Life Begins at Conception

[McBell]

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

You are not paying paying attention.
It takes a HUMAN sperm to fertilize a HUMAN egg.
At no time during the process does it become something OTHER than human

What about a day before it reaches this point?

What about it?

What about the nanosecond 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 asked where I draw the line.
I told you.

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

I disagree.
Not with the sarcasm, but that it answered the question.

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"?

You feelings of insult have nothing to do with it.
Especially given the subjectivity of what you consider an insult.

Personally, I do not consider any slang term to be "technically" correct.

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

I disagree.
You did not use Hitler because using Hitler would not have gotten the reaction you wanted.
In fact, it would have gotten the opposite reaction.

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

Nice strawman.

You use appeals to emotion.
That is why you chose to NOT use Hitler.

You just did? :sarcastic

No I didn't.

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

Fair enough.

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

As a matter of fact it is.
Though that is not my problem with it.
My problem is the Bull **** part.

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

My apologies for the misunderstanding.

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.

Even if you were to use Hitler, it would still be an appeal to emotion fallacy.
It would just likely get the opposite reaction you were looking for.

Back in the day, they also said it was okay to bach 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.

I understand that you do not like that the Bible treats the fetus as mere property.
But that does not change the fact that it does.

 

[DarkSun]

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.

Okay. So, what are the odds of a legion of cancerous cells mutating in such a way that they become a human child, as they metastasize?

I don't think a fetus and a tumour are quite the same thing, but anyway.

I'll respond to the rest later.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I think there is a huge difference between life and sentient life.

Your skin cells are "alive", but they are not sentient. But the totality of all your cells combined form a sentient human being. A being capable of feeling and thinking and that is self-aware.

I draw the line for abortion at sentience. As soon as a fetus is sentient, abortion should be off the table.

 

[DarkSun]

I think there is a huge difference between life and sentient life.

Your skin cells are "alive", but they are not sentient. But the totality of all your cells combined form a sentient human being. A being capable of feeling and thinking and that is self-aware.

I draw the line for abortion at sentience. As soon as a fetus is sentient, abortion should be off the table.

Most infants wouldn't be considered sentient or self aware, even after they're born.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Most infants wouldn't be considered sentient or self aware, even after they're born.

How are infants not sentient? Do they not have feeling?

 

[DarkSun]

How are infants not sentient? Do they not have feeling?

Immediately after birth you only have the ability to cry, breathe and eat. How is that sentience? In no way are you "self-aware".

 

[McBell]

Immediately after birth you only have the ability to cry, breathe and eat. How is that sentience? In no way are you "self-aware".

source please.

And no, "common sense" will not suffice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay. So, what are the odds of a legion of cancerous cells mutating in such a way that they become a human child, as they metastasize?

So low as to be a virtual impossibility, but this wasn't a factor in your rationale before.

I don't think a fetus and a tumour are quite the same thing, but anyway.

Neither do I. I also don't base my valuation of human life on chromosomes. I may base it in part on people's attributes that are a result of chromosomes, but not on the chromosomes themselves.

 

[logician]

Whether a mother should abort should be decided by the mother.

 

[Sententia]

Whether a mother should abort should be decided by the mother.

Agreed. Its a difficult decision any way about it. What if the fetus is developing in a fallopian tube or will die minutes after birth due to some defect? Those are just medical reasons and there are plenty more.

There are other reasons such as the result of rape etc. Honestly its the mothers decision and the choice should be left to her and her doctors. The father may be allowed input but not necessarily.

 

[elisheba]

if you want to use reason and science --all the laws in the Hebrew Bible are for our health ( physical,social,financial,mental,spiritual)

 

[McBell]

if you want to use reason and science --all the laws in the Hebrew Bible are for our health ( physical,social,financial,mental,spiritual)

Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.

Yep...for our health....

 

[DarkSun]

source please.

Read pages one to three of this article, here.

Also, work by Piaget seems to imply a very limited amount of self awareness at the time of birth, if any.

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA...-02.topicArticleId-26831,articleId-26765.html

Also, while it might be a bit outdated, work by William James (1890) affirms what I said.

So low as to be a virtual impossibility, but this wasn't a factor in your rationale before.

Neither do I. I also don't base my valuation of human life on chromosomes. I may base it in part on people's attributes that are a result of chromosomes, but not on the chromosomes themselves.

Okay. So at what point would you say these human attributes appear in the fetus? 35 weeks? 39 weeks? At birth?


Sorry, I don't really have the time to respond to the rest.

Ciao.

 

[elisheba]

" Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.

Yep...for our health...."

This would involve our emotional health. It is psychologically unhealthy to be ungrateful or to have our loyalty divided.

 

[elisheba]

All surgeries are potentially dangerous.

Abortion is unnecessary surgery.

