When Does Life Begin?

The beginning of human life starts with the sperm and egg; the "very" beginning.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The question of human life is a medical one, however.

Medically, when does a living human being exist?

Precisely. And the issue of life rights is a legal one; a seperate issue.

Medically, when a human exists is not a factor in legally whn a being has rights. "Personhood," is, so says Roe v. Wade.

and I agree.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Ronald Reagan said: "No one who disbelieves in God and in an afterlife can possibly be trusted." Would you agree with that real life?

Instead of sidetracking this thread, why don't you start another if you wish to follow up that line of thinking, Chumly?

There's is a direct and obvious connection between extremist religionist viewpoints such your anti-choice position and extremist religionist viewpoints such as Ronald Reagan's doctrine that "No one who disbelieves in God and in an afterlife can possibly be trusted."

It all stems from the same closely related common pool of prejudice and ignorance, it's not "sidetracking this thread" at all, in fact it's quite connected.

So real life do you agree that "No one who disbelieves in God and in an afterlife can possibly be trusted."? If so why are you bothering to post in response to infidels?

Is your extremist-religionist-anti-choice position based on lack of trust of infidels?

Do you trust those whom do not share your extremist-religionist-anti-choice position?

Do you trust a pregnant woman with whom you do not share your extremist-religionist-anti-choice position?

Do you trust a pregnant woman with whom you do share your extremist-religionist-anti-choice position?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Run 4 fun,
do you believe pigs can fly?

If yes, can you show me how this is true?
If no, can you show me how this is true?
If maybe, why are you not sure?

From my knowlegde of pigs, their anatomy, and personal experience of pigs, I would not expect a pig to take off. However, it is very difficult to prove a universal negative and if there is a God who made nature, I would guess that he could make a pig fly.

Why are you asking me this? Laughing

0 Replies

I'll assume you believe in god, but you appear skeptical that pigs can fly, unless god wills them to do so. You don't see the irony?

0 Replies

He could make a pig fly only during biblical times. Poof magic doesn't work any more.

0 Replies

No, I don't see the irony. Logic and experience prove God's existence, but not pig's abilities to flight.

You would have to prove your first premise in order for your argument to work. However, if you aren't omniscient, you can't. Stinks for you, huh?

In fact, I have experienced several recent miraculous healings and a divinely powered laptop battery for some missionaries in my church on their trip to India.

0 Replies

What some people consider "miracles" doesn't understand batteries or facts; totally understandable.

0 Replies

Run 4 fun wrote:

No, I don't see the irony. Logic and experience prove God's existence, but not pig's abilities to flight.

You would have to prove your first premise in order for your argument to work. However, if you aren't omniscient, you can't. Stinks for you, huh?

In fact, I have experienced several recent miraculous healings and a divinely powered laptop battery for some missionaries in my church on their trip to India.

What exactly do you claim is my "first premise"?
What "logic" proves "God's existence"?
What "experience" proves "God's existence"?
These "miraculous healings" how do you know they were not the work of Huitzilopochtli?
This "divinely powered laptop battery" why would your laptop need a battery if it is "divinely powered"?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

if I saw 1 or 50 persons in mortal danger, I would do what I could to save them, even risking myself.

Yes, I got that. But the question is not about risking yourself. I would do that too. The question is would you trade your life for the lives of strangers?

If you knew that an innocent man was going to be executed, would you take the bullet so that he may live, while you face certain death?

I know this is not on the issue of the thread, but you've dodged for so long now that I just want a straight answer. Yes or no?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The beginning of human life starts with the sperm and egg; the "very" beginning.

Neither sperm nor egg has the 46 chromosomes that a human being have, do they?

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

real life wrote:
if I saw 1 or 50 persons in mortal danger, I would do what I could to save them, even risking myself.

Yes, I got that. But the question is not about risking yourself. I would do that too. The question is would you trade your life for the lives of strangers?

What is it about my answer that you do not understand?

There is no certainty that I would or would not survive. I would take that risk, knowing that I may not survive.

0 Replies

It doesn't matter; it's still the beginning of a human. Without the sperm and the egg, there is no way to produce a human. You can't build a house without "materials."

0 Replies

real life wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
The beginning of human life starts with the sperm and egg; the "very" beginning.

Neither sperm nor egg has the 46 chromosomes that a human being have, do they?

How do you know they don't have 46 chromosomes? Have you checked for yourself?

0 Replies

You're trying to define human by your own definition; there's no 46 chromosomes without the sperm and egg. Before the sperm and egg, there must be a human man and a woman that produces the sperm and egg.

0 Replies

What part of the question do you not understand RL.

There is no maybe. There is CERTAIN death if you chose to save the people. This is a hypothetical scenario, and in that scenario you will not survive if you help those in danger.

Now, would you help, in that scenario?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
Chumly wrote:
Ronald Reagan said: "No one who disbelieves in God and in an afterlife can possibly be trusted." Would you agree with that real life?

Instead of sidetracking this thread, why don't you start another if you wish to follow up that line of thinking, Chumly?
There's is a direct and obvious connection between extremist religionist viewpoints such your anti-choice position ........

Unfortunately for you, I have not used religious arguments in stating my pro-life position.

I use medical facts.

You dearly wish I would base my position upon my religion, but there is no need to do so.

Nat Henthoff, an atheist and well known writer , has said one need only be able to read a biology textbook to become pro-life, and I agree.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

What part of the question do you not understand RL.

There is no maybe. There is CERTAIN death if you chose to save the people. This is a hypothetical scenario, and in that scenario you will not survive if you help those in danger.

Now, would you help, in that scenario?

Perhaps I do not follow your scenario because you have not provided details.

Exactly how have I come to know in this scenario that I will be able to save 50 people, but that I would 'certainly' die?

If you want to follow up on this with details, put them in a new thread and we'll have a discussion there so as not to derail this discussion, which is about when life begins involuntarily through abortion, not about when life is voluntarily sacrificed to save others.

0 Replies

real, You use medical facts, but that's where your facts ends.

FACT: An embryo has no brain, and therefore does not suffer pain.
FACT: An embryo has absolutely no legal right over the mother.
FACT: It's none of your business what the mother decides to do.
FACT: Your attempts to impose your religious beliefs on all pregnant women is not realistic.
FACT: You are dangerous fool.
FACT: You are a psychopath who cares none for all the babies already born and starving.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real, You use medical facts, but that's where your facts ends.

FACT: An embryo has no brain, and therefore does not suffer pain.

So if I kill you painlessly , then it's OK?

cicerone imposter wrote:

FACT: An embryo has absolutely no legal right over the mother.

A circular argument.

'The unborn SHOULD HAVE no legal rights because IT HAS NO legal rights.'

Surely you can do better than this. Well, actually I know you can't.

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know