When Does Life Begin?

Bartikus, It's not about your question; it's about how you restate what we say to mean something else. If you need clarity about any statement we make, all you have to do is ask for clarification. But you don't; you go ahead and misrepresent what we stated. Liar.

Point it out.

Point it out? ha ha ha. All you need to do is go back just several pages on this thread, and I had to continually re-repeat what I meant. If you don't understand that simplicity of having a discussion, I'm not about to go back to repeat what I've been saying all along.

BTW, if that's too difficult a concept for you, I'm just wasting my time and energies on a do-do. .

of course you will not.

Until you or chum can produce (point out) the lie you assert I tell...the accusation remains where it originates.

Everyone here is smart enough to know this....there may be exceptions.

Barty-pooper, we will see if you are more conscientious in your use of the deceitful Straw Man Logical Fallacy.

You could learn a thing or two from Neo whom at least dollops out his Logical Fallacies with a dose of the comic Non Sequitur and a big nod toward Argument By Authority.

Point out my intentional deceit please.

The Straw man may have burned up!?

First of all, I am not posting as a religious idealist. Of course the world is not black and white.

However, it seems that you, as the realist you purport to be, try to make things black and white through varying shades of gray.

We both consider life to begin (and probably end) at different time frames. That is black and white. I consider life to begin at conception,. That is black and white. You seem to be unsure as to when life begins. That is some shade of gray.

Why, then do you say that I am wrong. You do not have the answer and I am satisfied with mine. Why bother to continue this "discussion" other than to practice our typing and increase our post counts?

Good point Intrepid.

Do you know what their talking about when they say I lied? I would have no problem apologizing if I did.....

They seem to be bullies to me with this accusation. I think things would transpire differently face to face. They would not be so bold I don't think.

Ack! reading through 20 pages ince my last visit.

First I have a few things to address.

Bart - You posted al link to several photos of the unborn, but the earliest photos are of a unborn at 16 weeks. Pretty far from the embryo. Pretty far from conception. Nice link to someone elses thoughts and conclusions. Not impressed.

Next, the Pro-life camp beleves that the arguement for making abortion illegal hinges on proving the unborn is human. This is false. There has never been a question of what the unborn is.

Next, Life actually begins prior to conception friends. Just as lightning begins before the pretty lightshow. Again, this is ultimately irrelevent.

Okay, so a few things of my own. I did some thinking and I found a weird loop hole in the prolife beliefs.

Prolifers agree that a mother should be able to abort if her life is in danger. They believe that when the situation (no matter how rare) when a born human's life is put at odds with a unborn's, the born trumps the unborn.

I asked earlier about being forced to choose between saving any number of frozen embyos or a single born human. The only answer given was to attack and avoid answering the question. No answer (not even in the last 20 pages) has arisen. The answer is of course to save the born human. Again, when the lives of unborns comes up against a born's, the born trumps.

The pro-life camp makes the arguement that the unborn has equal claim as the born in terms of rights. Yet, they have yet to prove that the born even has equal claim to these rights. Example: If adoption is the forced alternative, what equallity is there between the newborn and the 12 year old looking for a home?

Q: What my problem with the pro-life crowd?
A: Very clearly, they've overestepped they bounds. The pro-life belief is a fine belief when it comes to how you make your own life choices, I'd even extend that to how you rise your family. The problem begins when they try to put their beliefs into law without care or concern for who it effects. The consequences of their political actions are something they themselves will never have to answer to.

The pro-life crowd is having a problem: They can't make a convincing arguement, and so they simply try and flex the legal muscle to validate their beliefs. Imagine abortion was illegal, do you think the pro-life crowd would care to defend it anymore? Read your history, we've been there.

I've yet to hear a convincing arguement that the government should have control of a woman's reproductive rights. Pro-choice would mean something far different in countries like china, were the government has taken steps towards population control. Pro-choice would still be the belief that a woman should be able to choose.

Because whether it is the choice to keep, abort, or abandon it's still a choice, and I've herad no arguement that is convincing that the government should be the one choosing.

I know people such as Chumly wish to discuss the various stages of the development of the unborn, and his "seed is not a tree" analogy is very sound, but I don't really care. It's just not about that.

What this issue resolves down to is that...
1) We have a very good understanding of the development of human life is.
2) We have many (in the order of millions) of people who are in circumstances that they believe they should not be raising a child and are pregnant.
3) Some percentage of those pregnant girls/women do not have access to pre-pregnancy information and birth control.
4) Some percentage of those pregnant girls/women do not have access to support during their pregnancies.
5) Some percentage of those pregnant girls/women do not have access to post-pregnancy information and child support.

