Ticomaya wrote:DrewDad wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Of course your answer is wrong. Life begins at conception ... that's the best answer.
You care to provide any supporting evidence, Tico?
Evidence of what? Dora is not able to tell me the exact day a baby is able to survive on its own outside its mother's womb -- I won't even ask her to -- and were she to make an effort to do so, I would ask her to explain to me why the baby would not be able to survive on its own on the immediately preceding day. She, and those of her thinking, have created a fictitious point in time prior to which they believe abortions of these "parasites" are justified. But there is no miraculous process that occurred on that date ... the miracle of life occurred much sooner, and the only logical point is the fertilization of the egg.
That is all inconsequential to your incorrect sweeping claim that life begins at conception. It simply isn't so.
Chrissee wrote:
That is all inconsequential to your incorrect sweeping claim that life begins at conception. It simply isn't so.
So when does it begin Chrissee?
Are we headed for a 'define life' discussion?
It should be pretty obvious to everyone here who is an adult that life doesn't begin when a sperm fertilizes an egg. There is no debate necessary.
Really?
But if you disagree with one proposal you must have you're own idea.
If I think a bacteria or a virus is alive I don't think it's much of a stretch to say a fertilized ovum is 'alive'.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I don't think life has an absolute unchanging value otherwise we'd all be vegetarians - hmm or just dead because we wouldn't eat plant life either.....
I'm pro-choice but as Tico says (and it pains me to agree) if you pick a point during gestation where termination is no longer acceptable you face the intellectual question of 'what is different about that point to the point a few minutes before?'
I don't think that's impossible to answer - I was just curious where/how you define it.
It is obvious that life already existed before the egg and spermatazoa joined together. What happens at fertilization is that two entities are joined together with the potentioal to develop into a human being. Sperm and eggs sitting and waiting in a fertility clinic to be joined together have potential for human life too.
The questions here are philosophical and moral, not scientific.
Thanks for that - I was curious what your position was.
Chrissee was right earlier, even though she provided no proof.
Wouldn't it be nice if these conservative knuckle draggers held their government officials to this same high standard?
Instead, for these folks, it's, "Okay boss, I'll buy that; whatever ya say."
When does human life become sentient then?
goodfielder wrote:When does human life become sentient then?
I purposely avoided getting into this. We just do not know. Obviuously, to experience the physical universe as we know it, one needs to be born first. And obvious too at some point even before natural birth, the fetus becomes "viable" and has the abillity to experience consciousness as we know it.
Before that? Some philosophers believe that all living things have consciousness or are part of a collective consciousness.
We could go on and on about this forver but it still comes down to the fact that it is an inherent right to govern one's own body. If I have an infection, I have a right to take medicine to kill the infection EVEN THOUGH THAT INFECTION ITSELF IS COMPRISED OF LIVING THINGS. Bacteria and viruses have an inherent right to life. But when they enter my body, I have a right to make them get out, even if killing them is the only way to do it.
JTT wrote:Chrissee was right earlier, even though she provided no proof.
No proof was needed except to examine the statement...
"Life begins at conception"
...to ascertain that it is simply false.
Chrissee wrote:JTT wrote:Chrissee was right earlier, even though she provided no proof.
No proof was needed except to examine the statement...
"Life begins at conception"
...to ascertain that it is simply false.
Chrissee, I meant your earlier statement, the one below.
Chrissee wrote:Actually, a recent study found that kids taught to abstain had a higher incidence of teen pregancy than those who were not exposed top such instruction.
dora17 wrote:i'd be much more comfortable w/ the idea of considering a fetus as a human being from the instant an egg is fertilized if we would accord the same sort of respect and veneration to other life. I can't accept the right to life movement's sincerity until they give some consideration to the abhorrent treatment of other life, like factory farmed animals. If a embryo desrves consideration from the instant it begins existence, then why doesn't an animal that we know has some degree of intelligence and ability to feel pain, like a pig, deserve a decent existence? when the majority of right to lifers are also concerned with humane treatment of all life, i'll give their morals more credence. (of course, this is all off the topic that was originally the intention of the thread. sorry, atkins
)
So ... if I understand your position correctly ... you are in favor of abortion because right-to-lifer humans kill animals for food and sport? Pleaes correct me if I'm wrong.
