Life Begins at Conception

[Bware]

Exactly, and people need to mind their own business and take care of their own responsibilitites, rather than constantly sticking their noses where they don't belong.

Agreed 100%!:clap

 

[Vile Atheist]

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?

If it's sentient, sure. But if it's not, it's a-okay.

Besides, this wasn't elisheba's point. Her point was that abortion is unnecessary and I pointed out a case in which it can be necessary.

A human child is not cancer.

Neither is a piece of skin.

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

Strawman. I never said a human child was cancer and you're intentionally misrepresenting my points towards elisheba's arguments. Her argument was that it's never good to remove flesh.

Cancer and skin-grafts are perfect counter-examples.

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

If only my professors allow me to source like this.

Again, her argument was that abortion raises cancer and suicide risk. Being emotional is not - to my knowledge - cancerous. And what empirical data is there to suggest that of those emotional mothers, most commit suicide?

Furthermore you completely neglect other factors like the financial, social, mental, emotional, and physical burden of raising a child you were never ready for in the first place. How many mothers commit suicide after having a baby they aren't ready for? Which statistic is higher?

You haven't provided me with a source nor have you discounted the possibility of a woman being forced to carry a child having increased suicide rates, which would negate elisheba's entire argument.

No, when I ask for a source, I want a peer-reviewed article from a scientific journal. Not your speculation.

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.

If so, that's a blanket generalization. Obviously what is significant only in his/her community will not be the case globally.

 

[DarkSun]

If it's sentient, sure. But if it's not, it's a-okay.

Besides, this wasn't elisheba's point. Her point was that abortion is unnecessary and I pointed out a case in which it can be necessary.

Okay, I see what you mean there. But I still say that the act of having an abortion is wrong because you are "destroying" a potential child. Again, gametes don't count because they don't have the full human genome, even if there is the possibility that one could become a human.

Strawman. I never said a human child was cancer and you're intentionally misrepresenting my points towards elisheba's arguments. Her argument was that it's never good to remove flesh.

Cancer and skin-grafts are perfect counter-examples.

The way I understood her argument was that she was referring to human life. To which you responded that it's okay to remove a cancerous legion, so why not a human fetus.

How are you not equating a fetus with cancer in this case? Or did I misunderstand?

If only my professors allow me to source like this.

:sarcastic I haven't sourced anything. I just stated the fact that I know, that mothers who abort can go through some psychological problems.

Here are some links on Post Abortion Syndrome:

http://www.cirtl.org/syndrome.html

This link provides a good background to PAS.

Unbound MEDLINE | Post abortion syndrome. Journal article
(Health Matrix 1989; 7(2):47-8.)

That journal article was written by a sufferer of PAS.

Unbound MEDLINE | The course of mental health after miscarriage and induced abortion: a longitudinal, five-year follow-up study. Journal article
(Broen AN, Moum T, Bødtker AS, Ekeberg O, et al. 2005)

This journal article shows some scientific research done, which affirms the existence of PAS.


Honestly, if you want more proof, just look it up yourself. Sorry, I have better things to do, and I think you're being a bit lazy, lol.

By the way, no, I'm not saying that all people who have an abortion will have psychological problems some time in the future. I'm just saying that a significant amount will.

And just to clarify, this was not my argument to begin with. I was just trying to explain the poster's point.

Again, her argument was that abortion raises cancer and suicide risk.

Well, I don't know about cancer... :sarcastic

Being emotional is not - to my knowledge - cancerous. And what empirical data is there to suggest that of those emotional mothers, most commit suicide?

He/she said that it rasies suicide risk. She never said that most people who have an abortion will commit suicide.

There is ample empirical data to support this. It took me five minutes to find it on Google. Maybe you could give it a go, hey?

Furthermore you completely neglect other factors like the financial, social, mental, emotional, and physical burden of raising a child you were never ready for in the first place. How many mothers commit suicide after having a baby they aren't ready for? Which statistic is higher?

Oh... so you want the suicide rate for mothers who were "forced" have a child they didn't want, versus the suicide rate for mothers who have had an abortion?

Personally, I don't think that's too relevant, myself. Even if the former statistic were higher than the latter, the mothers who had an abortion would have killed a human life -- just because they didn't want him or her for whatever reason.

I'm not being judgemental or anything. I'm sure that a lot of mothers who want an abortion felt they had no other choice. Maybe some were raped, maybe some are still teenagers, maybe some feel they aren't ready... and ultimately, it is their choice whether they destroy the human life developing inside them. But how does their circumstance negate the fact that they have destroyed a human life?

