When Does Life Begin?

Bartikus wrote:

Every batter picks and chooses what to swing at. Who swings at every pitch? No one in the majors.

A good pitcher sends them right over the plate. Even if you don't swing Bart it's a strike.

Bartikus wrote:

You said human life begins at conception....Diest.

Yep. Sure did. Life begins at conception and rights begin sometime after that. By my opinion, about 6 months later, by the laws of our country about 9 months, by your judgement one second. Your point?

Bartikus wrote:

Don't get upset I did'nt swing at others but, this one gets clobbered. Besides you already called strike one on me.

I'm not upset. I'm cheering for the pitcher. You did get a hit, it went foul. Being that it was just a part of sentance, and you didn't even make that strong of a case: Foul ball.

T
K
O

What are we debating about? Tapeworms and parasites or what? I'm not interested in debating over parasites.....have fun.

First off, I don't think that self-defense is the only valid justification for war. I seriously doubt you do either. If you do, the American Revolutionary War was unjustified, because the colonists were not in danger. The American Civil War was not justified, because those who led and fought the majority of it were not in danger. Really, with the exception of a war with genocide as its goal, no war is justified, because simply accepting the aggressor's rule would almost certainly result in a lower loss of human life than resisting.

Second, I think the second murder charge as well as the legality of the abortion should be dependent on the level of the fetuses development. I agree that late-term and partial-birth abortions are wrong, but I don't think that a fertilized egg or early fetus is a human being. The nervous system is completely undeveloped, and it is completely dependent on the mother for survival. It's a parasite, one that we like, but a parasite nonetheless. It's closer to a leech or tapeworm than it is to a human being. In my eyes, the morning after pill is morally equivalent to tapeworm meds.

There are plenty of things that are morally justifiable, or even morally necessary, that we try to limit. Police actions, operations, laws in general, etc. You still haven't shown this this line of thinking to be a valid argument.

Your no ump!

Bartikus wrote:

What are we debating about? Tapeworms and parasites or what? I'm not interested in debating over parasites.....have fun.

I think Fungo originally wanted you to address his other points...

fungotheclown wrote:

First off, I don't think that self-defense is the only valid justification for war. I seriously doubt you do either. If you do, the American Revolutionary War was unjustified, because the colonists were not in danger. The American Civil War was not justified, because those who led and fought the majority of it were not in danger. Really, with the exception of a war with genocide as its goal, no war is justified, because simply accepting the aggressor's rule would almost certainly result in a lower loss of human life than resisting.

Second, I think the second murder charge as well as the legality of the abortion should be dependent on the level of the fetuses development. I agree that late-term and partial-birth abortions are wrong, but I don't think that a fertilized egg or early fetus is a human being. The nervous system is completely undeveloped, and it is completely dependent on the mother for survival. It's a parasite, one that we like, but a parasite nonetheless. It's closer to a leech or tapeworm than it is to a human being. In my eyes, the morning after pill is morally equivalent to tapeworm meds.

There are plenty of things that are morally justifiable, or even morally necessary, that we try to limit. Police actions, operations, laws in general, etc. You still haven't shown this this line of thinking to be a valid argument.

T
K
O

Bartikus wrote:

Your no ump!

And you're no player. Pitch after pitch, no swing. You're only chance to make it to first base is for Fungo to walk you, but he's sending them right over the plate.

(Aerospace Propulsion 235 here I come)

T
K
O

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CID/journal/issues/v29n4/CIDv29p734/CIDv29p734.web.pdf

This link provides a list of human parasites...please identify the parasite of which you speak fungo.

Fun....go.....clown.

Human life begins when Diest? This question has been settled for Diest fungo.

Bartikus wrote:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CID/journal/issues/v29n4/CIDv29p734/CIDv29p734.web.pdf

This link provides a list of human parasites...please identify the parasite of which you speak fungo.

Fun....go.....clown.

Human life begins when Diest? This question has been settled for Diest fungo.

Human life doesn't begin, it continues. The thread title is a trick question.

A zygote is in a mostly parasitic relationship with it's mother (there is arguably a small amount of symbiosis going on). The only reason it's often ommited from a list of human parasites, is because it may be seen as distasteful. It is, of course, a special case, but a parasite none-the-less.

fungotheclown wrote:

.....but I don't think that a fertilized egg or early fetus is a human being. The nervous system is completely undeveloped, and it is completely dependent on the mother for survival. It's a parasite, one that we like, but a parasite nonetheless. It's closer to a leech or tapeworm than it is to a human being. In my eyes, the morning after pill is morally equivalent to tapeworm meds.....

It's like a parasite? Like a tapeworm? Your not postulating that you have discovered a new actual parasite are you?

Just that you think or feel that it is like a parasite right?

War is morally justifiable as self defense.

How is killing the innocent anything like defending oneself (or one's country) to the death against an aggressor?

Many states have laws under which you can be charged with murder of the unborn, (for instance, when you shoot a pregnant woman and both she and the baby die).

Do you agree that you should be held liable for two murders in this situation?

Why or why not?

First off, I don't think that self-defense is the only valid justification for war. I seriously doubt you do either. If you do, the American Revolutionary War was unjustified, because the colonists were not in danger. The American Civil War was not justified, because those who led and fought the majority of it were not in danger. Really, with the exception of a war with genocide as its goal, no war is justified, because simply accepting the aggressor's rule would almost certainly result in a lower loss of human life than resisting.

Second, I think the second murder charge as well as the legality of the abortion should be dependent on the level of the fetuses development. I agree that late-term and partial-birth abortions are wrong, but I don't think that a fertilized egg or early fetus is a human being. The nervous system is completely undeveloped, and it is completely dependent on the mother for survival. It's a parasite, one that we like, but a parasite nonetheless. It's closer to a leech or tapeworm than it is to a human being. In my eyes, the morning after pill is morally equivalent to tapeworm meds.

There are plenty of things that are morally justifiable, or even morally necessary, that we try to limit. Police actions, operations, laws in general, etc. You still haven't shown this this line of thinking to be a valid argument.

Yes, pro-aborts must hold two contradictory views at the same time.

On one hand they must believe that abortion is of no moral consequence, i.e. 'removing' the unborn from the womb is no different than 'removing' a mole or a wart because there is no human being that is destroyed.

On the other hand, they almost always will say that they wish there were fewer abortions, that it was a very rare occurrence. Why should that be important if we are simply 'removing' a bit of flesh comparable to a mole?

Of course abortion has a moral consequence and it is between the person making the decision and her conscience/moral judge. That judge is not you, me, or anyone on this forum. There are no contradictory views, it simply isn't any of our business. A moral choice is just that. It is a choice -- the consequences of which of are between those making the choice and those in authority of being the judge.

Sure. Google around a bit, and you'll find plenty of medical & biological descriptions of the foetus as a parasite or it's parasitic relationship to it's mother.

(You'll find plenty of religious sites objecting to the idea too. No surprise there. It gets in the way of their romantic notion of a perfect complete mini-human person from day one.)

Some parasites have mothers, some don't. What does that have to do with anything?