When Does Life Begin?

Diest TKO wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

And knowing that human life begins at conception as Diest and CI will agree.....That's strikes me as just more than a bit odd. I am even more perplexed when others (who say life begins at conception) are not struck by this!

What say you? Do you still sense hypocrisy...I know I do! And yes it's disturbing.

I'll give you this: It certainly would be hypocracy, if the status of the unborn was the central issue in the issue. Sense I'm not allowed to make my case here, it really doesn't matter anyways.

You've decided I'm a hypocrite, and you've decided you won't acknoledge what the larger issue here is. How convieniant for you.

It's you and your ilk that lack an appreciation for other's point of view, not me.

T
K
O

P.s. - Enjoy the numbers game. I suppose it's been a while since you've had a choir. I really don't mind singing solo for the time being, just quit shutting off my mic. You affraid others would prefer my song to that of the choir?

Interesting that you called me a hypocrite in your last post, but you take issue with Bartikus using that word with you.

You go on to acknowlege that you are in a miniority with your opinions. With the copious amount of rhetoric that you have posted in this thread, it is indeed, not surprising that you do not more support.

You insist on taking the topic of the thread into a different direction and I am no longer sure exactly what direction that is. There has been so much written with long posts that, I am sure, much is missed in the thread.

There has been much written, in many abortion related threads, and if you put them all together you would not be able to tell one thread from another. Mostly, the same folks post in each thread. Mostly, the same folks post the same information. Mostly, the same folks claim that their position is the correct position. Mostly, the same folks look for backing from other same folks.

Question...... Has ANYBODY ever changed their mind about the issues from reading any of these threads?

0 Replies

I see your point Fungo, however my theory is more related to what happens when a woman makes the choice to keep a child. The mother being incapacitated to make said choice kind of breaks new ground.

I think that in the circumstances you've described, no social theory would be able to accurately describe what kinds of experiances/emotions an individual would experiance nor would any social theory be able to meter what kind of moral or ethical implications the individuals actions upon awakening.

three senarios exist...

1) The woman wakes up and is close to birth, she decides to abort. This senario is most likely to be because she was unaware that she was pregnant when she went comatose.
2) The woman chooses to keep the child and then is put into a state of coma. Come the time of delivery, she still has not woke up. The doctor's decide to perform an abortion (most likely at the consent of the family) dure to the high risk to the comatose woman. The woman wakes up some time after the abortion.
3) The woman plans to have an abortion. Has an accident. Becomes comatose. Doctor's decide to deliver via C-section. woman wakes up.

I'm not sure that any social theory could determine what is socially acceptable for the woman to do for any of the above. The circumstances seem rare enough however to classify outside of the domain of my original theory. Perhaps other senarios exist with the woman in coma, but I think it would be more of the same. I think for that matter that the only socially unacceptable action that the mother could take is in senario 3, and that would be to insist that the born baby be euthanized. Being that the biological relationship has changed, and the baby would have additionally been under the care of other's, the baby would then begin establishing personhood post birth.

It's a hard senario, but ultimately one that doesn't drive the rest of the theory. Kind of a case by case situation methinks.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

mismi40 wrote:
The fetus has 100% of it's genetic makeup determined already, intentionally moving toward becoming a baby.
False, the fetus does not have the wherefore-all for intentionality.

Perhaps the use of word games would be better served with logical points about the issue. Just as mismi40 has done.

Perhaps your understanding of the "intentionally moving forward" term was different than the write intentioned. However, I think that most of us understood her meaning. Would you accept the sentence more if the word intentionally was removed?

As for your persistent claim that a seed is not a tree. What does a tree come from? A stone?

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Interesting that you called me a hypocrite in your last post, but you take issue with Bartikus using that word with you.

I'm willing to defend my statements. Bart likes to put words in my mouth, and then wishes to cross-examine the points I'm not making. He is asking me to reconsile my opinions with the opinions he demands that I have. I don't really care what Bart thinks I am, a coward's opinion isn't really worth a wooden nickel.

Intrepid wrote:

You go on to acknowlege that you are in a miniority with your opinions. With the copious amount of rhetoric that you have posted in this thread, it is indeed, not surprising that you do not more support.

Funny that since that post many pro-choicers have came back from ciesta and have re-entered the dialogue. How embarrassing it must be for you to post crap like this and then be called on it.

Intrepid wrote:

Question...... Has ANYBODY ever changed their mind about the issues from reading any of these threads?

