beethoven or Hitler is irrelevant here. The point I was trying to illustrate there was that every person born has their role to play in the world; their purpose.

Then why not present the stories for the likes of Hitler, or any of the other considered evil people of history?

The fact is that you were merely looking for an emotional reaction.

The whole abortion argument is a clash of opinions anyway, so I don't see anything particularly wrong with what I did.

You try to present your opinion as fact in order to make your opinions seem weightier.
There is nothing wrong with it, really.
I was just pointing out that I understand what you did and that it does not help your argument.

Haha. Thanks.

Your welcome.

Okay. Try and see things from my perspective. Let's say that the norm in society was that murdering others is okay, but you held the same views that you do now: that the murder of grown people is wrong.

Again, define 'murder'
You seem to have a different definition than I.

Given your current mindset, would you think it an overly bad thing that laws should be made to stop murder? But wouldn't you be controlling people in doing that?

Murder is bad.
But then you and I seem to have different definitions of the word.

Sixteen weeks, my bad.
Thanks for that, I had no idea.

Not a problem and your welcome.

Do you seriously think that poorly of people?

Nope.
But then, I do not put them on the same pedestal that you apparently do either.

 

[DarkSun]

Define 'murder'

Yes I do disagree that killing a fetus is murder.
But once again I must ask you how you define 'murder'

Again, define 'murder'
You seem to have a different definition than I.

Murder is bad.
But then you and I seem to have different definitions of the word.

Here's the definition as per Princeton:

• kill intentionally and with premeditation; "The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered"
• mangle: alter so as to make unrecognizable; "The tourists murdered the French language"
• unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being

(define: murder - Google Search)

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn​

And here's my definition:

Murder: To take another human's life without their consent.

​

Honestly, I don't think it's the definition of the word "murder" that we disagree on. I think we disagree on what constitutes a "human life".

Then please explain how it applieS, Biblically, to the conversation at hand.
especially given that it has already been shown that the Bible does not consider the unborn anything more than compensatory property.

I must have missed that, could you please direct me to the post you're referring to?

Really?
You honestly do not know the difference between a parasite and a non-parasite?

Well let's say a baby is born a week or so before it is due to be born. Killing the child once it is born is immoral, right? Well, what you're saying is that if the child had remained a "parasite" for a week longer it would have been okay to kill it, as long as it's not born. How does that make sense?

And all that aside, calling a vulnerable human being who is dependent on his/her mother a "parasite" seems a bit cruel, if you ask me.

Then why not present the stories for the likes of Hitler, or any of the other considered evil people of history?

Because most people wouldn't see the value of a life if I used them as an example. Of course, they might if they were Neo-Nazis. I guess it depends on perspective.

The fact is that you were merely looking for an emotional reaction.

How is this topic not worthy of an emotional reaction?

You try to present your opinion as fact in order to make your opinions seem weightier.

Everything is an opinion.

There is nothing wrong with it, really.
I was just pointing out that I understand what you did and that it does not help your argument.

Really?

Nope.
But then, I do not put them on the same pedestal that you apparently do either.

I don't give people credit they don't deserve. Don't get me wrong, I understand that we're capable of doing pretty barbaric things and that in a lot of cases, we're not better than any other animal.

But at the same time, I don't think it's very nice to be calling human children "parasites".

 

[McBell]

Murder: To take another human's life without their consent.​

And here we are...
Now all you needs do is prove that consent is not given.....
Good luck with that.

Honestly, I don't think it's the definition of the word "murder" that we disagree on. I think we disagree on what constitutes a "human life".

Perhaps we do at that.
If it is human and alive, it is human life.
Something tells me me your definition is a bit more complicated.

I must have missed that, could you please direct me to the post you're referring to?

#82

Well let's say a baby is born a week or so before it is due to be born. Killing the child once it is born is immoral, right? Well, what you're saying is that if the child had remained a "parasite" for a week longer it would have been okay to kill it, as long as it's not born. How does that make sense?

Wow.
You really need to understand my position before you try to argue against it.
Otherwise you will only be making yourself look even more silly.

And all that aside, calling a vulnerable human being who is dependent on his/her mother a "parasite" seems a bit cruel, if you ask me.

Is that because you allow your feelings to rule your reason or is it because you do not know the definition of parasite outside the stereotype one?

