When Does Life Begin?

Intrepid wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Are you familiar with what a seed is?

I'm not sure what you're struggling with.

T
K
O

There you go again. Answering a question with a question. Have you forgotten the whole discussion...many, many, many pages back about seeds, skin cells etc. etc. The likening of them to zygotes etc. and them not being an adult version of their genetic makeup? Things to that effect.

Now you ask if Bartikus is not aware of what a seed is. You have more spots than a leopard.

What are you smoking!?

You have no meter for sarcasm.

Hint: Chumly doesn't think that a skin cell is equivilant to a human.

He is making fun of the logical path that many pro-lifers arguement for the significance of the embryo because of "potential life."

Have you ever picked an apple from a seed?

You just don't want to understand.

T
K
O

Bartikus wrote:

With IVF embryos do not die by the hands of others.....they just die.

With abortion embryos (human life) die by the hands of people.

Do you not see the difference?

Just a reminder.

If you already agree that life begins at conception, the rest of it is a moot point.

We seem to agree when life begins. We only differ on when and how it should end.

BTW... an embryo is not potential life. It IS life.

We never argued that the unborn was just potential life.....he did and maybe you.

Rather it is a human life....with potential!

intrepid wrote:

If you already agree that life begins at conception, the rest of it is a moot point.

You see, there's nothing to disagree about on this. What is disagreed on is what that information's significance is in the larger equation.

Deathrow inmate's are human, yet our society for better or for worse finds it to be justifiable to end their life. They could use any number of means to expire a criminal, which do they choose: natural or unnatural? when was the last time you heard of a criminal being put to death by starvation? Do you know why we choose a unnatural means of death? Because, man is kinder than nature. Even Jesus on the cross met a nicer death than many victims of HIV/AIDS or any number of diseases.

Bartikus wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

With IVF embryos do not die by the hands of others.....they just die.

With abortion embryos (human life) die by the hands of people.

Do you not see the difference?

Just a reminder.

Sorry, it's hard to keep track of every question you throw my way. I've done my best to answer.

The difference in the above is not based on any science: The embryos that expire both naturally and electively are the same. It is not supported by the idea that the embryo should have the right to life, and if by Intrepid's arguement that the many embryos that die during IVF die of natural causes. This declaration of nature being the only means of death that is acceptable opens the door for any individual who does not wish to have a child to carry the unborn to term, give birth, and then allow the newborn to die naturally, like starving, or from exposure, or dyhydration. All natural ways in which life ends, yes? Technically, yes. Spiritually, morally and emotionally - there are major differences though.

As for dying at the hands of people, am I incorrect that many species kill their young. Is this not a part of nature? Where does natural law support your beliefs? Sure many species kill their young. How many of those species have the ability to reason? You can include various species of animals in this argument, but you must not include humans due to our ability to reason.

Key word here is natural right? No. That's what separates the evil abortionists and stem cell sociopaths from the benevolent doctors at the fertilization clinics, right? The embryos die naturally? Of course they were "artificially" inseminated... a paradox right? You define what is right and wrong by what is natural, and then you require what is unnatural to provide what is right? Tell me whose on the merry-go-round? You're still confusing 'natural' with 'reasonable', or having the ability to reason.

As you can see comrades, you're use of nature to divide is both cruel and hypocritical. It doesn't work.

The truth is that the doctors working on abortions, IVF, and SCNT stem cell research are not the sociopaths the pro-life crowd paint them to be. No more for that matter than all the teachers, firefighters and nuns are benevolent angels they are always made out to be.

I've seem the articles RL posts here about people who abuse the system, doctors who run clinics in a shady way, and I don't approve, but it's unrealistic to buy into a large conspiracy that would indentify all the intents of the doctors and nurses as evil, and all the women as idiots.

We don't see people rioting in the streets demanding that our police forces be shut down every time a cop excepts a bribe do we? Are you equating the acceptance of a bribe with the death of a human life? That's quite a stretch, don't you agree?

As for the people having the abortions, look at the facts. Look at the numbers. They don't support the idea of women with no care for life or respect for child birth.

Did you know that the abortion rate for women with no children is the same as the aboriton rate for women with 4+ children? With 4 or more children, I think you know what a child means.
Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html

It's no surprize that unmarried women have more abortions? Do the unmarried have a less apreciation of life? You ready to make that case?

intrepid wrote:

If you already agree that life begins at conception, the rest of it is a moot point.

You see, there's nothing to disagree about on this. What is disagreed on is what that information's significance is in the larger equation.