In fact, I have. I came here with the issue really up in the air. I knew things from both sides of this classic argument. At first I just read, and once I learned more I entered the dialogue. Since then, I believe that the sahred ideas in this furum have directly solidified my beliefs and cultured my arguments for it.

I'm not the only one either.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Dutchy wrote:

Chumly wrote:
mismi40,

Your claim that you were "pretty clear - and fairly logical" is not only specious but unsubstantiated.

In addition, the majority of the content of your latest post is simply more logical fallacies, inclusive of the Straw Man logical fallacy as per your claim of what you think my concern is.

If you intend to dialog intelligently you will need to be able to dialog with logicality, congruency and empiricism. Unfortunately you have not shown these abilities to much extent.

I suggest you start with learning how to define your terms and understanding and thus hopefully avoiding the larger pitfalls of logical fallacies.

Chumly your verboseness is a lot of hogwash. Go back to school and learn to speak proper English first before tangling yourself up in words which are totally irrelevant to the issues the lady so clearly put forward!

Good post, Dutchy. A newcomer to the thread has come in and quickly understood the dynamics.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

As for your persistent claim that a seed is not a tree. What does a tree come from? A stone?

It comes from another tree. Sadly you fail to realize that you just made a point for life being represented as a cycle, not a line.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Good post, Dutchy. A newcomer to the thread has come in and quickly understood the dynamics.

I somehow think that Dutchy is rarely referred to as a newcomer...lol

77,000+ posts is impressive...

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
As for your persistent claim that a seed is not a tree. What does a tree come from? A stone?

It comes from another tree. Sadly you fail to realize that you just made a point for life being represented as a cycle, not a line.

T
K
O

Oh? Then where does the seed come from and what is it's purpose?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Good post, Dutchy. A newcomer to the thread has come in and quickly understood the dynamics.
I somehow think that Dutchy is rarely referred to as a newcomer...lol

77,000+ posts is impressive...

T
K
O

I think that most people would have recognized that I meant newcomer to this thread. You, however, are in such a hurry to respond to posts that you do not take the time to fully absorb them.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Good post, Dutchy. A newcomer to the thread has come in and quickly understood the dynamics.
I somehow think that Dutchy is rarely referred to as a newcomer...lol

77,000+ posts is impressive...

T
K
O

I think that most people would have recognized that I meant newcomer to this thread. You, however, are in such a hurry to respond to posts that you do not take the time to fully absorb them.

I read your kiss-ass post. I was just pointing out the irony.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
As for your persistent claim that a seed is not a tree. What does a tree come from? A stone?

It comes from another tree. Sadly you fail to realize that you just made a point for life being represented as a cycle, not a line.

T
K
O

Oh? Then where does the seed come from and what is it's purpose?

Answer in red. As for purpose, the purpose of the seed is to...

1) make sound when someone walks over it
2) be food
3) become a tree
4) look pretty
5) be counted
6) nothing

Any or all answers are correct. What does the concept of "purpose" have to do with this? No purpose could be given to the seed that would make the seed a tree any earlier would it? The only thing that makes a seed a tree is putting it in the soil.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Your posts are riddled with logical fallacies.

A seed is not a tree..

Speaking of fallacies, did you notice we're talking about humans, not trees?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
As for your persistent claim that a seed is not a tree. What does a tree come from? A stone?

It comes from another tree. Sadly you fail to realize that you just made a point for life being represented as a cycle, not a line.

T
K
O

Oh? Then where does the seed come from and what is it's purpose?

Answer in red. As for purpose, the purpose of the seed is to...

1) make sound when someone walks over it
2) be food
3) become a tree
4) look pretty
5) be counted
6) nothing

Any or all answers are correct. What does the concept of "purpose" have to do with this? No purpose could be given to the seed that would make the seed a tree any earlier would it? The only thing that makes a seed a tree is putting it in the soil.

T
K
O

You continue to confound me. If a tree comes from a tree and not a seed, why did you put become a tree in your list above?

0 Replies

fungotheclown wrote:

So, I'm still waiting to hear back from a few of you on this...
Real Life said

Quote:
......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?

I said

Quote:
........ 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........

......... I'm looking at you reallife, these arguments were made in direct response to your argument. So far, they've been unchallenged by the group. Seems you might want to refute them...

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Quote:

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[2]

The law provides penalties for injuring or killing the unborn at any stage of development.

