When Does Life Begin?

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:
. . . Here I'll even say it again for your edification: you falsely infer that an "intervention" is required for a skin cell to be a human being however no intervention is required for a fertilized egg to be a human being. . .
Actually, that is the exact opposite of what I said.

I said that, while a fertilized (human) egg would normally be expected to develop into a human being, assuming no intervention, the same has yet to be demonstrated for skin cells, etc.

If I seemed to say otherwise, I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

What else were you referring to with your dermacide metaphor?

Now you're saying a fertilized egg is not a human being.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

. . . Now you're saying a fertilized egg is not a human being.

I did. Didn't I? Should have said normal healthy infant.

Mea culpa.

Now what are you saying about the fertilized egg?

0 Replies

If you are now saying "a fertilized (human) egg" is not a "normal healthy infant" then you need to be do two things:

1) be consistent in your claims
2) provide your claim as to what "a fertilized (human) egg" is

If you don't adhere to the basic tenets of consistency and logic then you leave yourself vulnerable to my whimsy at best or my razor sharp incisiveness at worst.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

If you are now saying "a fertilized (human) egg" is not a "normal healthy infant" then you need to be do two things:

1) be consistent in your claims
2) provide your claim as to what "a fertilized (human) egg" is

If you don't adhere to the basic tenets of consistency and logic then you leave yourself vulnerable to my whimsy at best or my razor sharp incisiveness at worst.

You certainly area word scrambler. You took my first statement about a fertilized egg developing into a human being and rightly criticised my unintentional exclusion of fertilized eggs from the class of human beings. Then when I corrected my words to 'normal healthy infant', you found a way to nitpick your way our of your original claim that the fertilized egg is equivalent to a skin cell. So let me restate, so we may pickle your red herring and you may assume your proper place at the head of the class:

While a fertilized (human) egg would normally be expected to develop into a normal, healthy, full term infant, assuming no intervention, the same has yet to be demonstrated for skin cells, etc.

0 Replies

Again you have failed to demonstrate this lack of "intervention" you assert is so pivotal to your beliefs.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Again you have failed to demonstrate this lack of "intervention" you assert is so pivotal to your beliefs.

Lack of Intervention = allow pregnancy to continue = ordinarily results in normal, healthy, full term infant.

Intervention = anything done that might change the course of the pregnancy = may or may not cause death.

Red Herring = an attempt to divert or distract from an argument

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

False. This presumption of "intervention" has merited applicability to coitus and cloning and in vitro fertilization.

Or perhaps you feel a kinship to a dandelion seed in the wind looking for a pile of fresh horse manure and thus lack any ability to be reproductively "intervention"-ist?

A "Lack of Intervention" does not "allow pregnancy to continue" because coitus then fertilization must precede pregnancy as must cloning and/or in vitro fertilization.

You make no sense Mr. Wayward Dandelion seed. Or perhaps you believe in immaculate conception, I know you have a penchant for claims of immaculate perception.

0 Replies

Quote:

Lack of Intervention = allow pregnancy to continue = ordinarily results in normal, healthy, full term infant.

Again... what about those non-normal, non-healthy, non-full-term infants?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

A "Lack of Intervention" does not "allow pregnancy to continue" because coitus then fertilization must precede pregnancy as must cloning and/or in vitro fertilization. . .

I was speaking of a lack of intervention in the development of a fertilized egg or are you too obtuse to realize that?

Or do you believe fertilization precedes coitus?

http://web.hep.uiuc.edu/home/g-gollin/redherring.gif

When will you begin to defend your assertion that a skin cell is equivalent to a fertilized ovum?

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Quote:
Lack of Intervention = allow pregnancy to continue = ordinarily results in normal, healthy, full term infant.

Again... what about those non-normal, non-healthy, non-full-term infants?

For the moment, let us not divert Chumly from answering the question he is trying to avoid.

As for deformed embryos, What a mother does should first take into account whether or not these are or are not human. This is the question Chumly is trying to obfuscate with his dermacidal fish.

0 Replies

Actually, neo, that's not true at all. It's for the mother to decide what she will do. It has no bearing on you or anybody else that only has a fleeting interest in what you call a human baby. If you really had concern, you would get personally involved with that baby's life by supporting it with your time and money. Are you willing to do that, or give it lip service only?

0 Replies

yeah... what he said!

so what about a miscarriage? is the mother a murder because an embryo was expelled from her body? i suppose the arguement could be made that aborting children with a significantly decreased chance of survival is really the will of mother nature...

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Actually, neo, that's not true at all. It's for the mother to decide what she will do. It has no bearing on you or anybody else that only has a fleeting interest in what you call a human baby. If you really had concern, you would get personally involved with that baby's life by supporting it with your time and money. Are you willing to do that, or give it lip service only?

