When Does Life Begin?

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Bartikus wrote:
Any malice OR intent with my sperms? Nope. Then abortion more resembles it.

I already answered.

humans beget humans....and not because I say so or even because you agree!

That answers nothing. You said that human life begins at conception. Fair enough? Right, so if two oocytes are fertilised, according to you, then two lives are formed? Right so far? If those are fused together to form a chimera, then what happens to the two lives? Do they become one or does one die for the other?

If one oocyte is fertilised, one human life is created, according to you, right? If it then splits, does that mean the twins, according to your logic, are half a human each?

If you don't answer, I will assume you think twins are half-human and chimeras are superhuman.

Why would an identical twin be half human? Are you worried about twins being treated as less than human and chimeras being treated a superhuman over others?

In identical twinning their are 2 conceptions that occur right?

This would point to the possibility that the unborn have the ability to reproduce.....you know like a mother and father! Like a full fledged human being of a woman with rights and everything.

God's hand is there!

This is what the Lord says---your redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the Lord, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.
Isaiah 44:24

Maybe the chimeras are 2 halfs making one whole! Kinda like it takes a Man and woman to make a marriage...and a baby. Maybe they are soulmates?

Just as God intended. Now what?

"brave one"

God loves you! Wolf. He formed you.

Did you plan to make a charge?

0 Replies

It's kinda ironic Wolf.

I've had 2 sets of twins with my wife. 1 set fraternal the other identical.

The identical are fully human each...they shared a heart. I buried my unborn child.....I gave her at least the respect of.....a dog.

Now I know, how OHHH soooooo much more of a life she really was, is and always will be!

For that I thank you.

Have'nt you ever felt like half a person? Wolf?

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Why would an identical twin be half human?

You tell me. It's your worldview.

Quote:

In identical twinning their are 2 conceptions that occur right?

Wrong. In identical twins, one conception occurs. One egg is fertilised by one sperm to form one zygote. That zygote splits into two. Both will eventually develop into human beings, if nothing goes wrong.

Quote:

This would point to the possibility that the unborn have the ability to reproduce.....you know like a mother and father! Like a full fledged human being of a woman with rights and everything.

It's not reproduction. What part of, zygote splits into two, do you not understand? It is an accident. A clump of cells splits into two clumps of cells. It cannot be called reproduction anymore than the growth of new skin cells.

The zygote has no human rights. It has no right to vote. It has no right to freedom of religion. It has no right to freedom of speech. It has no right to freedom. It cannot vote, it cannot pray, it cannot speak, it cannot even be free, because it has to be confined within a woman for nine whole months.

It also has no right to life, as it cannot be guaranteed. You cannot do anything to ensure its right to life. Even if you ban abortion, a ridiculous notion that does not target the root problem, you still cannot guarantee its right to life. 60% of all conceptions fail and are spontaneously aborted.

Quote:

Maybe the chimeras are 2 halfs making one whole! Kinda like it takes a Man and woman to make a marriage...and a baby. Maybe they are soulmates?

Except a marriage is an artificial construct featuring two individual organisms and a chimera is not. A chimera is a single being. It is one person with one mind, one heart and one set of experiences.

Yet your imaginary friend sees fit to destroy the potential life of one being by merging the two together. They don't share experiences. There's nothing to share. It's one person.

And for further reference, I'm not interested in your religious preaching so you can save the effort by forgoing it altogether.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

...The zygote has no human rights. It has no right to vote. It has no right to freedom of religion. It has no right to freedom of speech. It has no right to freedom. It cannot vote, it cannot pray, it cannot speak, it cannot even be free, because it has to be confined within a woman for nine whole months...

wolf:

Please excuse me if you've previously answered this for I have not seen it. At what point of life/gestation/etc. do you consider the being to have the right to live? Specifically - at what point in time do you believe that it is immoral and/or wrong to abort?

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

The zygote has no human rights. It has no right to vote. It has no right to freedom of religion. It has no right to freedom of speech. It has no right to freedom. It cannot vote, it cannot pray, it cannot speak, it cannot even be free, because it has to be confined within a woman for nine whole months.

It has the right to life.
Adults are only given the rights that you speak of by other adults and government.
There are adults who cannot speak; cannot be free; cannot have freedom of religion (there are even those on this board who would take that away)
These arguments are absurd.