Because most people wouldn't see the value of a life if I used them as an example. Of course, they might if they were Neo-Nazis. I guess it depends on perspective.

So like I said, you are using a count the hits and ignore the misses tactic in order to create an emotional reaction.

Sad that you feel your argument is so weak you have to resort to logical fallacies.....

How is this topic not worthy of an emotional reaction?

Yes, because we all know how reliable emotional reactions are.
Especially with you going to great lengths to direct the reaction to being one that is favourable to your chosen agenda.

Everything is an opinion.

Then why not leave gods opinion for god to present?

Really?

Yes really.
If anything it stinks of desperation.

I don't give people credit they don't deserve. Don't get me wrong, I understand that we're capable of doing pretty barbaric things and that in a lot of cases, we're not better than any other animal.

I am waiting for the term "Sanctity of Life" to rear it's ugly head.

But at the same time, I don't think it's very nice to be calling human children "parasites".

I could care less how you "feel" about my using the correct terminology over your emotional baggage arguments.

However, I do not appreciate your flat out lie about my calling children parasites.

Until you have educated yourself concerning what the words in question actually mean, I fail to see any reason to continue this "discussion".

Hint: try using a Medical dictionary to learn how the medical field defines the words.
Unless of course you think that the medical definitions are not adequate for your appeals to emotion.....

 

[Humanistheart]

Define 'murder'
Then please explain how it applieS, Biblically, to the conversation at hand.
especially given that it has already been shown that the Bible does not consider the unborn anything more than compensatory property.


Yes I do disagree that killing a fetus is murder.
But once again I must ask you how you define 'murder'

.

I agree, considering the definition of murder here is a prudent action, as murder is a matter of definition. I too would disagree that killing the fetus is murder. This is not to say I'm arguing that it's ethical or unethical, just that the usage of the word was not apt here.

 

[DarkSun]

Is that because you allow your feelings to rule your reason or is it because you do not know the definition of parasite outside the stereotype one?

A parasite is any organism that lives within another organism, usually causing the host organism harm.

I'd actually say that a fetus is more of a symbiote, but anyway.

I was merely commenting on the fact that using "parasite" as the word for another human being who happens to be living off of his/her mother seems a bit cruel. Yes, it is correct terminology, but it's still cruel.

I'll respond to the rest later, because I have to go and study for an anatomy test in three weeks.

Just another thing, if you could, would it be okay if you laid off of the argumentum ad hominems? Great. See you soon.

 

[logician]

It's the mother's beliefs that are important, not a neighbor's, or the church down the street.

After all, it's the mother that must live with the decision.

 

[McBell]

A parasite is any organism that lives within another organism, usually causing the host organism harm.

Parasite

1. An organism that lives on or in another and draws its nourishment therefrom.
2. In the case of a fetal inclusion or conjoined twins, the usually incomplete twin that derives its support from the more nearly normal autosite.
​

Stedman's Medical Dictionary Fifth Edition, pg 1084, ISBN#0-7818-4426-1
​

I'd actually say that a fetus is more of a symbiote, but anyway.

And what medical benefit does the fetus provide the mother?

I was merely commenting on the fact that using "parasite" as the word for another human being who happens to be living off of his/her mother seems a bit cruel. Yes, it is correct terminology, but it's still cruel.

I can agree that it is in fact your opinion....

I'll respond to the rest later, because I have to go and study for an anatomy test in three weeks.

Good luck with your test.

Just another thing, if you could, would it be okay if you laid off of the argumentum ad hominems? Great. See you soon.

What ad hominems?

 

[McBell]

I agree, considering the definition of murder here is a prudent action, as murder is a matter of definition. I too would disagree that killing the fetus is murder. This is not to say I'm arguing that it's ethical or unethical, just that the usage of the word was not apt here.

Which is precisely my point.
The word murder is used here for no other reason than to illicit an emotional reaction.
In fact, if you look at his arguments, that is all he has been using, though he did try a 'count the hits and ignore the misses' tactic in the attempt to illicit an emotional reaction.

 

[DarkSun]

Parasite

1. An organism that lives on or in another and draws its nourishment therefrom.
2. In the case of a fetal inclusion or conjoined twins, the usually incomplete twin that derives its support from the more nearly normal autosite.
​

Stedman's Medical Dictionary Fifth Edition, pg 1084, ISBN#0-7818-4426-1​

And what medical benefit does the fetus provide the mother?