It has never been considered wise to remove healthy flesh.

Abortion raises a woman's cancer and suicide risk.

I believe there are people who like abortion because it prevents minorities from populating and becoming a majority.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Abortion is unnecessary surgery.

Even when the mother's health is in danger?

It has never been considered wise to remove healthy flesh.

When my father was alive and had cancer, the doctors told us they'd also remove some non-cancerous tissue if possible as well to try and ensure they got all the cancer removed.

What about skin grafts?

Abortion raises a woman's cancer and suicide risk.

Source?

I believe there are people who like abortion because it prevents minorities from populating and becoming a majority.

Whoa. Back up here. Who said minorities are more likely to get abortions? Has this been statistically verified? Or is this thinly cloaked racism?

 

[DarkSun]

You are not paying paying attention.
It takes a HUMAN sperm to fertilize a HUMAN egg.
At no time during the process does it become something OTHER than human

So it's human, but not a human life? Well, at least we agree that by aborting a child, you're "destroying" something human. And yeah, I'll stop using the word "kill" if you don't like it.

What about it?

What about the nanosecond before it reaches this point?

Thanks for pointing out the problem that I see with your view. There really isn't much difference between the child when it is able to be born, and the child a nanosecond before that point, is there?

You asked where I draw the line.
I told you.

And what about the nanosecond before that point? Is it okay to "destroy" the child then?

I disagree.
Not with the sarcasm, but that it answered the question.
You feelings of insult have nothing to do with it.
Especially given the subjectivity of what you consider an insult.

Okay. Well, I could call a hermaphrodite a freak of nature. That would be correct terminology. And it wouldn't be slang either. But it would still be an insult, because of the negative connotations associated with the word: "freak", right?

It's the same as calling a fetus a parasite, in my eyes. Yes, it is still correct terminology, but above all else, it's still a potential human life -- if not a human life in and of itself.

Personally, I do not consider any slang term to be "technically" correct.

Whether you consider slang terms to be correct is irrelevant. That wasn't my point. It never has been.

I disagree.

Well, of course, you know best.

You did not use Hitler because using Hitler would not have gotten the reaction you wanted.
In fact, it would have gotten the opposite reaction.

No. I didn't use Hitler because not many people would have understood my point if I had. I wanted people to see where I'm coming from: that there is a certain value the lives of others. Whether he would have gotten the same reaction or not is just an extension of that aim.

Nice strawman.

You're seeing things.

You use appeals to emotion.
That is why you chose to NOT use Hitler.

No it isn't. Please don't make me repeat myself again. :sarcastic

As a matter of fact it is.
Though that is not my problem with it.
My problem is the Bull **** part.

Would you like to elaborate on why it is "bulls*** " to care for other people and to value human life? I'm afraid I'm not following.

My apologies for the misunderstanding.

Haha, don't worry about it. I'm the guy who mistakenly claimed there was such a thing as a six month old human fetus.

Even if you were to use Hitler, it would still be an appeal to emotion fallacy.
It would just likely get the opposite reaction you were looking for.

I understand that you do not like that the Bible treats the fetus as mere property.
But that does not change the fact that it does.

The same book of the Bible that you're sourcing that from also suggests that it's okay to bash a slave with a stick as long as he gets up after a couple of days. I somehow doubt its validity. If you could find something from the Canon I'd put more weight on what you're saying.

 

[DarkSun]

Even when the mother's health is in danger?

Fair enough, but what about the child? Shouldn't we factor him or her into the equation, even if it can't speak for itself?

When my father was alive and had cancer, the doctors told us they'd also remove some non-cancerous tissue if possible as well to try and ensure they got all the cancer removed.

What about skin grafts?

A human child is not cancer.

Neither is a piece of skin.

These are two completely different things that you're equating.

Source?

Well, mothers can face emotional problems once aborting. Look it up yourself if you don't believe it.

Whoa. Back up here. Who said minorities are more likely to get abortions? Has this been statistically verified? Or is this thinly cloaked racism?

Yeah, I don't know what he's talking about either. :sarcastic
I think he must be referring to his own local community wherein only a minority will abort. He's probably making his judgements based on that.

 

[Bware]

Bacteria doesn't have the 46 chromosomes that make up a human being. The zygote is human. It's alive. It's therefore a living human being. It is that fact, not the tricky matter of defining sentience, that stands behind the view that the zygote has rights over against the mother. There is literally no basis of comparison between a human zygote and a bacterium, so let's just stop it with the red herrings, aaight?

Okay let the flaming begin!:candle: If you guys think that life begins at conception then why don't we have funerals for the dead child when a woman has a miscarriage?

 

[Bware]

Well, yeah, but what does that change? If you want to extend the "sanctity of life" to sperm cells, then masturbation = holocaust.

I was just getting ready to say the same thing. Lol