When Does Life Begin?

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

.........In which I should raise two points:

1. The blastocyst will never know and will never feel any pain..........

So if I can guarantee that one would feel no pain, is it then OK for me to kill him?

Trust RL to completely ignore the second point, plus take my words out of context. What I said refers to blastocyst only (which I should have made clear early on). A clump of cells..

Bartikus wrote:

But that all changes when the "ball of cells" is wanted by the one carrying it right?

Then it's a human being right?

No. It is still a clump of cells. Obviously, from the questions you're asking me, you believe otherwise. You believe that it is a human being from the very point of conception that life begins at conception.

That is a ridiculous notion. The cells involved have always been alive. The oocyte was alive. The spermatozoa that fused with the oocyte was alive and every cell from that point onwards was alive. Every single sperm cell that dies as you read these very words was alive. Every single oocyte that existed and was eventually destroyed through non-use was alive.

Nothing begins at conception apart from what scientists call embryonic development. Genes do not necessarily make someone a human. It is how they are expressed.

So, if a fertilised egg is a human life and it divides into two, then obviously according to your world view and logic, they are each half a human life? Is that right? Do you believe in a soul, Bartikus? If so, does that mean each identical twin has only half a soul and is therefore only half a human?

What about when two fertilised eggs fuse together to create what is termed a chimera? Is a chimera two people? Does it have two souls? Is it superior to us because of that, or is just a freak?

How typical of you to obsfucate. I ask you a question first, but you refuse to answer. It is lucky for me I have gleamed exactly what I wanted to from your words.

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

.........In which I should raise two points:

1. The blastocyst will never know and will never feel any pain..........

So if I can guarantee that one would feel no pain, is it then OK for me to kill him?

Trust RL to completely ignore the second point, plus take my words out of context. What I said refers to blastocyst only (which I should have made clear early on). A clump of cells.

They have never been a human being and if aborted, they never will.

Hope you don't mind discussing one point at a time.

I think I quoted the context which indicates you are talking about a blastocyst. Not sure why you are complaining . I think everyone would understand your point and my question about it.

Are you anything more than a clump of cells?

Your point was that the blastocyst feels no pain.

Can you answer my question?

real life wrote:

Hope you don't mind discussing one point at a time.

I think I quoted the context which indicates you are talking about a blastocyst. Not sure why you are complaining . I think everyone would understand your point and my question about it.

You didn't quote the context. If you had, you wouldn't have asked me the question...

RL wrote:

Are you anything more than a clump of cells?

No, I think you deliberately missed out the second point, so you could ask this question and claim it was relevant. The two points I made go hand in hand with the comments I made to Bartikus.

Quote:

Your point was that the blastocyst feels no pain.

Can you answer my question?

I could, but there isn't a single post where I felt I couldn't trust you not to twist my or other people's words. You've always given me the impression of either being a Master of Doublethink or a dishonest liar. So I think I'll refuse to answer any of your questions, until Bartikus answers mine.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

But that all changes when the "ball of cells" is wanted by the one carrying it right?

Then it's a human being right?

No. It is still a clump of cells. Obviously, from the questions you're asking me, you believe otherwise. You believe that it is a human being from the very point of conception that life begins at conception.

That is a ridiculous notion. The cells involved have always been alive. The oocyte was alive. The spermatozoa that fused with the oocyte was alive and every cell from that point onwards was alive. Every single sperm cell that dies as you read these very words was alive. Every single oocyte that existed and was eventually destroyed through non-use was alive.

Nothing begins at conception apart from what scientists call embryonic development. Genes do not necessarily make someone a human. It is how they are expressed.

So, if a fertilised egg is a human life and it divides into two, then obviously according to your world view and logic, they are each half a human life? Is that right? Do you believe in a soul, Bartikus? If so, does that mean each identical twin has only half a soul and is therefore only half a human?

What about when two fertilised eggs fuse together to create what is termed a chimera? Is a chimera two people? Does it have two souls? Is it superior to us because of that, or is just a freak?

How typical of you to obsfucate. I ask you a question first, but you refuse to answer. It is lucky for me I have gleamed exactly what I wanted to from your words.

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

.........In which I should raise two points:

1. The blastocyst will never know and will never feel any pain..........

So if I can guarantee that one would feel no pain, is it then OK for me to kill him?

Trust RL to completely ignore the second point, plus take my words out of context. What I said refers to blastocyst only (which I should have made clear early on). A clump of cells.

They have never been a human being and if aborted, they never will.

So when does the unborn become a human being? Does this mean you think a 5 month old fetus is not a human life?

Diest TKO wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

Of course the pictures would be confusing when they are being told something different from what the pictures capture. lol ie. LIED TO..DECEIVED

I believe you are the one posting photos.

