Life Begins at Conception

[Vile Atheist]

Reproductive cloning is just another form of fertilization. In which case you would have a zygote which is developing into a human life. Not a cell.

What should this matter? Either way, it's all a "potential" for human life.

 

[DarkSun]

I'm going now. I'm starting to repeat myself. And I'm behind in everything. Which is never good.

Ciao.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Hell, two teenagers dating is "potential" for human life.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I'm going now. I'm starting to repeat myself. And I'm behind in everything. Which is never good.

Ciao.

I'm calling it quits - at least for tonight - too. It's 4:30 am and I work in the morning. Catch ya later.

 

[DarkSun]

I'm calling it quits - at least for tonight - too. It's 4:30 am and I work in the morning. Catch ya later.

Sayonara.

 

[McBell]

Are you being deliberately dense?

Nope.
Unlike you I am not changing what I say every other post.....

What don't you understand about that?

I understand it just fine.
Problem is that that is NOT what you were saying.
It may have been what you MEANT to say, but it is NOT what your WERE saying.

Yes. The potential to become a human life is there. After conception.

The potential is also there before conception, because if there was no potential before conception, there would be no conception.

No. It was a human zygote. And the gamete was a human cell - which could not develop into an individual human until conception. Which is my entire point.

Yes.
But this is the first time you actually SAID IT.

 

[DarkSun]

Nope.
Unlike you I am not changing what I say every other post.....

Please outline where you think I'm changing what I say?

I understand it just fine.
Problem is that that is NOT what you were saying.
It may have been what you MEANT to say, but it is NOT what your WERE saying.

The potential is also there before conception, because if there was no potential before conception, there would be no conception.

When you can put a single gamete into an artificial environment wherein a zygote would normally develop - and have that gamete develop into a human life -- when you can do that -- then I will acknowledge that there is the potential for a single, isolated gamete to become human. Until you have done that, then the potential to become human will only arise after conception, because a gamete alone cannot become human without the other gamete.

I understand what you're saying, though. You're saying that following my reasoning, life may begin before conception because a gamete has the potential to become a zygote, which can in turn become a human life. But until the gamete has joined with another gamete, then life can never even begin to develop -- which is why I disagree with you.

Yes.
But this is the first time you actually SAID IT.

Really? :areyoucra

 

[DarkSun]

Look, you made the claim that it is not a potential life until both gametes join.
That is flat out false, not true, wrong, incorrect.

Well, as I've said. When you can take a single isolated gamete and make it become a human through artificial embryonic development, then I will acknowledge that a gamete has the potential to become a human.

As it is, a single gamete alone does not have the potential to become human. But. When you add the other gamete, at conception, the resulting zygote does have the potential. Therefore, the potential for a human life begins at conception.

And since taking away a life which would have otherwise existed were it not for intervention is akin to murder, to take away a potential life is akin to taking away a fully developed life. In other words, life begins to develop at conception. Life itself begins at conception.

each gamete still has the POTENTIAL to join with the right gamete to become a human.
though you STILL have not told me what it is BEFORE it is human.

I really don't feel like repeating myself. Sorry.

 

[Bware]

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

It shouldn't be, you're right. I was just using that as an example. It seems that alot of people have this holier than though attitude towards abortion and they think that these people should all be forced to have the babys and they are committing murder. They preach and preach and never have to go through it themselves. My point was that if something got done about it, such as making abortion illegal, once these same people started getting affected by this I think they would change their tunes. That's all I meant.

 

[Bware]

I noticed that still none of the pro lifers have answered my question I posted a few days ago in this thread. So I will ask it again.

If life is so sacred to you people, and it begins at conception as you say, then why don't we have funerals and mourn miscarriages?

 

[DarkSun]

I noticed that still none of the pro lifers have answered my question I posted a few days ago in this thread. So I will ask it again.

If life is so sacred to you people, and it begins at conception as you say, then why don't we have funerals and mourn miscarriages?

Because funerals are for the people left behind, not for the person who died. The aborted child doesn't have anyone to mourn for him or her, because no one has been impacted by him or her in the first place. So a funeral would be pointless.

 

[Storm]

I noticed that still none of the pro lifers have answered my question I posted a few days ago in this thread. So I will ask it again.

If life is so sacred to you people, and it begins at conception as you say, then why don't we have funerals and mourn miscarriages?

