When Does Life Begin?

Setanta said it best on another thread about real; he said:

I don't know that anyone actually hates "real life," and if anyone does, it is a waste of emotional energy. Hating "real life" won't change the pigheaded and uninformed points of view which he habitually articulates. It is probably more accurate to say that "real life" predictably alienates those who encounter his nonsense for the first time. If one reads the "Evolution, How?" thread, one will see that he trots out the same canards again and again. You can shoot them full of holes, and within a few pages, he will be repeating them.

This is because "real life" in not and never has been engaged in a discussion of science--he is only engaged in retailing the specious arguments he dredges up from creationist web sites and probably other creationist sources. He has often freely stated that he is a young earth creationist. Therefore, he is not engaged in seeking to learn anything about science, or the nature of the cosmos. He is engaged in seeking forensic tricks whereby he can discredit anything which disputes or brings into disrepute his narrow, scripturally-derived world view.

I am often contemptuous of his method--i don't think it were reasonable to hate "real life" for a boneheaded adherence to dogmatic religious propaganda.

Setanta said it best on another thread about real; he said:

............ one will see that he trots out the same canards again and again.

Regardless of your opinion of RL's rhetorical skills, please do not minimize the moral implications of the original question in this thread. If, as many believe, human life begins at conception, the (dare I say) millions of abortions performed yearly are an abomination.

On the other hand, if the zygote is simply a lump of tissue, then abortion is no different than popping a zit.

And if the dividing line is somewhere in between?

The one making the choice has assumed a heavy responsibility.

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
Posted: September 28, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Abortion clinic with 'bloody carpets' closed

City official reports business license discontinued, building vacated


An abortion clinic in Atlantic City, N.J., that was closed by the state Health Department after an inspection revealed blood-stained carpeting and surgical instruments with rust now has shut down permanently, bringing to 20 the number of such clinics that have closed over the last 18 months.

City Councilman John Schultz told the Press of Atlantic City that the Alternatives abortion business had given up its business license, moved out of the building and was a month behind on its rent.........

real life wrote:

The hypocrisy of a moral relativist lecturing others on what they should believe, say and do is too funny.

Fortunately, most of them fail to see it, which adds to the fun.

Also, their failure to discern the inconsistency in their position is indicative of why they are a moral relativist in the first place.

CI is not being a hypocrite. A moral relevist can still point out where other's fail their own moral tests.

CI simply points out that yu fail your own standard. You additionally fail his standard, but it is your own plastisized version of morals which he is demonstrating. It is truly comical that you fail to see the difference.

I certainly have my own moral standard, one that I can't claim is any better than any other person's. It's ridiculous for me to hold you to that standard. The difference here is that as I begin you understand your standard, I can certainly hold you to it.

RL, you fail on all fronts of this.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:

The hypocrisy of a moral relativist lecturing others on what they should believe, say and do is too funny.

Fortunately, most of them fail to see it, which adds to the fun.

Also, their failure to discern the inconsistency in their position is indicative of why they are a moral relativist in the first place.

CI is not being a hypocrite. A moral relevist can still point out where other's fail their own moral tests.

CI simply points out that yu fail your own standard. You additionally fail his standard, but it is your own plastisized version of morals which he is demonstrating. It is truly comical that you fail to see the difference.

I certainly have my own moral standard, one that I can't claim is any better than any other person's. It's ridiculous for me to hold you to that standard. The difference here is that as I begin you understand your standard, I can certainly hold you to it.

RL, you fail on all fronts of this.

T
K
O

Define RL's moral standard as you or CI understand it that CI is holding RL to.

The unborn is not a "living human being" in legal terms. All other semantics has little value. Most issues concerning the fetus has to do with questions about medical ethics and practice; not legal.

The unborn is not a "living human being" in legal terms. All other semantics has little value. Most issues concerning the fetus has to do with questions about medical ethics and practice; not legal.

real life wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

The unborn is not a "living human being" in legal terms. All other semantics has little value. Most issues concerning the fetus has to do with questions about medical ethics and practice; not legal.

So the legal status is all that matters, eh?

If abortion is made illegal , will you support and defend that?

No, I will always advocate for the woman to choose.

I do not impose my moral values on others through my actions, although I may try to stop anybody from harming a woman or baby.

Quote:

Oregon researchers say they have cloned a monkey by splitting an early-stage embryo and implanting the pieces into mother animals.

The technique, as detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science, has so far produced only one living monkey, a bright-eyed rhesus macaque female named Tetra, now 4 months old.

Schatten says the "embryo splitting" process is similar to what happens in nature when a mother has twins. "This is just artificial twinning," he said. The method is commonly used in animals such as cattle but had never before been used to create a monkey.

The technique also has been used to create clones of human embryos at least once.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/01/13/monkey.cloning/

We can make more than one human being from only one early-stage embryo so it's clear anti-choicers must have a new mandate to "save lives"!

Anti-choicers are murdering vast numbers of human beings by letting only the one early-stage embryo coming to term!

All anti-choicers must now insist their women undergo this procedure when they get pregnant, or else anti-choicers are murderers!