T
K
O

What photo did I post? Where?

Bartikus wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

Of course the pictures would be confusing when they are being told something different from what the pictures capture. lol ie. LIED TO..DECEIVED

I believe you are the one posting photos.

T
K
O

What photo did I post? Where?

You posted links to the unborn at 16 weeks plus. If you don't remember, I'm not surprized. It's not like you do any of your own thinking.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

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.

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 .

If we can't get past this....I see no point.

You idiot, no one believes a single skin cell is equal with being human. That's the point. You aren't paying attention. stopp scratching your nuts, and start scratching your head.

T
K
O

Talk to Chum.......Diest.

Chumly wrote:

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.

Did he call chum what I think he did?

Have you found that photo yet or have you gone off the rez with chum?

Bartikus wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

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.

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 .

If we can't get past this....I see no point.

You idiot, no one believes a single skin cell is equal with being human. That's the point. You aren't paying attention. stopp scratching your nuts, and start scratching your head.

T
K
O

Talk to Chum.......Diest.

Chumly wrote:

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.

Did he call chum what I think he did?

Have you found that photo yet or have you gone off the rez with chum?

Your reading and comprehension skill is very low. Chum is being pretty clear in all his posts. The point is that if the world at alrge were to accept the pro-life definitions, the resulting illogic would follow. he's taking you down your own path, but you don't even realize it. It's really pathetic. I'd suggest you stop, you're making a grand fool of yourself.

Chumly doesn't believe that a skin cell is equal with a fetus, but he's outlining how poor your logic is by demonstrating how it's flawed, and he's doing a damn good job of it too.

T
K
O

Bartikus wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

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.

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 .

If we can't get past this....I see no point.

You idiot, no one believes a single skin cell is equal with being human. That's the point. You aren't paying attention. stopp scratching your nuts, and start scratching your head.

T
K
O

Talk to Chum.......Diest.

Chumly wrote:

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.

Did he call chum what I think he did?

Have you found that photo yet or have you gone off the rez with chum?

Your reading and comprehension skill is very low. Chum is being pretty clear in all his posts. The point is that if the world at alrge were to accept the pro-life definitions, the resulting illogic would follow. he's taking you down your own path, but you don't even realize it. It's really pathetic. I'd suggest you stop, you're making a grand fool of yourself.

Chumly doesn't believe that a skin cell is equal with a fetus, but he's outlining how poor your logic is by demonstrating how it's flawed, and he's doing a damn good job of it too.

T
K
O

So a fetus cannot be compared or equated to mere skin cells? A cluster of cells? Now if only you and Wolf could agree.

Bartikus wrote:

So a fetus cannot be compared or equated to mere skin cells? A cluster of cells? Now if only you and Wolf could agree.

I thought your path ended? As if, and don't forget your shovel...

I don't need to agree with Wolf, my belief is not defined by when something is concidered a human being. My belief is defined by the mother being the custodian of the rights of whatever is inside her. Period.

No number of cells is going to be equated to any number of embryos just like no number of embryos is going equate to a single born human.

Grease your bearings spin doctor.

T
K
O

Bartikus wrote:

So a fetus cannot be compared or equated to mere skin cells? A cluster of cells? Now if only you and Wolf could agree.

I thought your path ended? As if, and don't forget your shovel...

I don't need to agree with Wolf, my belief is not defined by when something is concidered a human being. My belief is defined by the mother being the custodian of the rights of whatever is inside her. Period.

No number of cells is going to be equated to any number of embryos just like no number of embryos is going equate to a single born human.

Grease your bearings spin doctor.

T
K
O

No, I refuse to answer any more questions, because Bartikus is clearly sidestepping the chimera question. It would seem that manners is not his strongpoint.

What I'm arguing is very clear.

Science doesn't have a proper definition of life. It hasn't proved that a human life begins at conception. It only proves that a bunch of cells starts a process called embryonic development.

The term, human being, is an arbitrary one assigned to members of the species Homo sapiens. Thing is, the very definition is based primarily on human beings that have been born. At early stages of development, the human embryo shares as much in common with pretty much any other mammalian embryo and that abortion during the early terms is no different from spontaneous abortion.

Both sides have nothing more than emotions and semantics, however, the Pro-lifers seem to do more dishonest obfuscating and dodging the issue than any pro-choicer I've seen.

OK, we're arguing two different points here. The pro-choice crowd is arguing for the personal rights of the mother, while the pro-lifers are arguing for the sanctity of human life. Until this disparity is addressed, and we can agree on what the central topic of this issue is, we aren't going to reach a resolution. So, let's fight about which issue is more important, rather than on a each viewpoint taking a side on different issues.