When Does Life Begin?

Hi Diest TKO

Quote:

There has never been a question of what the unborn is.

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.

Quote:

I asked earlier about being forced to choose between saving any number of frozen embyos or a single born human.

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.

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

Q: What my problem with the pro-life crowd?
A: ...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…

I quite agree with this

If we can find compromise, anyone can.

Diest TKO wrote:

If we can find compromise, anyone can.

Well that would depend upon on the pros and cons of the missionary-position versus the reverse-cowgirl.

Good to know. Neo agrees. He just likes to throw cream pies into the discussion once and a while to see what happens. Hell, my girlfriend is pro-life.

It's been asked, answered and asked again

Not so. It's quite easy to prove that a woman is the custodian of the unborn's rights.

Further, if you are in the USA, you should know that you don't enherit all of your rights until you are 18.

A bad comparison of analogies.

All I have to do is establish that rights are given my our society/culture, to establish the the unborn doesn't have inherit rights independent of the mother. It's the mother that is custodian.

Quote:

Good to know. Neo agrees. He just likes to throw cream pies into the discussion once and a while to see what happens. Hell, my girlfriend is pro-life.

Hah, I guess in some ways I'm similar, though for me it's about trying to maintain tolerance and attempting to understand peoples reasoning than anything else. It would of course, have rather terrible consequences if the right to life was enshrined into law for unborn children.

That said…

Quote:

It's been asked, answered and asked again

Quote:

Not so. It's quite easy to prove that a woman is the custodian of the unborn's rights.

I quite agree….but that's not the issue here. The issue is what rights the mother is custodian of, what are the rights of the unborn child, and can the mothers rights override the rights of the unborn child.

Pro lifers argue that the child has the right to life, AND that the mother cannot override that right (regardless of her rights)

Quote:

Further, if you are in the USA, you should know that you don't enherit all of your rights until you are 18.

Quote:

A bad comparison of analogies.

Quote:

All I have to do is establish that rights are given my our society/culture, to establish the the unborn doesn't have inherit rights independent of the mother. It's the mother that is custodian.

Pro lifers argue that the child has the right to life, AND that the mother cannot override that right (regardless of her rights)

vikorr wrote:

Pro lifers argue that the child has the right to life, AND that the mother cannot override that right (regardless of her rights)

If so then there is equal rationale to argue that a skin cell has an equal right to life given that it too can become a human being (through cloning) as of course can the sperm cell become a human being (through combining with an egg) as can.......

It is purely an absurd and arbitrary delineation to maintain that the only case for the argument of the presence of a potential human being is the one whereby a fertilized egg is present.

And of course it's an obviously absurd and arbitrary assertion to claim a fertilized egg is an actualized human being, but a skin cell given the potential for cloning is somehow exempt from the claim of being an actualized human being.

Quote:

Not so. It's quite easy to prove that a woman is the custodian of the unborn's rights.

I quite agree….but that's not the issue here. The issue is what rights the mother is custodian of (ie what are the rights of the unborn child that she is custodian of), what are the rights of the mother, and can the mothers rights override the rights of the unborn child.

Pro lifers argue that the child has the right to life, AND that the mother cannot override that right (regardless of her rights)

vikorr wrote:

Quote:

Not so. It's quite easy to prove that a woman is the custodian of the unborn's rights.

I quite agree….but that's not the issue here. The issue is what rights the mother is custodian of (ie what are the rights of the unborn child that she is custodian of), what are the rights of the mother, and can the mothers rights override the rights of the unborn child.

Pro lifers argue that the child has the right to life, AND that the mother cannot override that right (regardless of her rights)

I think this is the first articulate post I've had to reply to in some time.

The phrase "right to life" is commonly refered to in reference to the the phrase "[the] right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness." I believe that the prolife stance looks at thes rights as being individual, whereas the prochoice stance views thes three as being three parts of the same thing, indivudually unachievable without the others.

Is the right to life simply the right to be provided oxygen and organic material for consumption?

It would seem the prolife camp believes so.

If we are making promises, we should be able to provide. I see the real challenge for the prolife crowd being to provide a solution for all of the children without homes (shelter), food, and love first before telling a stranger what they should do.

And while "love" is not a right given to us by a constitution, it seems pretty integral in the "pursuit of happiness." Without it being a part of the solution for all parties involved, there's really no solution.

As for my example with the burning building, I stand by what I said before. It is a question designed to test a person's values as per the claim that from zygote to born baby have equal value to them and diserve equal protection. You question challenges a person to put their beliefs above their own life. It is philosophically a very different question. Further, you are correct when saying...