Given the above FACTS along with other FACTS, the pro-choice and pro-life crowd have their differing opinions on where the marker for when abortion becomes illegal should be.

The Prolife crowd believes that the marker falls on the point of conception, which effectively makes all abortion illegal. Some small sect of the prolife crowd believes further that any form of birth control is additionally immoral. Being that the pro-life crowd does not allow for any sort of embryo destruction, the pro-life belief also encapsulates the disapproval of some stem cell research and practices such as IVF.

The pro-life crowd believes that the marker should fall upon the point of conception because the embryo created has it's own distinct genetic stucture. The pro-life crowd believes that this is sufficiant evidence of the estyablishment of personhood.

The Pro-choice crowd believes that the marker of when abortion should be illegal is somewhere between conception and birth. The minority sect of the prochoice crowd believes that the marker is during the birth itself. Most pro-choicers believe that the right's of the unborn outweigh that of the unborn for any number of philosophical reasons.

I have no problem with abortion being regulated, but to make it outright illegal is irresponsible. I support the girl/woman recieving consultation, further I think that outpatient care should be given. But above all, the woman's choice should be protected.

BTW, Bart, I hope you were paying attention, I just quoted your beliefs better than you have. Being that you don't know how to think or speak for yourself, feel free to cut and paste my post next time someone asks you what you believe.

In summary: nice selective photos, a choice is always being made, a seed is not a tree, we already understand biology, circumstances are not always the same, the life of the born is never the same, this is what we know, this is what people believe, this is what I believe. I can back it up.

T
K
O

What are you posting as pray tell, a leprechaun?

Well then if you believe the world is not black and white let's here your views on the one true god and also your views on if a skin cell is "life".

Give me a quoted example if you want me to take this as anything more than mildly amusing Straw Man drivel.

One wonders how you assessed this Straw Man gem! If true you should be able to tell me when I consider life to begin and end so have at it!

OK, is a skin cell "life" given it too can become a human being?

I suggest you re-read my assessment of the absurdity of the belief in the some idealized defining moment before you misquote me even more.


What do you claim I said you were wrong about exactly? I suggest you use the quotes if you want me to take this as anything more than mildly amusing Straw Man drivel.

You do not have the answer and I am satisfied with mine.

I don't care what you claim you are satisfied with given you cannot rationally justify it with logicality. I place no merit in illogical, unsubstantiated superstitious arbitrary claptrap, nor would any other rational man.

Why else but to demonstrate the closed-minded black and white world of the religionist!

cicerone imposter wrote:
Ofcoarse human life begins at conception; it sure ain't a boid if the parents are human. What's your point? Some die before birth of natural causes. Many die after birth from starvation.

Bartikus, What did I just say?

Bart: Question:

If your latest assertion is that a human embryo is not a human life....what kind of lifeform is it...if not human?

ci:
It's a human cell; nothing more, nothing less.

From page 226, I wrote: Don't you understand the English language? To repeat; what it says is that a "human embryo" is a human cell, and not another form of animal. Yes, it's a "live" cell - with no brains, no feelings, and feels no pain.

Hey CI,
Whatever happened to Setanta? I liked his acerbic responses to the black and white crowd. I don't find it as much fun without him, and Timber and Doc and Frank and their ilk.


As an amusing aside I had a dream my wife had quintuplets and kittens, all at the same time! Man that would throw the no-choicer's for a loop wouldn't it?

I think Deist nailed it with that last post.

Hi Diest TKO



Why then has there been 230 pages of argument? The way I see it, the question can be asked, has been asked, and so it exists.



This reminds me of a ruthless ancient Greek General who seiged a town, and told them that if they would only sacrifice the life of one child to him, he would spare the entire city, but if they didn't, he would put every man, women and child to the sword, raze the city, and salt the ground.

The townsfolk then needed to decide what was right.


That would be impossible to prove, just as the reverse is impossible to prove.



I quite agree with this

fungo, You and I can agree that Diest nailed it, but the pro-life crowd will mince it in such a way it won't resemble what he wrote. Their primary skill is to twist what we say to agree with their IDiot beliefs.

Chumly, Yeah, I really miss Timber; especially his ability at word creation; like IDiots. He nailed it too!

A skill exhibited by many with strong beliefs, or who become defensive, or who wish to get their way in a particular argument :wink: