When Does Life Begin?

Science does not have a proper definition for life Wolf?

Not proper.....for whom....you?

0 Replies

Science does not have a proper definition of life?

Then why should the religious "fanatical christian" follow it? uh oh.....<<<<<<another dodge.

Not proper since when? Since you realize your argument against human life beginning at conception is........toast?

Even a one cell amoeba constitutes life......right? No ....Maybe.

I learnt me it from people like yourself. Us simple christian folk sure appreciate your edumacation.

.....Wolf wolf.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Embryonic development of what...a chicken? a fish? what?

A human being, of course, but if it is in development, does that mean it is already a human being? When a car is being made, is it still a car when it consists of only a chassis or a few wheels? What does answering that quesiton prove?

Quote:

So if a chimera can be ruled out by science through ultrasounds......where does your argument go then?

Chimeras have not been ruled out by science. They are established fact. There have been at least tgree court cases regarding issues of parenthood where a chimera was involved...

http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/misc/chimera.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3264467.stm

So, are you still going to dodge the question? I had the decency to answer yours, but it would seem that you do not have the decency to reciprocate.

Quote:

Science does not have a proper definition of life?

Then why should the religious follow it?

Why should you believe a human life begins at conception when neither science nor religion has proven it? Why is it that you ignore the Bible when it seems to place the woman on a greater level than the embryo?

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Bartikus wrote:
Embryonic development of what...a chicken? a fish? what?

A human being, of course, but if it is in development, does that mean it is already a human being? When a car is being made, is it still a car when it consists of only a chassis or a few wheels? What does answering that quesiton prove?

Quote:
So if a chimera can be ruled out by science through ultrasounds......where does your argument go then?

Chimeras have not been ruled out by science. They are established fact. There have been at least tgree court cases regarding issues of parenthood where a chimera was involved...

http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/misc/chimera.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3264467.stm

So, are you still going to dodge the question? I had the decency to answer yours, but it would seem that you do not have the decency to reciprocate.

Quote:
Science does not have a proper definition of life?

Then why should the religious follow it?

Why should you believe a human life begins at conception when neither science nor religion has proven it? Why is it that you ignore the Bible when it seems to place the woman on a greater level than the embryo?

I know what life is....it need not prove itself to me.

I know what humans are.....it needs not be proven to me.

You are the one questioning what constitutes a human and even if science has properly defined life.....not me.

If a woman gets an ultrasound and other tests at various points.....can the question of whether she carries a chimera be ruled out?

0 Replies

Bartikus: If a woman gets an ultrasound at various points.....can the question of whether she carries a chimera be ruled out?

So, what is your interest in any woman having an ultrasound? You want to make the decision for her whether to carry it to full term? You're about as ignorant as those radicals who straps bombs on themselves to kill others; you want to save life, but do nothing for that baby after it's born. Your interest is only forcing your convoluted idea of life on women you don't even know or care about. You don't take responsibility for anything or anybody; just your crazy idea about what constitutes life. You're as much a radical as the terrorists.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

I know what life is....it need not prove itself to me.

Virus. Is it alive? Yes or no?

Quote:

You are the one questioning what constitutes a human and even if science has properly defined life.....not me.

Your point being?

Quote:

If a woman gets an ultrasound at various points.....can the question of whether she carries a chimera be ruled out?

I fail to see what this has to do with anything. If anyone seems to be flailing around, it seems to be you. And as far as I can tell, ultrasound doesn't have a good enough resolution to see a blastocyst.

Now will you answer the question I presented to you or will you obfuscate?

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

You will notice that pro lifers at large agree.

Homogeny is not a good measure of validation. Most of the right wing at large agree, but that hasn't been a good measure of right wing political policy and it's success... ahem, failure.

If you're an example of these people bart, I'm even less impressed. Why would the fact that there are lots of people who aren't ready to defend their view point impress me? If the rest of the prolife camp is like you it hurts the validity of your beliefs.

Bartikus wrote:

Human life begins at conception. Science agrees as well. Even CI did at one time. They are fish out of water....flailing and floundering about.

Science actually refers to life as a circle without a beginning or end. Just like the lightning, it begins before the pretty light show.

Bartikus wrote:

Even you recognize what we stand for......sanctity of HUMAN LIFE!

sanc·ti·ty /ˈsæŋktɪti/
[sangk-ti-tee]
-noun, plural -ties.
1. holiness, saintliness, or godliness.
2. sacred or hallowed character: the inviolable sanctity of the temple.
3. a sacred thing.

Would that include the promotion of those in this world already? As for the rest, you want to back up your stance, you'd bette be ready to prove the holiness of it. You'd better be ready to prove that anything is holy for that matter.

The pro-life would love to be about the sanctity of life, but more and more it's become something else. It's become about relgious validation and legislating religious orthodoxy.

Bartikus wrote:

Without life what rights does one have?

More profound than you know sir. Tell me, what is life without liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Look outside of your comfortable little world, there are plenty of children that are alive without either.

Bartikus wrote:

If one life is regarded as human and another as sub human......what is that called?