Chrissee wrote:JTT wrote:Chrissee was right earlier, even though she provided no proof.
No proof was needed except to examine the statement...
"Life begins at conception"
...to ascertain that it is simply false.
Sez you.
I'd put your belief about when "life" begins against my belief any day of the week. Apparently, you think life always exists, because both the egg and sperm are "living" before they join. That is a very interesting belief, to say the least.
And it still doesn't explain to me why, if life always exists, you think it's okay to kill a living baby.
Ticomaya wrote:Evidence of what? Dora is not able to tell me the exact day a baby is able to survive on its own outside its mother's womb -- I won't even ask her to -- and were she to make an effort to do so, I would ask her to explain to me why the baby would not be able to survive on its own on the immediately preceding day. She, and those of her thinking, have created a fictitious point in time prior to which they believe abortions of these "parasites" are justified. But there is no miraculous process that occurred on that date ... the miracle of life occurred much sooner, and the only logical point is the fertilization of the egg.
What
Tico is attempting to set up here is known to philosophers as a
"sorites paradox,", also known as "the paradox of the heap." Simply stated, if a heap of wheat would still be a heap after taking away one grain, how many grains of wheat would we need to take away before the heap becomes a non-heap? Here,
Tico argues that, if a fetus is a "person" on a certain day in the gestational period, why isn't it a "person" on the previous day, or the day before that, etc.? But going all the way back to the start no more proves that a fertilized ovum is a person than that a single grain of wheat is a heap. Framing the issue of the beginning of life as a sorites paradox merely makes the beginning of life paradoxical; it doesn't solve the problem, it just rephrases it.
Becky's Story...
I'd like to share my personal experience at the Pamida Pharmacy on Saturday, April 16th, 2005.
I walked up to a busy counter with a prescription for two medications. The pharmacist took the note and told me she'd fill one medication, but I'd have to come back on Monday to have the birth control filled by the other pharmacist. I verbally questioned this, because she herself was a pharmacist. Her answer was "for moral reasons I will not fill a birth control prescription."
I challenged the pharmacist by telling her, "It's a valid medical prescription signed by a medical doctor. Your other customers are receiving service. I shouldn't have to come back Monday when I'm here now." I was refused a second time on the same grounds and told to try another pharmacy. My response, "No, my insurance information is here and this is where I come to get my prescriptions." I was refused a third time. When I asked her to show me written documentation that would give her a legal right to refuse, she had nothing to show me.
Correspondence with the Pamida pharmacist manager was most disturbing. I was again told to come back when the other pharmacist was working or to follow a sticker on the prescription that instructs the patient to call in their refill a week ahead of time. Although they upheld the actions of their pharmacist, I was not told anything regarding their policy on the issue or given any evidence that the pharmacist acted within her legal right.
We are constantly being confronted with such emotionally charged issues as abortion, family welfare, domestic abuse, etc. It seems very contradictory to refuse a product whose absence will only make these issues more volatile.
Just a few weeks ago, Becky P. became only the latest in a string of women who've had their birth control prescriptions refused by anti-choice pharmacies.
It's no surprise that our opponents fight women's access to abortion. But now anti-choice pressure groups are even encouraging pharmacists to refuse birth control to women like Becky.
When this happened to her, Becky -- like most of the women affected by this disturbing and growing trend -- had no idea if her pharmacy's refusal was legal, no idea of how to get her prescription filled, and no idea how she might fight back.
Thankfully, Becky's tenacity led her to call us and start her own campaign to fight back. But many more women are forced to simply endure this degrading experience because they do not know their options. Even worse, women in towns with only one pharmacy can't even get their prescriptions filled elsewhere -- leaving them with no options and no birth control pills.
We've asked those who oppose a woman's right to choose to work with us where we might have common ground -- by improving access to birth control. Becky's story and the experiences of countless other women tell me that we have a long way to go.