Quote:

You're right that is their answer if that's what they truly believe, but Bart nor anyone else stepped up to deliever that answer did they? Of course they don't want to answer because both their rational brain and their emotional brain converges on the truth of the matter, that despite what they claim, given the chance, they would save the baby time after time. The truth is that if they believe there isn't a wrong choice they could simply flip a coin, and when they exit the building with the container with any number of embryos, they wouldn't be able to back up their beliefs to anyone, especially a the family of the child. You would not see them getting the key to the city for saving millions, you would not hear about their book deal, or see them on Oprah, and I don't have to tell you why.

I'm not here to reconsile that incongruence for anyone, but I would like some honesty when I ask a question. I've said it before, but now more than ever it is apparent, if you believe in what you believe truly, you''ll be ready to defend it, and those who have came here making specifically the case for making abortion illegal have not been prepared to do so and it shows.

Bart - Pay attention you fool. Of course killing a skin cell is not murder, chumly makes no such claim, he is simply using your poor definition of life against you. If you find it absurd, then you are starting to understand why your definition is flawed. Chumly doesn't believe it's murder to take a bath, you do. But you don't know that, because you don't think or speak for yourself. you have no idea what you are posting or what it implies. It's called irony and it's biting you on your ass.

As for your question about the intentional killing of a unborn child, as I have said before, the mother has custody of those rights. If those rights may only be surrendered by the mother, if she chooses to do so, it is clearly an abortion. If she does not choose to, it is murder. The woman's choice is what grants that value. This paragraph is an example of a direct answer to a question. Take notes so that in the future when you are asked questions, you will know how to answer them.

T
K
O

Let's turn your question on its head, Bartikus. I've asked this question before and I don't think I've ever got a decent answer from it.

When do you believe life begins? At conception?

If so, what happens when two fertilised blastocysts fuse together? (It's apparently a lot more common an event than we'd like to think). Two lives become one. Does one life die? And if a soul enters at conception, does that mean the ensuing product will have two souls when born?

What about a fertilised blastocyst that splits apart into two to form identical twins? Does each twin have half a soul? Is each one half a life?

Seeing as many of those questions weren't directed at me, I fail to see why I should. Answer mine first and then ask the questions you want me to answer, because you have asked a lot in this thread and I'm not sure which ones you want me to answer.

vikorr wrote:

Quote:

Good to know. Neo agrees. He just likes to throw cream pies into the discussion once and a while to see what happens. Hell, my girlfriend is pro-life.

Hah, I guess in some ways I'm similar, though for me it's about trying to maintain tolerance and attempting to understand peoples reasoning than anything else. It would of course, have rather terrible consequences if the right to life was enshrined into law for unborn children.

That said…

Quote:

It's been asked, answered and asked again

Quote:

Not so. It's quite easy to prove that a woman is the custodian of the unborn's rights.

I quite agree….but that's not the issue here. The issue is what rights the mother is custodian of, what are the rights of the unborn child, and can the mothers rights override the rights of the unborn child.

Pro lifers argue that the child has the right to life, AND that the mother cannot override that right (regardless of her rights)

Quote:

Further, if you are in the USA, you should know that you don't enherit all of your rights until you are 18.

Quote:

A bad comparison of analogies.

Quote:

All I have to do is establish that rights are given my our society/culture, to establish the the unborn doesn't have inherit rights independent of the mother. It's the mother that is custodian.

The unborn are already regarded as human beings under the law. It just depends on who the mother is and whether she wants the child.

All other unborn children are regarded as such. (Discrimination)

Rightfully so. Humans are not humans because they are wanted by another human are they? Think. Seems pretty simple to me.....the answer is no.

If the unborn are not human beings, human life, persons.....they cannot be murdered by anyone. How does one murder a human cell?

If you intentionally kill an unborn child that a woman carries.....guess what the charge will most likely be.....

1.) Illegal abortion (not a human being, not a person, no right to life)
2.) Murder, manslaughter or the like (human being, person, right to life)

What charge should it be I ask anyone?

The pro life crowd answers 2.) whether the child is wanted or not by the mother. Consistent. All treated equal, equal protection under the law, no discrimination.

I want to hear the pro choicer response. Watch the contradiction. It is there no matter their answer. Can you figure out why?

Let's establish a starting point:

Is a single skin cell of yours the same as or equal to the unborn at conception? Regarding the question of personhood or a human being.