No, when I ask for a source, I want a peer-reviewed article from a scientific journal. Not your speculation.

My speculation is based on scientific journals and other valid sources, you cocky little prude.

If so, that's a blanket generalization. Obviously what is significant only in his/her community will not be the case globally.

I agree with you there. Maybe she could explain herself...?

 

[Bware]

:sarcastic I haven't sourced anything. I just stated the fact that I know, that mothers who abort can go through some psychological problems.

By the way, no, I'm not saying that all people who have an abortion will have psychological problems some time in the future. I'm just saying that a significant amount will.

All of these women probably were not 100% what they wanted to do. They were probably pushed into getting an abortion by their parents, or significant others. So of course they feel guilty, if it's not something that you 100% feel okay with, then don't do it.

I'm not being judgemental or anything. I'm sure that a lot of mothers who want an abortion felt they had no other choice. Maybe some were raped, maybe some are still teenagers, maybe some feel they aren't ready... and ultimately, it is their choice whether they destroy the human life developing inside them. But how does their circumstance negate the fact that they have destroyed a human life?

Oh noo, you don't sound judgemental at all, nope not one bit..
I would love to see if your opinion would change if you had to go through this same situation. Will you still be "pro-life" when your taxes skyrocket because of all the healthcare/wellfare/foodstamps/subsidized housing/etc that these teen mothers/babys are going to be forced to use because they can't afford to live on their own to support themselves, let alone a child. Then what about college? oh I guess that goes out the window too, dang. Looks like more welfare coming out of your YOUR taxes. Let's see your opinion stay the same then.

 

[logician]

Life is not sacred.

 

[elisheba]

My original statement was that it has never been considered good medicine to remove HEALTHY flesh.
I believe science backs up most sacred writings. The problem is that medicine is not a 100% accurate science. The last time I sat in a government sponsored seminar for healthcare workers we were told that 50 % of the deaths in this country ( USA ) are caused by medical error. We don't always know what is exactly going on in our bodies and even less in our wombs.
Do you know that there are more than 30 STDs and we only have tests for about 6 of them ! What are the others doing to us ?
So, for a medical person to tell a woman that her pregnancy is going to hurt her or that her baby is abnormal is not thinking clearly. They cannot possibly know for sure. Doctors have been in gross error in the past and a normal baby was born. They also have a conflict of interest ( financial ).

 

[Vile Atheist]

Okay, I see what you mean there. But I still say that the act of having an abortion is wrong because you are "destroying" a potential child. Again, gametes don't count because they don't have the full human genome, even if there is the possibility that one could become a human.

How can you destroy a child that doesn't exist? I don't get this "potential child" argument. If it's a potential child, that means it is a child that "may come into being". If it isn't yet into being, you cannot destroy a child.

The way I understood her argument was that she was referring to human life. To which you responded that it's okay to remove a cancerous legion, so why not a human fetus.

How are you not equating a fetus with cancer in this case? Or did I misunderstand?

As she clarified in the post above this one just after your own (and that post I will get to after I'm finished with this one) - she meant it's never a good thing to remove healthy flesh.

Skin grafts involve the removal of healthy flesh and are a very good thing. One can make a case for organ transplants - especially from recently deceased people - being a good thing. Her point is demonstrably wrong.

Honestly, if you want more proof, just look it up yourself. Sorry, I have better things to do, and I think you're being a bit lazy, lol.

By the way, no, I'm not saying that all people who have an abortion will have psychological problems some time in the future. I'm just saying that a significant amount will.

And just to clarify, this was not my argument to begin with. I was just trying to explain the poster's point.

You missed my point entirely. I never said I did not acknowledge the existence of the suffering of mothers after they abort. I asked you for a source of statistics on the numbers of mothers who suffer after they abort. Furthermore, I asked you if you had considered mothers who DIDN'T abort suffering emotional damage because they are being forced to support a child they were not ready for. I don't know if there are any statistics done on that.

However, you are making your own argument, not me. So it's your obligation to provide sources for what you say, not mine. It has nothing to do with laziness.

Well, I don't know about cancer... :sarcastic

It is her obligation to provide a source for that statement, not either of us.

He/she said that it rasies suicide risk. She never said that most people who have an abortion will commit suicide.

There is ample empirical data to support this. It took me five minutes to find it on Google. Maybe you could give it a go, hey?

Perhaps my wording was a little floppy. By "most" I was implying that she meant the statistic was significant. Again, it's not my job to search for sources for her own claims. Ask me for a source of any claim I make and I'll provide it for you. If it's only my opinion, I'll say so.

Next, I'm pretty confident that's what she was getting at. She wouldn't be arguing against it so fervently if she didn't believe the statistic to be so significant.

Oh... so you want the suicide rate for mothers who were "forced" have a child they didn't want, versus the suicide rate for mothers who have had an abortion?

Yes.

Personally, I don't think that's too relevant, myself. Even if the former statistic were higher than the latter, the mothers who had an abortion would have killed a human life -- just because they didn't want him or her for whatever reason.

I think it's perfectly relevant. If someone is using this as their basis to argue against abortion, then we ought to compare the effects of aborting vs not aborting.

And I thought you said it was "potential" human life? Now we're at full-blown murder? You keep oscillating between the two, using each flippantly. Which is it? And it's usually not because the mother doesn't want the child, it's because the mother usually cannot afford to keep the child - afford it financially, physically, mentally, socially, emotionally...

I'm not being judgemental or anything. I'm sure that a lot of mothers who want an abortion felt they had no other choice. Maybe some were raped, maybe some are still teenagers, maybe some feel they aren't ready... and ultimately, it is their choice whether they destroy the human life developing inside them. But how does their circumstance negate the fact that they have destroyed a human life?

You yourself admitted earlier it wasn't a human life. Just "potential" for human life. Why the sudden change of argument? Sorry, if I have the "potential" finances to buy a car, it's not the same as me zipping around town in a Lambourghini. I don't know how you cannot see that.

My speculation is based on scientific journals and other valid sources, you cocky little prude.

Allow me to clarify, then. When I ask for a source, I expect you to LIST the scientific journal/other valid source you are basing your speculation from.

I agree with you there. Maybe she could explain herself...?

Maybe she could, if she had a point...

 

[Vile Atheist]

I would love to see if your opinion would change if you had to go through this same situation. Will you still be "pro-life" when your taxes skyrocket because of all the healthcare/wellfare/foodstamps/subsidized housing/etc that these teen mothers/babys are going to be forced to use because they can't afford to live on their own to support themselves, let alone a child. Then what about college? oh I guess that goes out the window too, dang. Looks like more welfare coming out of your YOUR taxes. Let's see your opinion stay the same then.

I agree with your stance, but for different reasons. I don't think money should be our primary concern.

 

[Vile Atheist]

My original statement was that it has never been considered good medicine to remove HEALTHY flesh.
I believe science backs up most sacred writings. The problem is that medicine is not a 100% accurate science. The last time I sat in a government sponsored seminar for healthcare workers we were told that 50 % of the deaths in this country ( USA ) are caused by medical error. We don't always know what is exactly going on in our bodies and even less in our wombs.
Do you know that there are more than 30 STDs and we only have tests for about 6 of them ! What are the others doing to us ?
So, for a medical person to tell a woman that her pregnancy is going to hurt her or that her baby is abnormal is not thinking clearly. They cannot possibly know for sure. Doctors have been in gross error in the past and a normal baby was born. They also have a conflict of interest ( financial ).

Never had a loved one undergo a skin graft or organ transplant? Lucky you. Nonetheless, explain to me how skin grafts and organ transplants from recently deceased people - or even animals - is "bad medicine". And please list for me the scientific journal that states this.

What do STDs have to do with abortion? This is a red herring. Please stick to the issue at hand.

Wow. You have just offered a great argument for socialized medicine because there is no financial conflict of interest. So your argument doesn't really apply to any industrialized Western country outside of the US. The rate of medical error is much lower in Canada. Here's a source that would be biased in YOUR ARGUMENTS FAVOUR. It's a medical lawyer's blog in Halifax. He's basically trying to encourage people to sue doctors for malpractice. So you know these numbers are going to be skewed a little high. And even when they are probably skewed high, they still come nowhere near 50% as you claim happens in the US.

How Often Does Medical Malpractice Happen in Canada? :: Halifax Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

A report by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) indicated that nearly one quarter of Canadian adults (5.2 million people) reported that they, or a member of their family, had experienced a “preventable adverse event” (medical error).

And this is 25%. Reported by people with probably little to no medical knowledge, thinking the doctor just probably screwed up. So we can still see some bias in favour of your own argument. And yet, the numbers come nowhere near 50% in the US. Either your source is unreliable or the US has crappier healthcare than I had originally thought.

And do you think doctors wait until they know what something is for 100% sure before attempting treatment? They administer basic tests to rule out ordinary causes. They give you low side-effect medication based on what it might probably be. If you go to the doctor with a headache, he's probably going to give you Tylenol. If you keep having repeated headaches, he's going to do more tests and see what else it could be, other than ordinary causes. Time is of the essence. Especially when dealing with situations that are potentially terminal.