We can't let this stand. When a woman and her doctor decide that a birth control prescription is in her best interest, a third party has no right to override that decision. Women need someone on their side. Click here to help us keep up the fight!
We've launched a nationwide campaign to fight this anti-choice ploy and protect a woman's right to have her birth control prescriptions filled without harassment. With your help, we can make sure every woman who faces this situation knows her rights and knows how she can fight back.
You can help us make sure this work keeps going strong - click here to help us:
Put pressure on national pharmacy chains.
Raise awareness online and through demonstrations at pharmacies across the country.
Pass laws at the state and federal levels to guarantee that no woman is turned away.
Protect a woman's right to choose on all levels!
Becky shared her story in order to do what she can to fight back -- thank you for reading her story. We are here to help people like Becky fight back, but we depend on the generous support of people like you to keep moving forward -- if you can, click here and make a gift to keep efforts like these going strong.
dora17 wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Intrepid wrote:dora17 wrote:p.s. to tony: i agreed with a lot of what you said, like when the right to an abortion ends, once the baby can survive outside the mother... sorry if you felt i quoted you too much out of context, i was just interested in that question of when a "seed becomes a person".
When it joins with the egg
That's a good answer.
Certainly better than any Dora has put forth. She seems to think a baby -- err "parasite" -- only becomes a person upon emergence from the birth canal.
I don't "seem" to think that-- i DO think that, and I don't see how you feel it's logical to just arbitrarily say that the answer "when a sperm joins an egg" is better than "when it is no longer physically connected to its mothers body." Both answers have validity in some ways, but an embryo is just not biologically the same as a person. If we are talking about science, the answer is that a fertilized egg is not the same as a person. If we're talking about what individuals
feel the answer is morally, then neither answer is right or wrong, and it's pretty
high-handed of you to say that my answer is invalid. I don't say people who think that a fertilized egg is a person are wrong, i just say that they shouldn't be able to use law to force their beliefs on others.
Fertilization generally does not take place in the uterus. The fertilized egg travels through the Fallopian tubes and into the uterus where it may or may not implant. Sometimes, the egg implants in the tube. Sometimes, the egg may travel into the body cavity and implant on the outside of the uterus or on the side of the intestine. This is called an ectopic pregnancy.
Ticomaya believes life begins at conception. The great Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas believed life began forty-four days after conception at what is known as the quickening or the first time the mother feels the movement of the fetus. Aquinas thought God infused the fetus with a soul and made it human.
Ticomaya wrote:DrewDad wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Of course your answer is wrong. Life begins at conception ... that's the best answer.
You care to provide any supporting evidence, Tico?
Evidence of what? Dora is not able to tell me the exact day a baby is able to survive on its own outside its mother's womb -- I won't even ask her to -- and were she to make an effort to do so, I would ask her to explain to me why the baby would not be able to survive on its own on the immediately preceding day. She, and those of her thinking, have created a fictitious point in time prior to which they believe abortions of these "parasites" are justified. But there is no miraculous process that occurred on that date ... the miracle of life occurred much sooner, and the only logical point is the fertilization of the egg.
Thank you, ticomaya, for admitting that argue for the sake of argument.
Ticomaya wrote:dora17 wrote:i'd be much more comfortable w/ the idea of considering a fetus as a human being from the instant an egg is fertilized if we would accord the same sort of respect and veneration to other life. I can't accept the right to life movement's sincerity until they give some consideration to the abhorrent treatment of other life, like factory farmed animals. If a embryo desrves consideration from the instant it begins existence, then why doesn't an animal that we know has some degree of intelligence and ability to feel pain, like a pig, deserve a decent existence? when the majority of right to lifers are also concerned with humane treatment of all life, i'll give their morals more credence. (of course, this is all off the topic that was originally the intention of the thread. sorry, atkins
)
So ... if I understand your position correctly ... you are in favor of abortion because right-to-lifer humans kill animals for food and sport?
Pleaes correct me if I'm wrong.
As the moderator of this thread, Tico, I respectfully request that you write like an adult and stop engaging in specious argument.