Actually, a fetus can be considered parasitic or symbiotic depending on the circumstance.

Mother-Child Symbiosis

An amusing argument has been carried on by the scientists over the question: Is the fetus a true parasite in its relation to the mother, or does it develop in harmonious symbiosis giving some compensatory physiologic benefit to the mother? Both sides and the middle have been ably defended, but the truth seems to be that the fetus can be parasitic or symbiotic, depending on conditions.


For example, it has been shown that there is a reciprocity between the internal secretions of the mother and fetus. In diabetes in the mother, the pancreas of the fetus is able to compensate for her own lack of pancreatin.


The pancreatic glands were removed from a group of dogs and they all promptly died of diabetes except one ****. She was pregnant and manifested no signs of diabetes until the birth of her whelps, whereupon she also promptly died of diabetes. The pancreatic glands of her embryo pups supplied the needed pancreatic hormone to her body so long as they were within the womb. When their connections with the mother were severed, she could no longer draw upon them for this hormone and, so developed diabetes and died. This is a remarkable example of the harmonious symbiosis that exists between mother and fetus.


Dr. Feldman says that "during asphyxia of the mother, the fetus sends oxygen to the maternal blood." The amounts of both nitrogen and phosphorus retained by the pregnant woman is greater than during her non-pregnant state. The same is true of iron and sulphur and perhaps of all elements of the body. It is the rule that a woman's nutrition is improved during pregnancy and it is not uncommon for her ailments to disappear during this period. Investigators claim to have demonstrated the existence of placental antibodies in the mother's blood. Antibodies are supposed to increase the resistance to germs and toxins.




Shelton, Herbert M. (1975) "The Hygienic System: Orthotrophy"

I don't really have a point in saying that. The whole symbiosis thing was just an after thought - but you're right. A fetus can be considered a parasite, just as a dark-skinned man could be considered a ni***r. Both are correct terminology.

What ad hominems?

Well, you seemed to be attacking me instead of my arguments themselves.

"Hint: Use a medical dictionary."

In that case, you wouldn't have been attacking my arguments but attacking my person: an ad hominem.

 

[DarkSun]

And here we are...
Now all you needs do is prove that consent is not given.....
Good luck with that.

Maybe we should ask the dead child?

Perhaps we do at that.
If it is human and alive, it is human life.
Something tells me me your definition is a bit more complicated.

No, not really. I'd just add that if you eliminate the potential for a human life to develop, then you have in turn eliminated that human life as a knock-off effect.

A gamete doesn't have the potential to be a human until conception, so it doesn't count.

#82

I'll read it later.

Wow.
You really need to understand my position before you try to argue against it.
Otherwise you will only be making yourself look even more silly.

Perhaps you could explain your position for me? Because to me it seems as if you want to abort a fetus a few months before week 39 or so... Right?

Where would you draw the line on when a mother can abort?

Is that because you allow your feelings to rule your reason or is it because you do not know the definition of parasite outside the stereotype one?

Do you not call other people derogatory names because you allow your feelings to rule your reason, or it is because you do not know the definition of a f****wit outside of the stereotypical one?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist. )

So like I said, you are using a count the hits and ignore the misses tactic in order to create an emotional reaction.

Sad that you feel your argument is so weak you have to resort to logical fallacies.....

I personally consider Hitler, Stalin or Magabe to be good examples of the value of a human life too. So if I'd used them, my point would have been the same in my eyes. It's just that others wouldn't have gotten it.

Make sense?

Yes, because we all know how reliable emotional reactions are.
Especially with you going to great lengths to direct the reaction to being one that is favourable to your chosen agenda.

I have no agenda. Just an opinion.

Do you have an agenda?

Then why not leave gods opinion for god to present?

Yes really.
If anything it stinks of desperation.

Really?

I am waiting for the term "Sanctity of Life" to rear it's ugly head.

SANCTITY OF LIFE!

Oh no! Run away!



But really, I'm trying to avoid terms like that. I think you might understand why.

I could care less how you "feel" about my using the correct terminology over your emotional baggage arguments.

Morality isn't always purely logical.

However, I do not appreciate your flat out lie about my calling children parasites.

I never lied. It's a mean thing to call someone.

Until you have educated yourself concerning what the words in question actually mean, I fail to see any reason to continue this "discussion".