I'm not pro-life, but I have had two miscarriages. Believe me, you do mourn.

 

[McBell]

Well, as I've said. When you can take a single isolated gamete and make it become a human through artificial embryonic development, then I will acknowledge that a gamete has the potential to become a human.

Right here is a prime example of you ADDING all manner of stuff to your argument, thus changing the dynamics of your argument...

It seems to me that what you actually say and what you mean to say are all to often two different things....

As it is, a single gamete alone does not have the potential to become human. But. When you add the other gamete, at conception, the resulting zygote does have the potential. Therefore, the potential for a human life begins at conception.

Here again, you ADDED the word "alone" in order to change the dynamic of your argument.

And since taking away a life which would have otherwise existed were it not for intervention is akin to murder, to take away a potential life is akin to taking away a fully developed life. In other words, life begins to develop at conception. Life itself begins at conception.

So all the natural miscarriages are akin to murder?
Even the ones that the women does not realize has happened?

So who is the "murderer" in those cases?

I really don't feel like repeating myself. Sorry.

How in the hell can you repeat something you have as yet to say?

 

[Bware]

Because funerals are for the people left behind, not for the person who died. The aborted child doesn't have anyone to mourn for him or her, because no one has been impacted by him or her in the first place. So a funeral would be pointless.

The mother was impacted, the father was impacted. If life is sacred and you are so pro life then why the double standard?

 

[Bware]

I'm not pro-life, but I have had two miscarriages. Believe me, you do mourn.

Yeah my wife had complications and we had to do an emergency cessarian at 23 weeks, and we lost our daughter after two days. I know the feeling. When I was picking out the casket for the baby, the guy at the funeral home told me that most people treat a baby this young as a miscarriage and don't have a funeral or even get a little casket for them. I was shocked, I have never loved something that much in my life, I don't understand how anyone could not mourn losing your child, even if it was a miscarriage.

 

[Vile Atheist]

It shouldn't be, you're right. I was just using that as an example. It seems that alot of people have this holier than though attitude towards abortion and they think that these people should all be forced to have the babys and they are committing murder. They preach and preach and never have to go through it themselves. My point was that if something got done about it, such as making abortion illegal, once these same people started getting affected by this I think they would change their tunes. That's all I meant.

Fair enough. I can accept that. I see that as a legitimate point, but the wording of it made it seem like a major concern. Mea culpa, mea culpa.

 

[DarkSun]

Right here is a prime example of you ADDING all manner of stuff to your argument, thus changing the dynamics of your argument...

It seems to me that what you actually say and what you mean to say are all to often two different things....

Here again, you ADDED the word "alone" in order to change the dynamic of your argument.

How in the hell can you repeat something you have as yet to say?

Maybe you've just been misunderstanding my meaning?

Or perhaps I've not been very clear? This all makes sense to me. :sarcastic

So all the natural miscarriages are akin to murder?
Even the ones that the women does not realize has happened?

So who is the "murderer" in those cases?

I've already said that murder must be premeditated. So no.

 

[McBell]

Maybe you've just been misunderstanding my meaning?

I suspect that you are unintentionally leaving things out when you present.
Then after a few a questions you word it differently and includes some of the things you left out.

I suspect that it is not that you are changing your argument so much as you are presenting more of the original argument.

However, on my end, it does appear as though you are moving the goal posts.

Or perhaps I've not been very clear? This all makes sense to me. :sarcastic

Seems to me that perhaps there is a difference between what you actually say and what you mean to say.

I've already said that murder must be premeditated. So no.

hmmm.
Good point.

 

[DarkSun]

The mother was impacted, the father was impacted. If life is sacred and you are so pro life then why the double standard?

Perhaps the mother or father could have a funeral if they chose to, then?

 

[DarkSun]

I suspect that you are unintentionally leaving things out when you present.
Then after a few a questions you word it differently and includes some of the things you left out.

I suspect that it is not that you are changing your argument so much as you are presenting more of the original argument.

However, on my end, it does appear as though you are moving the goal posts.


Seems to me that perhaps there is a difference between what you actually say and what you mean to say.

Well, I'm sorry about that, then. :areyoucra This is the first time I've heard about this, though.

hmmm.
Good point.

Thanks, I can see where you're coming from, too.