When Does Life Begin?

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

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.

Chumly wrote:

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.

The fertilized egg becomes a human when it comes to term.

The money is put under the pillow to replace the tooth when the child goes to sleep and wakes to find it (comes to term)

It appears that you may have just proved the logical argument for us.

Thank you.

Intrepid wrote:

Chumly wrote:

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.

The fertilized egg becomes a human when it comes to term.

The money is put under the pillow to replace the tooth when the child goes to sleep and wakes to find it (comes to term)

It appears that you may have just proved the logical argument for us.

Thank you.

Since you are willing to accept your response as proof of argument; expand on how you came to this conclusion.

So far the logical fallacy Non Sequitur would be a fitting description of your response. Mind you I am not adverse to the Non Sequitur as humor and as a fellow Canadian I am willing to give some additional leeway. At least on an temporary basis until my wife comes home and makes more immediate demands on my precious time.

edited to include charming manhood

Chumly wrote:

edited to include charming manhood

Logical fallacy and non Sequitur?

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.

Things being...fungo's opinion of what a woman carries during pregnancy.

Would'nt matter in a court proceeding. Would it? He could demand it to be a parasite until he was blue in the face. It would'nt make it so.

Bartikus wrote:

Things being...fungo's opinion of what a woman carries during pregnancy.

Would'nt matter in a court proceeding. Would it? He could demand it to be a parasite until he was blue in the face. It would'nt make it so.

Just show us how much you really care about the baby and the mother? How about all the orphan children of this world? How much care do you really have for all those starving children? Any? None? Some?

What business do you have in another human? Any? None? Some?

You're about as caring as a pig in a poke. You have no idea about humanity or humility.

Bartikus wrote:

Things being...fungo's opinion of what a woman carries during pregnancy.

Would'nt matter in a court proceeding. Would it? He could demand it to be a parasite until he was blue in the face. It would'nt make it so.

Just show us how much you really care about the baby and the mother? How about all the orphan children of this world? How much care do you really have for all those starving children? Any? None? Some?

What business do you have in another human? Any? None? Some?

You're about as caring as a pig in a poke. You have no idea about humanity or humility.

Haven't untangled my emotions from this yet but my questions for you fellas is....


Things are what they are. A tree is a tree...the seed will become a tree...both a necessary part of life - the tree however does not feel or think and never will even when it matures to be a huge oak. So who cares? :wink:

Parasites are parasites - the list has been given and I don't think the term can apply to a fetus - even before it develops its nervous system and has the ability to feel. But it is a fetus and will become a baby - unless terminated. The problem I have is the determination made by the mother or host (I hate that term - but fine - don't think it really hurts the argument to call the mother a host) as to whether this is a child or a parasite. It seems to me that changing the name of something because of the "desire" to keep or to terminate it is a little suspect. Things just are what they are - changing the name of something before it is accepted as worthy of protection and care - in this case the mother or hosts decision as to whether she wants to keep the baby - seems like it is simply a way to keep from feeling bad about making a choice that is in fact clouded by the mother or hosts desire to keep things normal in her life. And certainly that is hard - but to change the name of a living creature that will in fact be a baby seems wrong. It should be called what it is from the time it is conceived. So the question comes back to - When does life begin?

As far as the child feeling pain in utero - surgeons anesthetize to keep the baby from feeling pain when they are having to do surgery on the child - such as when it has spina bifida or some other anomaly that needs to be corrected while still in the womb. Why would they do that if it didn't really matter? It seems that folks are talking out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to this subject, and it all comes down to whether the baby is wanted or not. Whether the fetus is wanted or not - as to whether we care if it is in pain. That seems wrong as well. I am still wrestling with the questions that have been put up. But I wanted to state my thoughts before I forgot them! it happens -

Please forgive the muddled way I delivered it -

I agree. Just like a human is a human....wanted or not. The "desire" to keep or terminate is more than just a little suspect. History gives plenty of lessons on this.

But, it's none of my business because I have not helped every single person on the planet in need first. Nevermind that it's impossible for me to
do so.

If your message was muddled....I must be muddled cuz I can understand it.

Things are what they are. A tree is a tree...the seed will become a tree...both a necessary part of life - the tree however does not feel or think and never will even when it matures to be a huge oak. So who cares? :wink:

Parasites are parasites - the list has been given and I don't think the term can apply to a fetus - even before it develops its nervous system and has the ability to feel. But it is a fetus and will become a baby - unless terminated. The problem I have is the determination made by the mother or host (I hate that term - but fine - don't think it really hurts the argument to call the mother a host) as to whether this is a child or a parasite. It seems to me that changing the name of something because of the "desire" to keep or to terminate it is a little suspect. Things just are what they are - changing the name of something before it is accepted as worthy of protection and care - in this case the mother or hosts decision as to whether she wants to keep the baby - seems like it is simply a way to keep from feeling bad about making a choice that is in fact clouded by the mother or hosts desire to keep things normal in her life. And certainly that is hard - but to change the name of a living creature that will in fact be a baby seems wrong.

It should be called what it is from the time it is conceived. So the question comes back to - When does life begin?

No, it's none of your business because it's none of your business. Who are we too judge? I agree with most of mismi's points. The difference isn't that it comes down to when does life begin but, given that it's arguable, who should be the judge?