Quote:

It also has no right to life, as it cannot be guaranteed. You cannot do anything to ensure its right to life. Even if you ban abortion, a ridiculous notion that does not target the root problem, you still cannot guarantee its right to life. 60% of all conceptions fail and are spontaneously aborted.

Adult life cannot be guaranteed either. You or I could drop dead at any moment. Spontaneous abortion is not murder. Abortion is the willful taking of a living, breathing being.

It has the right to life.

0 Replies

Exactly so.

The issue remains: Is the unborn a living human being?

The Supreme court justices admitted as much in Roe when stating that if the personhood of the unborn is established the pro-abortion argument collapses.

Good to hear from you, Intrepid.

Hope you are doing well, my friend.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

...The zygote has no human rights.... because it has to be confined within a woman for nine whole months...

If the unborn were not in the womb, would it have the right to life?

0 Replies

Spontaneous abortion?

you mean miscarriage?

Nice play on words going there guys.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Bartikus wrote:
Why would an identical twin be half human?

You tell me. It's your worldview.

Quote:
In identical twinning their are 2 conceptions that occur right?

Wrong. In identical twins, one conception occurs. One egg is fertilised by one sperm to form one zygote. That zygote splits into two. Both will eventually develop into human beings, if nothing goes wrong.

Quote:
This would point to the possibility that the unborn have the ability to reproduce.....you know like a mother and father! Like a full fledged human being of a woman with rights and everything.

It's not reproduction. What part of, zygote splits into two, do you not understand? It is an accident. A clump of cells splits into two clumps of cells. It cannot be called reproduction anymore than the growth of new skin cells.

The zygote has no human rights. It has no right to vote. It has no right to freedom of religion. It has no right to freedom of speech. It has no right to freedom. It cannot vote, it cannot pray, it cannot speak, it cannot even be free, because it has to be confined within a woman for nine whole months.

It also has no right to life, as it cannot be guaranteed. You cannot do anything to ensure its right to life. Even if you ban abortion, a ridiculous notion that does not target the root problem, you still cannot guarantee its right to life. 60% of all conceptions fail and are spontaneously aborted.

Quote:
Maybe the chimeras are 2 halfs making one whole! Kinda like it takes a Man and woman to make a marriage...and a baby. Maybe they are soulmates?

Except a marriage is an artificial construct featuring two individual organisms and a chimera is not. A chimera is a single being. It is one person with one mind, one heart and one set of experiences.

Yet your imaginary friend sees fit to destroy the potential life of one being by merging the two together. They don't share experiences. There's nothing to share. It's one person.

And for further reference, I'm not interested in your religious preaching so you can save the effort by forgoing it altogether.

It's not my worldview....you are the only one who suggested it using my logic remember?You took it the extra step further not I!

I also suggested you go with more than just logic....remember?
Did you? NO beep beep beep

http://www.matthewbarr.co.uk/sounds/auto_destruct.wav

0 Replies

Yes, miscarriage is often cited as justification for abortion.

As if pushing someone down a flight of stairs were the same as when they accidentally fall down the stairs.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Spontaneous abortion?

you mean miscarriage?

Nice play on words going there guys.

Both terms mean the same thing, Bartikus. Just as spontaneous combustion means that something caught on fire.

0 Replies

I kinda figured that but, I don't hear the term spontaneous abortion as much as miscarriage and therefore less familiar with it.

I never heard a woman say she had a "spontaneous abortion"!

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

I kinda figured that but, I don't hear the term spontaneous abortion as much as miscarriage and therefore less familiar with it.

Agreed that it is not as acceptable a term, to many. Many of us are familiar with miscarriage and have been directly affected by it. Yes, there can be as much of a feeling of loss with a miscarriage as it is with a fully born child.

0 Replies

Some seem to act as if only the woman has a sense of loss regarding a miscarriage.

My father in law and myself have both wept over Chloe. A guys feelings are worthless or what?....just not considered?

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

It has the right to life.
Adults are only given the rights that you speak of by other adults and government.
There are adults who cannot speak; cannot be free; cannot have freedom of religion (there are even those on this board who would take that away)
These arguments are absurd.

I do not agree. Skin cells do not have a right to life. Your stem cells do not have a right to life. Why should a zygote? Because it might become a human being that would desire all these rights? Well, so may a skin cell if a scientist should choose to use its DNA. So could a zygote that is eventually spontaneously aborted.