I educated myself several years ago. Can we move on now?

Hint: try using a Medical dictionary to learn how the medical field defines the words.

Okay.

Unless of course you think that the medical definitions are not adequate for your appeals to emotion.....

I understand the medical definition. But it's still cruel.

 

[DarkSun]

I just read it, and post number 82 is just a play on words. Not impressed. See you later.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And what medical benefit does the fetus provide the mother?

I don't know about medical benefit, but a fetus certainly provides an evolutionary benefit to the mother: it's a means for her to pass along her genes.

 

[McBell]

Maybe we should ask the dead child?

Like I said: Good luck with that.

No, not really. I'd just add that if you eliminate the potential for a human life to develop, then you have in turn eliminated that human life as a knock-off effect.

A gamete doesn't have the potential to be a human until conception, so it doesn't count.

What?
Seems you draw the line at conception.
Why?

Does not each and every sperm have the potential to become a zygote?
As with every single egg?
Why draw the line at conception?

Perhaps you could explain your position for me? Because to me it seems as if you want to abort a fetus a few months before week 39 or so... Right?

Where would you draw the line on when a mother can abort?

When the fetus is no longer a parasite.

Do you not call other people derogatory names because you allow your feelings to rule your reason, or it is because you do not know the definition of a f****wit outside of the stereotypical one?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist. )

Dodged like a pro.

I personally consider Hitler, Stalin or Magabe to be good examples of the value of a human life too. So if I'd used them, my point would have been the same in my eyes. It's just that others wouldn't have gotten it.

Make sense?

Makes perfect sense.
You are looking for an emotional reaction, and hitler does not produce the emotional reaction you want.

I have no agenda. Just an opinion.

Do you have an agenda?

Of course I do.
Everyone does.

SANCTITY OF LIFE!

Oh no! Run away!



But really, I'm trying to avoid terms like that. I think you might understand why.

Hopefully it is because you understand what a load of bullcrap the phrase honestly is.

Morality isn't always purely logical.

Morality is far to subjective to be of much use.

I never lied. It's a mean thing to call someone.

So what word do you think would best describe the fact that you claimed I said something I did not say?

I educated myself several years ago. Can we move on now?

I do not know.
Based upon this I can only conclude that you are intentionally being dishonest.

I understand the medical definition. But it's still cruel.

Opinions differ I suppose.

 

[McBell]

I just read it, and post number 82 is just a play on words. Not impressed. See you later.

What is there to be impressed about?

For what it is worth, I am not impressed with what the Bible has to say about killing a fetus either.

 

[logician]

No life is sacred, but all life is important. Specifying that human life is sacred and no other has given Carte Blanche to homo sapiens to destroy the rest of life on earth with impunity, with no feelings of guilt.

 

[DarkSun]

Like I said: Good luck with that.

You can't ask him/her whether he/she chose to die, because s/he's incapable of communicating in any way. And it's only logical to decide that she could not have chosen to die or have given consent, because s/he's also incapable of making a choice.

What?
Seems you draw the line at conception.
Why?

Conception is the beginning of human life because that is the point the cells of a new individual have a complete genome (ie, 46 chromosomes).

Does not each and every sperm have the potential to become a zygote?
As with every single egg?
Why draw the line at conception?

Not each sperm or oocyte has to potential to become the same life, nor does each gamete constitute the full set of DNA as characterised by humans. So no, a gamete is not a human life. But a zygote on the other hand...

When the fetus is no longer a parasite.

So at birth? But didn't you suggest earlier that you do think it's wrong to abort a fetus one day or even one week before birth?

Dodged like a pro.

I dodged nothing. I answered your question by paraphrasing what you said, yourself.

Makes perfect sense.
You are looking for an emotional reaction, and hitler does not produce the emotional reaction you want.

No, I wasn't looking for an emotional reaction, I was looking for people to understand my viewpoint. That would not have happened if I had used people like Hitler, Magabe or Stalin because of the cultural bias involved -- however -- I'm sure there are or were once people in the world who see some value in those lives. It depends on perspective.

In short, I was trying to get people to see how all life is worth something. Flushing a potential life down the toilet should be taboo.

Of course I do.
Everyone does.

Well, you caught me there.

Hopefully it is because you understand what a load of bullcrap the phrase honestly is.