Quote:

It was ultimately co-sponsored by 136 other members of the House before it passed by a vote of 254 in favor to 163 against on February 26, 2004. After several amendments were rejected, it was passed in the Senate by a vote of 61-38 on March 25, 2004. It was signed into law by President Bush on April 1, 2004.

and

Quote:

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was strongly opposed by most "pro-choice" organizations, on grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision said that the human fetus is not a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and that if the fetus were a Fourteenth Amendment "person," then he or she would have a constitutional right to life.

Do you support this law?

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
As for your persistent claim that a seed is not a tree. What does a tree come from? A stone?

It comes from another tree. Sadly you fail to realize that you just made a point for life being represented as a cycle, not a line.

T
K
O

Oh? Then where does the seed come from and what is it's purpose?

Answer in red. As for purpose, the purpose of the seed is to...

1) make sound when someone walks over it
2) be food
3) become a tree
4) look pretty
5) be counted
6) nothing

Any or all answers are correct. What does the concept of "purpose" have to do with this? No purpose could be given to the seed that would make the seed a tree any earlier would it? The only thing that makes a seed a tree is putting it in the soil.

T
K
O

You continue to confound me. If a tree comes from a tree and not a seed, why did you put become a tree in your list above?

My apologies. I understand why you are confused. I answered incorrectly. I answered where a seed comes from, not where a tree comes from.

A tree comes from a seed. Neither trees or seeds come from rocks, what on earth are you talking about?

Why do you ask these things? The reason this example is used is because it contains easily understood varibles. We know what trees and seeds are. We know their relationship. Why do you keep asking questions like this?

T
K
O

0 Replies

real life wrote:

fungotheclown wrote:
So, I'm still waiting to hear back from a few of you on this...
Real Life said

Quote:
......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?

I said

Quote:
........ 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........

......... I'm looking at you reallife, these arguments were made in direct response to your argument. So far, they've been unchallenged by the group. Seems you might want to refute them...

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Quote:
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[2]

The law provides penalties for injuring or killing the unborn at any stage of development.

Quote:
It was ultimately co-sponsored by 136 other members of the House before it passed by a vote of 254 in favor to 163 against on February 26, 2004. After several amendments were rejected, it was passed in the Senate by a vote of 61-38 on March 25, 2004. It was signed into law by President Bush on April 1, 2004.

and

Quote:
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was strongly opposed by most "pro-choice" organizations, on grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision said that the human fetus is not a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and that if the fetus were a Fourteenth Amendment "person," then he or she would have a constitutional right to life.

Do you support this law?

Good points and questions to the pro choicer RL: Nice work. We shall see who will answer. I support the law fully. :wink:

Abortion on demand is on it's way to the same place as the aborted babies.....the trash heap!

I wonder what charge fungo thinks a person should face for killing (what he considers) a leech or tapeworm that a mother regards as her child?

Care to answer fungo... clown ....?

0 Replies

I can support a law for the unborn, but this law is poorly worded. I'm indifferent. I see fetal death and abortion to be two seperate topics.

Example: I would support a law that made theft illegal, on the grounds that it destroys societal order. I would not support a law that is worded such that theft is illegal because the God forbids it.

Poorly worded as it may be, the law does do one thing. It absolutely defines abortion to not be any of the 60 offences outlined. That includes murder RL.

Legally this law defines aboriton is not synonomous with murder.

Quote:

"the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

T
K
O

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

I wonder what charge fungo thinks a person should face for killing (what he considers) a leech or tapeworm that a mother regards as her child?

Strike.

T
K
Out.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Your posts are riddled with logical fallacies.

A seed is not a tree..

Speaking of fallacies, did you notice we're talking about humans, not trees?

An analogy is not in and of itself a logical a fallacy, whereas your red herring claim surely is a logical fallacy.

Sorry you rate a unnoticed tremor on the Richter scale of argumentation theory. An amusing analogy given there is no lower limit on the Richter scale.

0 Replies

The belief that a fertilized egg is a de facto human being is nothing more than idealized absolutism.

I have yet to hear one rational logical argument based on empiricism where this belief can be substantiated.

Without a rational logical argument based on empiricism, then the belief that a fertilized egg is a de facto human being has a believability on par with the tooth fairy.

Heck, perhaps sub-par with the tooth fairy given that there is evidence the tooth fairy exists because money is left under the pillow and the tooth so placed disappears.

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know