 

[elisheba]

Although herring is kosher, it is you who is serving it. I am speaking of REMOVING healthy flesh, not adding dead flesh. That is another issue.

The STD information is in regard to not knowing what is going on in our bodies. The medical media want us to think that if we use baggies on our reproductive organs we will be protected. If we are so protected, why do they want us to have routine STD tests if we are using our reproductive organs in a socially active way. Do we keep testing UNTIL we find a positive result ?

The modern way of ordering tests is the lazy, fearful way to make a diagnosis. Doctors used to use observation and instinct. I am a nurse and I have only known 2 of these kind of doctors in my life.

If people observed basic health rules they would rarely need a doctor.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Although herring is kosher, it is you who is serving it. I am speaking of REMOVING healthy flesh, not adding dead flesh. That is another issue.

Sorry, the extent of my culinary prowess is Kraft Dinner and grilled cheese.

Then address organ transplants.

The STD information is in regard to not knowing what is going on in our bodies. The medical media want us to think that if we use baggies on our reproductive organs we will be protected. If we are so protected, why do they want us to have routine STD tests if we are using our reproductive organs in a socially active way. Do we keep testing UNTIL we find a positive result ?

How do you not recognize this as a herring? It has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

The modern way of ordering tests is the lazy, fearful way to make a diagnosis. Doctors used to use observation and instinct. I am a nurse and I have only known 2 of these kind of doctors in my life.

A combination of the US medical system and a culture geared towards suing the testicles off anyone who comes within a five mile radius. Doctors obviously don't want to make mistakes that will cost somebody's life and their job and livelihood and all they worked hard to achieve.

If people observed basic health rules they would rarely need a doctor.

Somewhat agree, but this has - again - nothing to do with abortion.

 

[elisheba]

It has to do with a doctor advising abortion to save a mother's life or because he believes that the child is abnormal and would not live a normal life.

It also means not trusting a doctor who would perform an abortion because he took an oath to do no harm.

On the American Cancer Society website it states that there is proof that the more children a woman has and the earlier she starts - reduces her cancer risk.

 

[Vile Atheist]

It has to do with a doctor advising abortion to save a mother's life or because he believes that the child is abnormal and would not live a normal life.

It also means not trusting a doctor who would perform an abortion because he took an oath to do no harm.

On the American Cancer Society website it states that there is proof that the more children a woman has and the earlier she starts - reduces her cancer risk.

In that case, the doctor is overstepping his bounds. The doctor is not to give his personal opinion on anything other than medical matters. The doctor is there to inform the patient of risks and benefits of abortion and to work with the patient to weigh options.

If you don't want to trust doctors, that's your business. By your logic, when a doctor gives you medication to cure some abominable disease and there are some minor side-effects, you shouldn't trust that doctor. That doctor has done harm to you, obviously.

And of course, we should all have endless sex to produce children, paying no regard as to how these children are going to be looked after in a world where orphanages are already overflowing. Impeccable logic, really. It does reduce cancer risk, after all. In fact, you're making a good case for pedophilia. The earlier she starts, after all, the lesser the cancer risk.

 

[McBell]

It also means not trusting a doctor who would perform an abortion because he took an oath to do no harm.

Interesting.
Next you will claim that removing someone from life support is playing god...

On the American Cancer Society website it states that there is proof that the more children a woman has and the earlier she starts - reduces her cancer risk.

You will have to present the actual link to the actual American Cancer Society site that makes this claim because I have not been able to find it.

 

[DarkSun]

All of these women probably were not 100% what they wanted to do. They were probably pushed into getting an abortion by their parents, or significant others. So of course they feel guilty, if it's not something that you 100% feel okay with, then don't do it.

Do you have a source that suggests the only reason any woman can be diagnosed PAS is if they were not completely for the abortion to begin with?

Oh noo, you don't sound judgemental at all, nope not one bit..
I would love to see if your opinion would change if you had to go through this same situation. Will you still be "pro-life" when your taxes skyrocket because of all the healthcare/wellfare/foodstamps/subsidized housing/etc that these teen mothers/babys are going to be forced to use because they can't afford to live on their own to support themselves, let alone a child. Then what about college? oh I guess that goes out the window too, dang. Looks like more welfare coming out of your YOUR taxes. Let's see your opinion stay the same then.

You missed my point.

I was saying even if you do have a valid reason to have an abortion (for example, if you were raped, if you're not earning enough to support two people, etcetera) -- how are you not destroying a human life.