No, it's because if I use terms like that, then a large portion of people would reject me outright without listening to what I have to say. You have to admit, "sanctity of life" is a phrase which has a lot of stereotypical baggage. But the fact that every life is worth something and everyone deserves to love and be loved... how is that "bullcrap"?

Morality is far to subjective to be of much use.

Yes, morality is underpinned by our values and beliefs -- which are in turn influenced by the society in which we grew up in, and our own individuality. Because of that, yes, it is subjective. However, morality is the means through which we justify any action we make. So everything we say or do is preceded by a moral dilemma, by definition.

Subjective or not, everyone makes moral decisions every second of every day. Everyone does it.

This argument on abortion is in itself, an ethical issue. As such, making ethical statements is not a bad thing, even if they don't directly correlate with your own moral frameworks.

So what word do you think would best describe the fact that you claimed I said something I did not say?

If you're referring to the fact that I said that you think it's okay to abort a baby a day before it would otherwise be born... then I'm pretty darn sure you did say that, and that you have.

When the fetus is no longer a parasite.

Would you like to ellaborate?

I do not know.
Based upon this I can only conclude that you are intentionally being dishonest.

Is everyone who disagrees with you either stupid or dishonest? Because at first you assumed I was ignorant, and now you're assuming I'm lying.

:areyoucra

Opinions differ I suppose.

At least we can agree there.

What is there to be impressed about?

For what it is worth, I am not impressed with what the Bible has to say about killing a fetus either.

*Sigh...*

Anyone who takes the OT completely literally has issues anyway.

Besides, all he did there was take two separate statements and chucked them together, while disregarding context. The Bible isn't like a legal document.

No life is sacred, but all life is important.

Define "sacred" and define "important".

Because, to me, you just contradicted yourself in one sentence.

 

[McBell]

You can't ask him/her whether he/she chose to die, because s/he's incapable of communicating in any way. And it's only logical to decide that she could not have chosen to die or have given consent, because s/he's also incapable of making a choice.

So it is a moot point?

Conception is the beginning of human life because that is the point the cells of a new individual have a complete genome (ie, 46 chromosomes).

We will have to just disagree here.
I hold that if either the sperm or egg is dead, there is no conception.

Not each sperm or oocyte has to potential to become the same life, nor does each gamete constitute the full set of DNA as characterised by humans. So no, a gamete is not a human life. But a zygote on the other hand...

Your distinction is interesting.

So at birth? But didn't you suggest earlier that you do think it's wrong to abort a fetus one day or even one week before birth?

When the fetus can survive without the mother.

I dodged nothing. I answered your question by paraphrasing what you said, yourself.

You dodged the question:

Is that because you allow your feelings to rule your reason or is it because you do not know the definition of parasite outside the stereotype one?
​

Perhaps you do not understand what the word 'dodge' means in this particular context?
It means you gave a reply, but did not answer the question.

That is EXACTLY what you did here.

No, I wasn't looking for an emotional reaction, I was looking for people to understand my viewpoint. That would not have happened if I had used people like Hitler, Magabe or Stalin because of the cultural bias involved -- however -- I'm sure there are or were once people in the world who see some value in those lives. It depends on perspective.

You merely further my point.
Thank you.

In short, I was trying to get people to see how all life is worth something. Flushing a potential life down the toilet should be taboo.

Who said that life is not worth anything?
Or is that the default position you give for those who disagree with the level of importance YOU give it?

No, it's because if I use terms like that, then a large portion of people would reject me outright without listening to what I have to say. You have to admit, "sanctity of life" is a phrase which has a lot of stereotypical baggage. But the fact that every life is worth something and everyone deserves to love and be loved... how is that "bullcrap"?

Sanctity of Life" is nothing more than a self serving bull **** story.
If you want to strawman that statement into meaning that I think life is worthless, go right ahead.

If you're referring to the fact that I said that you think it's okay to abort a baby a day before it would otherwise be born... then I'm pretty darn sure you did say that, and that you have.

Please present where I made this statement.

Would you like to ellaborate?

When the fetus can survive outside the womb.

Is everyone who disagrees with you either stupid or dishonest? Because at first you assumed I was ignorant, and now you're assuming I'm lying.

No.
I do not believe that everyone who disagrees is either lieing or stupid.

I have absolutely no problems with flat out calling someone a liar.
I have done so many times right here on RF.