A zygote has none of the features that a human being has. It will become a human being, but it is not one anymore than an oocyte or a skin cell or a brain cell.

You may state, ah, but a zygote has all the genes that are required to make a human being. So? Your skin cells also have all the genes that are required to make a human being.

Intrepid wrote:

Adult life cannot be guaranteed either. You or I could drop dead at any moment.

Yes, but you can at least control the environment to a certain degree. Not so with the zygote.

Intrepid wrote:

Spontaneous abortion is not murder. Abortion is the willful taking of a living, breathing being.

Frankly, there's nothing to debate about this sentence, but I brought it up because I have an issue against something you said in it. It's technical, rather than anything else and therefore irrelevant to the discussion. However, I just wanted to point out that at no point does the unborn breathe. You forget that it is surrounded by amniotic fluid that contains no oxygen.

baddog1 wrote:

Please excuse me if you've previously answered this for I have not seen it.

Oh, I've answered the question but it was a long time ago, so I don't blame you for asking me thse questions.

Quote:

At what point of life/gestation/etc. do you consider the being to have the right to live?

Actually, I haven't this questioned. It's the latter one.

Anyway, its right to life is dictated by what the law states. Believe it or not but rights are given to you by society. If they were not given to you, you would have no right to anything e.g. the despotic regimes of China and Saudi Arabia.

Because the entire debate is severely lacking in actual fact (the entire debate is emotional) I tend to get my viewpoints confused on the matter. However, I do believe that currently in the UK, it is illegal to abort after 24 weeks of gestation with medical exceptions. Therefore, the law affords the embryo a right to life after 24 weeks.

Quote:

Specifically - at what point in time do you believe that it is immoral and/or wrong to abort?

Immoral is a meaninglessly subjective word as far as I'm concerned. There are cases where the majority of people agree what is immoral, but it is so subjective I tend not to use it any context other than describing people who subscribe to these terms.

However, all my decisions on what is right or wrong are based on empathy. Would I want something done to me? Without a nervous system, I wouldn't want anything and therefore during that time, I do believe there's nothing wrong with abortion.

The UK Government's position on abortion is very logic based and I approve it.

real life wrote:

If the unborn were not in the womb, would it have the right to life?

No. And don't talk to me about babies that were born prematurely. If they were born prematurely, they wouldn't be unborn, now would they?

0 Replies

And around and round we go, and where it ends nobody knows!

0 Replies

Oh, I missed two posts.

All and any termination of a pregnancy is referred to as an abortion in medical circles. They just added the spontaneous word there to distinguish between that which is induced and that which occurs naturally... which begs the question of why they didn't use the word, natural.

I, however, was under the mistaken assumption that spontaneous abortion referred to the termination of pregnancy at a cellular stage and that miscarriage was something different. Which was why I kept referring to spontaneous abortion and not miscarriage, because I was talking solely about the early stages.

The later the development, the shakier the ground for abortion becomes, so I normally give way to anti-abortionists concerning late-term pregnancies.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

And around and round we go, and where it ends nobody knows!

Wrong!

Wolf will answer questions - whereas you won't answer questions and turn into a bobblehead who spouts off about children in far off countries on a thread about abortion.

0 Replies

To be pro choice....one would have to be pro information would'nt they?

What would happen if I took some pictures of the unborn...big ones...up to planned parenthood, showing some various stages of an unborn human's progress at various weeks or months?

Would they say No...we are'nt posting that stuff get out or what?

Do they currently show possible patients these images?

Do they really feel these images confuse a woman?

As a pro choicer....would you have an objection to a woman being exposed to these pictures?

Why or why not?

Will a pro choicer with cahonas (so to speak) please answer!

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
If the unborn were not in the womb, would it have the right to life?

No.

So, your stated rationale:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

...The zygote has no human rights.... because it has to be confined within a woman for nine whole months...

is really just a smokescreen, eh?

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

...And don't talk to me about babies that were born prematurely.

I'm not.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

...If they were born prematurely, they wouldn't be unborn, now would they?

That's true. But not what I was addressing.

So, since your comment about being in the mother's womb (and thus any issue regarding 'the woman's rights') is apparently not the real reason you would deny the unborn the right to life, what is the real reason?

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know