Deathrow inmate's are human, yet our society for better or for worse finds it to be justifiable to end their life. This is not a fair comparison and morally I'm sure you agree with that. They could use any number of means to expire a criminal, which do they choose: natural or unnatural? when was the last time you heard of a criminal being put to death by starvation? Do you know why we choose a unnatural means of death? Because, man is kinder than nature. By reason. Even Jesus on the cross met a nicer death than many victims of HIV/AIDS or any number of diseases. You do not know this to be true.

intrepid wrote:

We seem to agree when life begins. We only differ on when and how it should end.

Incorrect again sir. I have no opinion how it should end. You have no opinion on the method of, length of time suffering, etc. related to how your Mom dies? Are you sure about that?

intrepid wrote:

BTW... an embryo is not potential life. It IS life.

Quite agreed, but again life itself is not the defining characteristic of character or personhood. W/O life, none of those can exist. It's a moot point.

Bartikus wrote:

We never argued that the unborn was just potential life.....he did and maybe you.

Rather it is a human life....with potential!

Before I go for the night... morning... whatever, I'll return to the seed and the tree. I'll try my best to demonstrate what Chumly has been trying to show you.

The statement above that the embryo is human life with potential is with the gift of science no different than the skin cell. While the skin cell does not equal the embyo, both are human life, both share the potential, and both can produce the same final outcome.

With IVF a artificial procedure is done which results in a natural result.

With the skin cell, a unnatural procedure could be done which would provide a natural result.

So given three human beings:
1) one naturally concieved
2) one artificially concieved (IVF)
3) one cloned

All three coming into existance by different means. Does the third have less significance because it came from a skin cell?

when all three were just a single cell was any of them more entitled than the other?

The idea that something is a human life with potential is also not a very objective.

So what do I find valueable? Choice.

Choice is what gives the seed a value. I can have a seed, all I like, but it doesn't have any value until I either eat it or put it in the soil to grow.

If I tend to that soil, I get a leaf, then a sappling, and then a tree. That tree one day can bear fruit, and put it's seeds out. I can choose to fill a field full of trees, make a grove. One day I will run out of land. I can choose to keep planting my seeds in the grove but the seeds don't grow well in the shade. Their roots don't get the water or nutrients from the soil. They don't really grow. Soon, I have more seeds than I know what to do with. Two men come along, one offers me to sell his land, and says if I buy he'll even show me the best way to irrigate my grove. The second man simply tells me that I must plant the seeds, that it's natural for the seeds to be planted and that it's my responcibility. Both men agree that more trees are better, but they have different ideas on how to go about it.

I'd buy the land, and make the grove larger. I'd plant the seeds I already have.

You see the the soil and water represents the resources needed to raise a child: Homes, families, schools, medicine. The extra land certainly costs more and takes more time, but in the end, you have more trees that are healthier.

This is just one example of the tree and the seed. There's no excuse for not understanding the metaphor after my prose.
That's all for tonight folks.
K
O

P.s. - I understand this is far too large of a post to respond to. This is mostly unfortunate, as I would liek to hear rebuttle for ALL of my arguements, but realize this would lead to further ridiculously large posts.

Did everyone know that down in Florida, if someone is driving and hits a car with a pregnant woman in it and kills the woman (and the baby inside her) that the person is charged with 2 counts of vehicular manslughter? One for the mom and one for the baby.

Diest TKO wrote:

intrepid wrote:

If you already agree that life begins at conception, the rest of it is a moot point.

You see, there's nothing to disagree about on this. What is disagreed on is what that information's significance is in the larger equation.

Deathrow inmate's are human, yet our society for better or for worse finds it to be justifiable to end their life. They could use any number of means to expire a criminal, which do they choose: natural or unnatural? when was the last time you heard of a criminal being put to death by starvation? Do you know why we choose a unnatural means of death? Because, man is kinder than nature. Even Jesus on the cross met a nicer death than many victims of HIV/AIDS or any number of diseases.

A nicer death? Deathrow inmates?

Lastly, because it seems to push some buttons, a death by cross is not profound in terms of pain. So many people have suffered without being on a cross. Their pain is easily comparrable and in some cases their death may exceed the cross in both pain and cruelty. I may not have been nailed to a cross. If I'm not qualified to talk about the pain or cruelty of dying on a cross, how are pro-lifers qualified to talk about the pain and cruelty of abortion?