I was not saying that they wouldn't have had a valid reason. Just that their reasoning doesn't negate the fact that that's what they're doing.

 

[DarkSun]

Life is not sacred.

Maybe if you replaced the word "sacred" with "valuable"?

 

[DarkSun]

How can you destroy a child that doesn't exist? I don't get this "potential child" argument. If it's a potential child, that means it is a child that "may come into being". If it isn't yet into being, you cannot destroy a child.

As she clarified in the post above this one just after your own (and that post I will get to after I'm finished with this one) - she meant it's never a good thing to remove healthy flesh.

Skin grafts involve the removal of healthy flesh and are a very good thing. One can make a case for organ transplants - especially from recently deceased people - being a good thing. Her point is demonstrably wrong.

You missed my point entirely. I never said I did not acknowledge the existence of the suffering of mothers after they abort. I asked you for a source of statistics on the numbers of mothers who suffer after they abort. Furthermore, I asked you if you had considered mothers who DIDN'T abort suffering emotional damage because they are being forced to support a child they were not ready for. I don't know if there are any statistics done on that.

However, you are making your own argument, not me. So it's your obligation to provide sources for what you say, not mine. It has nothing to do with laziness.

It is her obligation to provide a source for that statement, not either of us.

Perhaps my wording was a little floppy. By "most" I was implying that she meant the statistic was significant. Again, it's not my job to search for sources for her own claims. Ask me for a source of any claim I make and I'll provide it for you. If it's only my opinion, I'll say so.

Next, I'm pretty confident that's what she was getting at. She wouldn't be arguing against it so fervently if she didn't believe the statistic to be so significant.

Yes.

I think it's perfectly relevant. If someone is using this as their basis to argue against abortion, then we ought to compare the effects of aborting vs not aborting.

And I thought you said it was "potential" human life? Now we're at full-blown murder? You keep oscillating between the two, using each flippantly. Which is it? And it's usually not because the mother doesn't want the child, it's because the mother usually cannot afford to keep the child - afford it financially, physically, mentally, socially, emotionally...

You yourself admitted earlier it wasn't a human life. Just "potential" for human life. Why the sudden change of argument? Sorry, if I have the "potential" finances to buy a car, it's not the same as me zipping around town in a Lambourghini. I don't know how you cannot see that.

Allow me to clarify, then. When I ask for a source, I expect you to LIST the scientific journal/other valid source you are basing your speculation from.

Maybe she could, if she had a point...

1 - By definition, murder is the act of taking life away from another person, without their consent and with premeditation. I personally view the fetus as a human life from the moment it is conceived. Therefore, to destroy that life is akin to murder - even if it is not looked upon as harshly.

2 - Personally, I see no difference between a child directly after birth and a child one week before birth. Both are human, both are equally "self aware" and sentient, so each should be treated just as humanely as the other. For this reason, to kill a newborn is no different from killing a twenty-week-old fetus. In both instances, you would be wrong to do such a thing.

3- I keep using the word "potential life' as well as the word "life" because I see the two words as the same thing. If you take away the potential for a human to develop into a complete human, then you have in turn killed that human - in much the same way that if you killed a child at birth, you would have killed that child.

4 - A gamete doesn't have the potential to be a life until conception where it acquires the full human genome, therefore, the human's life begins at conception. Sure, the human may not be as developed during embryonic development, but it is still a human life.

5 - I understand that mothers who feel they have to abort must feel they have no choice but to abort. And they probably have very valid reasons to do so, as well. But that does not negate the fact that in aborting their child, they would have been taking away a human life. So by definition of the word murder, they are killing another human -- even if they might be justified in doing so.

6 - I really can't be bothered listing statistics. I have to go study now. Bye.

 

[McBell]

4 - A gamete doesn't have the potential to be a life until conception where it acquires the full human genome, therefore, the human's life begins at conception. Sure, the human may not be as developed during embryonic development, but it is still a human life.

Um...
If a gamete isn't a potential life then there cannot be an "until" ....

The presence of the word "until" means that YES it does have the potential to a life.

 

[DarkSun]

Um...
If a gamete isn't a potential life then there cannot be an "until" ....

The presence of the word "until" means that YES it does have the potential to a life.

What if you put a zygote in an artificial womb with the same concentrations of chemicals, nutrients, hormones, antibodies that you would find in a mother? Could it then become human?

Now. If you put a gamete in the same circumstance, giving it all the nutrients it needs to survive - will it become human?

 

[Vile Atheist]

That's the point. You're asking "Will it become human?". That implies it's not already human. Therefore, there shouldn't be much of a problem, here.