Nice try. But the true fascist is the one who acts upon others independant of ther will. Whose trying to give the government more control over individuals?

As for human and subhuman, what about your values? You'd still save the baby over the container of embryos. Sounds like you've got your directions mixed up comrade. You want to say that only the pro-choice crowd view the mother as above the unborn, but your not being honest to us, or yourself.

T
K
O

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bartikus: If a woman gets an ultrasound at various points.....can the question of whether she carries a chimera be ruled out?

So, what is your interest in any woman having an ultrasound? You want to make the decision for her whether to carry it to full term? You're about as ignorant as those radicals who straps bombs on themselves to kill others; you want to save life, but do nothing for that baby after it's born. Your interest is only forcing your convoluted idea of life on women you don't even know or care about. You don't take responsibility for anything or anybody; just your crazy idea about what constitutes life. You're as much a radical as the terrorists.

If "my" idea of life is crazy.....what's yours?

If you don't know....how can you say "my" idea of life is crazy?

Your the one who does'nt know what life is or know the sanctity of human life. How is that different from a radical with a bomb on his chest?

0 Replies

P.S. As for scientists not having a proper definition of life...

http://www.astrobio.net/news/article226
http://www.nbi.dk/~emmeche/cePubl/97e.defLife.v3f.html

That's not to say that we can't say what is alive. We can definitely say what is alive, but that is meaningless. Spermatazoa is alive, but I don't really hear you complaining about the murder of sperm that you (if you are male) commit every day.

Now, will you answer my chimera question, Bartikus or will you continue to obfuscate? Granted, it is a very difficult question to answer, but that is why I asked it in the first place.

0 Replies

Bart - A direct survey for you. You want me to be nice again, you'll answer it without question.

Answer for or against for the following topics.

1) Abortion
2) Adoption
3) SCNT embryonic stem cell research
4) IVF
5) Iraq war
6) Darfur intervention

Answer and answer promptly.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

P.S. As for scientists not having a proper definition of life...

http://www.astrobio.net/news/article226
http://www.nbi.dk/~emmeche/cePubl/97e.defLife.v3f.html

That's not to say that we can't say what is alive. We can definitely say what is alive, but that is meaningless. Spermatazoa is alive, but I don't really hear you complaining about the murder of sperm that you (if you are male) commit every day.

Now, will you answer my chimera question, Bartikus or will you continue to obfuscate? Granted, it is a very difficult question to answer, but that is why I asked it in the first place.

I don't know much about Chimeras....apparently you know more.

Could I at least read up on them?

I don't murder sperms every day......you don't know what your talking about.

Stereotype much.....?

0 Replies

Bartikus (in black): If "my" idea of life is crazy.....what's yours?

I don't define "life" like you zealots; I let the individual woman make up their own choice.

If you don't know....how can you say "my" idea of life is crazy?

Simple: you try to influence women you don't even know to save the zygote over their free choice.

Your the one who does'nt know what life is or know the sanctity of human life. How is that different from a radical with a bomb on his chest?

You talk about the "sanctity of life," but fail the laugh test; you don't do anything or advocate for all those millions of life already on this planet. It's what we call "fanaticism." You have not demonstrated the "sanctity of life" in any of your post yet. All you've done is try to define "human life." A poor choice, since your interest in "human life" doesn't exist. All your effort and interest goes into the zygote, a cell.

Definition for "fanatical; - unreasonably enthusiastic; overly zealous."

That fits you pro-lifers to a 't.'

0 Replies

From the examples I seen...chimeras are examples of human life.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.659:

0 Replies

Bartikus, What you see through your lens is defective. It has something to do with your brains that have been injured over the years of your upbringing.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bartikus, What you see through your lens is defective. It has something to do with your brains that have been injured over the years of your upbringing.

Ok Doc.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
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

So if the woman does'nt want it.....it's not a human life?

If she does............it is?

Answer? maybe?

The unwanted get gassed and discarded as trash (less than a dog) while the wanted get to be honored with the legal protection of..........................A full fledge human being.

nice. suttle is'nt it?

0 Replies

Bartikus; So if the woman does'nt want it.....it's not a human life?

If she does............it is?

It doesn't matter; it's not your responsibility or concern to control people you do not care for.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

So if the woman does'nt want it.....it's not a human life?

If she does............it is?

No. If the woman doesn't want it, it's still a form of human life. The status of human life does not secure the unborn's rights. The mother being custodian of those rights defines them.

T
K
O

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bartikus; So if the woman does'nt want it.....it's not a human life?

If she does............it is?

It doesn't matter; it's not your responsibility or concern to control people you do not care for.

You mean like the unborn child and mother?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

So if the woman does'nt want it.....it's not a human life?

If she does............it is?

No. If the woman doesn't want it, it's still a form of human life. The status of human life does not secure the unborn's rights. The mother being custodian of those rights defines them.

T
K
O

Thanks for a straight answer......would the second part be correct then in that human rights would then be granted to the unborn by the mother?

So just because one can pass as human....does not entitle them to human rights?

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know