T
K
O

Lastly, because it seems to push some buttons, a death by cross is not profound in terms of pain. So many people have suffered without being on a cross. Their pain is easily comparrable and in some cases their death may exceed the cross in both pain and cruelty. I may not have been nailed to a cross. If I'm not qualified to talk about the pain or cruelty of dying on a cross, how are pro-lifers qualified to talk about the pain and cruelty of abortion?

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

Lastly, because it seems to push some buttons, a death by cross is not profound in terms of pain. So many people have suffered without being on a cross. Their pain is easily comparrable and in some cases their death may exceed the cross in both pain and cruelty. I may not have been nailed to a cross. If I'm not qualified to talk about the pain or cruelty of dying on a cross, how are pro-lifers qualified to talk about the pain and cruelty of abortion?


T
K
O

This is too ridiculous to even merit an answer. Any thinking person would know thie answer to this.

It now comes down to the degree of pain that the fetus feels during an abortion? What do you consider too much???????

Diest TKO wrote:

Lastly, because it seems to push some buttons, a death by cross is not profound in terms of pain. So many people have suffered without being on a cross. Their pain is easily comparrable and in some cases their death may exceed the cross in both pain and cruelty. I may not have been nailed to a cross. If I'm not qualified to talk about the pain or cruelty of dying on a cross, how are pro-lifers qualified to talk about the pain and cruelty of abortion?

T
K
O

This brings up an interesting question for me...let's not consider ourselves or the mother in the equation at all....
Does the baby in utero feel pain and when does that happen? I am amazed at people who are upset about catching fish and throwing them back into a lake because of the cruelty and pain caused to the fish - I understand the fish doesn't feel pain or receive it the way we do - therefore not as cruel - but that point aside - (sorry - I digress)

Do people bring up the pain of a child being aborted? I want to know. So, in looking up information - apparently babies can feel as early as 8 weeks.

By 8 weeks? Show me!

By this age the neuro-anatomic structures are present. What is needed is (1) a sensory nerve to feel the pain and send a message to (2) the thalamus, a part of the base of the brain, and (3) motor nerves that send a message to that area. These are present at 8 weeks. The pain impulse goes to the thalamus. It sends a signal down the motor nerves to pull away from the hurt.



Give an example.

Try sticking an infant with a pin and you know what happens. She opens her mouth to cry and also pulls away.

Try sticking an 8 week old human fetus in the palm of his hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his hand away.

A more technical description would add that changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus. Volman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Journal, Jan. 26, 1980, pp. 233-234.

O.K., that is activity that can be observed, but is there other evidence of pain? After all, the fetal baby can't tell us he hurts.

Pain can be detected when nociceptors (pain receptors) discharge electrical impulses to the spinal cord and brain. These fire impulses outward, telling the muscles and body to react. These can be measured. Mountcastle, Medical Physiology, St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, pp. 391-427 "Lip tactile response may be evoked by the end of the 7th week. At 11 weeks, the face and all parts of the upper and lower extremities are sensitive to touch. By 13 1/2 to 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except for the back and the top of the head, are sensitive to pain." S. Reinis & J. Goldman, The Development of the Brain C. Thomas Pub., 1980

Does it change anything that abortion is painful and cruel to the child in utero?

I have given all my reasons on being against abortion - but truly - when does cruelty apply and when does it not? Seems to me that once again convenience is what we base our convictions on many times in many areas....should it be that way for abortion? Especially if we know the child is in pain when we are pulling him from the womb?

I was asking - my mistake - I have read so much of what you all have written - sometimes it seems like you are repeating yourselves an awful lot...stands to reason I would skip a bit - won't happen again. Should just keep my two cents to myself I suppose - You are such a warm and fuzzy person TKO - a joy to converse with.

Intrepid wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Lastly, because it seems to push some buttons, a death by cross is not profound in terms of pain. So many people have suffered without being on a cross. Their pain is easily comparrable and in some cases their death may exceed the cross in both pain and cruelty. I may not have been nailed to a cross. If I'm not qualified to talk about the pain or cruelty of dying on a cross, how are pro-lifers qualified to talk about the pain and cruelty of abortion?


T
K
O

This is too ridiculous to even merit an answer. Any thinking person would know thie answer to this.

It now comes down to the degree of pain that the fetus feels during an abortion? What do you consider too much???????

You aren't very well versed in the history of this thread nor the abortion dialogue. Pro-lifers have often made a case about the suffering of the unborn. I don't have an opinion on what is "too much," it's completely besides the point.

Pay attention.

T
K
O