Like I have said a number of times, I am not advocating any legislation. The mother can decide for herself. I simply said I think it more than appropriate for her to consider that her decision may, in fact, be equivalent to infanticide.

Certainly, were she to try and make sense of the exchanges between Chumly and me, she would consider it first necessary to commit neochumlicide in order to think straight.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:
A "Lack of Intervention" does not "allow pregnancy to continue" because coitus then fertilization must precede pregnancy as must cloning and/or in vitro fertilization. . .
I was speaking of a lack of intervention in the development of a fertilized egg or are you too obtuse to realize that?

Or do you believe fertilization precedes coitus?

When will you begin to defend your assertion that a skin cell is equivalent to a fertilized ovum?

It matters not what restraints you wish to believe you made in your initial claim when you referred to "intervention" your presumption of "intervention" applies to coitus and cloning and in vitro fertilization. In fact your presumption of "intervention" applies to any and all deliberate acts in which the potential for a human being is a potential result.

I have to evaporate for a while however I'll leave you with the obvious as per your above query re: "When will you begin to defend your assertion....."

A human skin cell is a potential human being
A non fertilized egg is a potential human being
A sperm cell is a potential human being
A fertilized egg is a potential human being

0 Replies

I'd hate to see you evaporate.

Meantimes, I think it would be much more interesting for you to defend your assertions 1 through 3

1] A human skin cell is a potential human being
2] A non fertilized egg is a potential human being
3] A sperm cell is a potential human being
4] A fertilized egg is a potential human being

with the same veracity as you might defend #4

0 Replies

Neo - meh. This seems to be the same brand of ice cream over and over. I'm sure chum could defend it with as much veracity as needed, but the pro-choice platform is not built on the notion of potential life.

The pro-choice camp has no obligation to define anthing about the unborn.

What the Pro-choice camp is bound by IMO is the nessesity to create a marker from which the only abortions to happen after it would be done in the event of the mother's health being challenged. Pro-choicers need to band together and forum over what is a reasonable amount of time to form a well made desicion.

Not many Pro-choicers lost sleep over the partial birth abortion ban. What stirs most pro-choicers about the court ruling is that the ban has no safeguard for the mother's health, and the ruling quotes a brief on "grief" as a reason for said ruling, yet in the same ruling acknowledged that the brief held NO SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION.

If any pro-choicers lost any sleep, it had nothing to do with partial birth abortion, but instead the rhetoric and propaganda that slipped into the ruling and will be present the next time the issue is challenged.

But again Neo, I know you're not here to talk about the legality. I'm just thinking out loud.

T
K
O

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Quote:
Lack of Intervention = allow pregnancy to continue = ordinarily results in normal, healthy, full term infant.

Again... what about those non-normal, non-healthy, non-full-term infants?

That's kinda what I asked you a few pages ago:

real life wrote:

So, exactly how 'broken' or how 'ill' must one be before you have no qualms about killing them?

but no answer from you.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

yeah... what he said!

so what about a miscarriage? is the mother a murder because an embryo was expelled from her body? i suppose the arguement could be made that aborting children with a significantly decreased chance of survival is really the will of mother nature...

Do you know the difference between something done intentionally and something that is an accident?

If you slip and fall down, is that different from me pushing you and causing your fall?

0 Replies

real: Do you know the difference between something done intentionally and something that is an accident?

If you slip and fall down, is that different from me pushing you and causing your fall?

If you're not the individual that pushed somebody or fell by accident, what difference is it to you? Do you really care? Same as the woman who makes the choice to abort. What concern is it of yours? Are you part of that decision? If kept alive, are you involved in that baby's life? What difference does it make to you whether it's at conception or later? YOu talk about "infanticide." Are you involved with all the Indian women who kill their babies, because they're girl babies? How involved are you in those babies plight? After all, they're already "humans."

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real: Do you know the difference between something done intentionally and something that is an accident?

If you slip and fall down, is that different from me pushing you and causing your fall?

If you're not the individual that pushed somebody or fell by accident, what difference is it to you? Do you really care? Same as the woman who makes the choice to abort. What concern is it of yours? Are you part of that decision? If kept alive, are you involved in that baby's life? What difference does it make to you whether it's at conception or later? YOu talk about "infanticide." Are you involved with all the Indian women who kill their babies, because they're girl babies? How involved are you in those babies plight? After all, they're already "humans."

You're right.

Still, it seems to me criminal to keep silent.

It's not like we are disposing of table scraps.

Unless Chumly believes a table scrap is a potential human being.

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know