I personally believe that if someone is knowingly using logical fallacies in an attempt to convince others to change their minds, that said behavior is dishonest.

If you do not like the shoes you picked out, stop wearing them.

Anyone who takes the OT completely literally has issues anyway.

Besides, all he did there was take two separate statements and chucked them together, while disregarding context. The Bible isn't like a legal document.

Back in Biblical days the people thought that the man deposited the baby into the woman.
That the woman was nothing more than an incubator for the human "seed" the man deposits.

The Bible reflects this belief.
The Bible also treats a fetus as property.
Much like a cow, pig or chicken.

Since the Bible does not treat the fetus as "sacred"...

 

[DarkSun]

So it is a moot point?

Well, it's still a human life regardless.

We will have to just disagree here.
I hold that if either the sperm or egg is dead, there is no conception.

I can see where you're coming from. I once heard someone say that life begins when the fetus' heart begins to beat on its own. It's really a really vague, subjective thing, hey?

To me, it just makes sense to draw the line at conception because that's the point where you have a complete genome. That, and when a child is first conceived it is (arguably) just as conscious as a child that is newly born. Where's the distinction in its own life there, besides the fact that one is involuntarily acting as a parasite while the other is newly born.

Your distinction is interesting.

I don't really know what to make of this... so... Thanks?

When the fetus can survive outside the womb.

When the fetus can survive without the mother.

So that's when the fetus is human to you, is it?

What about a day before it reaches this point?

And I'm pretty sure an embryo is still living off of his/her mother until birth, even if they could survive if born a bit earlier.

You dodged the question:

Is that because you allow your feelings to rule your reason or is it because you do not know the definition of parasite outside the stereotype one?
​

Perhaps you do not understand what the word 'dodge' means in this particular context?
It means you gave a reply, but did not answer the question.

That is EXACTLY what you did here.

I gave a sarcastic reply which answered your question. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough?

Would you call a black person a N***** even if it were technically correct terminology? What about someone who wasn't too bright? Would you call them a f***wit? That's technically correct. Would you call a vulnerable human being who can't function without his mother a "parasite"?

Agree to disagree, I guess.

You merely further my point.
Thank you.

No. People wouldn't have understood my point if I had used Hitler. That's the only reason why I didn't use him.

How is expressing a value for life akin to deliberately trying to get an emotional reaction? That isn't a logical fallacy at all.

Who said that life is not worth anything?

You just did? :sarcastic

I never said that, and nor did I say that you see things that way, either.

Or is that the default position you give for those who disagree with the level of importance YOU give it?

Nope.

Sanctity of Life" is nothing more than a self serving bull **** story.

It's "self-serving" to value life? :sarcastic

And no, I'm not saying that you don't value life here. Please don't misunderstand.

If you want to strawman that statement into meaning that I think life is worthless, go right ahead.

Erm... when have I ever suggested that you don't value life?

Please present where I made this statement.

Pending.

No.
I do not believe that everyone who disagrees is either lieing or stupid.

I have absolutely no problems with flat out calling someone a liar.
I have done so many times right here on RF.

Nice to meet you, too.

I personally believe that if someone is knowingly using logical fallacies in an attempt to convince others to change their minds, that said behavior is dishonest.

But I'm not using a logical fallacy. How was I looking for an emotional reaction there? And I've admitted that Hitler, Magabe and the like work well in my example too -- it's just that other people would disagree, so I didn't use them.

If you do not like the shoes you picked out, stop wearing them.

I like these shoes... they're white... and stuff...

Don't you like my shoes? :sad4:

Back in Biblical days the people thought that the man deposited the baby into the woman.
That the woman was nothing more than an incubator for the human "seed" the man deposits.

The Bible reflects this belief.
The Bible also treats a fetus as property.
Much like a cow, pig or chicken.

Since the Bible does not treat the fetus as "sacred"...

Back in the day, they also said it was okay to bash your slave with a stick as long as they got up after a day or two.

Sorry, but no. The OT should be read in context, and not taken literally. It's not a legal document.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Conception is the beginning of human life because that is the point the cells of a new individual have a complete genome (ie, 46 chromosomes).

This argument also applies to tumours: a tumour has a complete genome that's distinct from the person it developed from.

Unless you're okay with implying that tumours are human lives, you may want to re-work your definition.