How can anyone actually believe that life starts at any time other than the moment of conception?

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: George P Burdell

Originally posted by: Crazyfool
So aborting a "fetus" the day before it would've been born is not killing a person?

BTW, this thread really belongs in P&N.

can't kill someone who hasn't been born yet

wrong, look at CA penal code Section 187. you can be charged for murder if you kill a fetus

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: LtPage1

Originally posted by: SampSon
I know one thing after countless abortion threads on this forum:

I'm glad none of you make important governmental policy decisions.

give me 30-35 years.

give me 10

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey
UGH.
fertilized eggs are flushed out by a womans body all of the time. fetuses are miscarried. Why not let your brain decide something your body already does?
I am aware that many people see this as god's action (not your body's), however, i am an atheist so that argument holds no weight with me.

That's exactly it, there's no pro-life argument without religion. This whole debate is just another facet of religion's power struggle with reality/science.

 

[Slammy1]

Well, I'm an atheist. I'm not saying we need to make abortions illegal, just that we need to examine closely how we're applying them. It'd sure be easy if this were an issue that could be reduced to religion, but what people here seem to be suggesting is that life, in general, is not worth preserving. It's like all to people arguing for Darwinian evolution; it's an idea that has been refuted by science yet the lay scientists still argue for it (giving rise to such misconceptions as eugenics). Unfortunattely, it's a grey area as all we can look at are indicators and conclusions. The strongest evidence of fetal consciousness come from studies of premature babies, and to the extent that we are capable of keeping them alive we are limited in that understanding.

Please, if you want a religious debate move it to the P&N forum. Such blind faith without understanding of the principles is about as fruitless as a discussion of whether some anthropomorphic deity is determining our destiny. All too ofeten, it seems that people approach science in the same manner of religion, taking things on faith from sources that are about as poor as a televangelist. It is hard to sift through the body of evidence on the matter, given that there is often a bias in its presentation depending which side of the fence the author is on wrt the issue. But there is a point where we have to say simply that we don't know the answer.

If the goal of science is not to promote life, then what do we do it for? Simply the understanding? That actually seems shallower than someone who attempts to live by the tenants of religion for the sake of reward in an afterlife.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Slammy1
Well, I'm an atheist. I'm not saying we need to make abortions illegal, just that we need to examine closely how we're applying them. It'd sure be easy if this were an issue that could be reduced to religion, but what people here seem to be suggesting is that life, in general, is not worth preserving. It's like all to people arguing for Darwinian evolution; it's an idea that has been refuted by science yet the lay scientists still argue for it (giving rise to such misconceptions as eugenics). Unfortunattely, it's a grey area as all we can look at are indicators and conclusions. The strongest evidence of fetal consciousness come from studies of premature babies, and to the extent that we are capable of keeping them alive we are limited in that understanding.

Please, if you want a religious debate move it to the P&N forum. Such blind faith without understanding of the principles is about as fruitless as a discussion of whether some anthropomorphic deity is determining our destiny. All too ofeten, it seems that people approach science in the same manner of religion, taking things on faith from sources that are about as poor as a televangelist. It is hard to sift through the body of evidence on the matter, given that there is often a bias in its presentation depending which side of the fence the author is on wrt the issue. But there is a point where we have to say simply that we don't know the answer.

If the goal of science is not to promote life, then what do we do it for? Simply the understanding? That actually seems shallower than someone who attempts to live by the tenants of religion for the sake of reward in an afterlife.

If you extend your line of reasoning, we'd do nothing to treat cancer, as tumors are sacred living tissue. Women with failed pregnancies (a great many are, most are all but undetectable as they fail so early on) would be jailed. Obviously there needs to be a compromise. I don't see why we should impose such draconian restrictions on, of course, women only, for what amounts to bad luck more often than promiscuity, not that either should be punishable. You seek to ruin fully formed female adolescent and adult lives - and bring unwanted children into bad situations - for a lump of cells which won't attain consciousness for 2-3 years. If you don't mind me asking, can I inquire about your age? You claim atheism... Yet around 95% of people believe in a higher power. AT is full of kids, and kids rebel - it's natural and instinctual. What better to rebel against than religion? It would account for the ~50/50 split of "atheists" here, most of which will change their mind in another five years at most. You give the belief a bad name. Again, you can't see abortion as wrong without the influence of deism - even if you won't admit it.

 

[Slammy1]

Originally posted by: RBachman

If you extend your line of reasoning, we'd do nothing to treat cancer, as tumors are sacred living tissue. Women with failed pregnancies (a great many are, most are all but undetectable as they fail so early on) would be jailed. Obviously there needs to be a compromise. I don't see why we should impose such draconian restrictions on, of course, women only, for what amounts to bad luck more often than promiscuity, not that either should be punishable. You seek to ruin fully formed female adolescent and adult lives - and bring unwanted children into bad situations - for a lump of cells which won't attain consciousness for 2-3 years. If you don't mind me asking, can I inquire about your age? You claim atheism... Yet around 95% of people believe in a higher power. AT is full of kids, and kids rebel - it's natural and instinctual. What better to rebel against than religion? It would account for the ~50/50 split of "atheists" here, most of which will change their mind in another five years at most. You give the belief a bad name. Again, you can't see abortion as wrong without the influence of deism - even if you won't admit it.

Dude. First, you do understand that cancerous tumors are not a normal bodily function, right? There's also a big difference between a miscarriage and abortion, certainly. You could induce miscarriage, not go to the doctor, have someone beat you in the stomach, that sort of thing. So, how do those 2 statements imply that a compromise is needed? You kinda hit on the point I mentioned earlier, that it's a social not a moral issue as it would force poor women to drastic measures, but where do you get "draconian restrictions" if we were to, say, eliminate government support for abortions that did not involve rape, incest, or health risk? Or if we were to preclude abortions past 3-4 months rather than the current 5 months (except in cases listed prior)? You state that consciousness does not occur until age 1-2? Do a Google search on the issue, there is a body of medical evidence on the matter. Have you ever dealt with a 3 month old on a personal level? They're smarter than you give them credit for, I trained my niece to point to where she'd want to go by age 5 months and my nephew could turn on the computer, start his games, then properly turn off the computer by age 2. Of course, he was kinda weak on troubleshooting . I've been atheist, as much as you can be, since my teen years through college and grad school. I think I've been one long enough to not qualify as just a life phase. In fact, I did my grad work in physical chemistry, so I can discuss molecular biology with you some though (obviously) it's not my field.


You see, you're missing some very fundamental scientific issues by taking a purely reductionist approach. By your logic, man really is just a self-perpetuating chemical factory even in adulthood, and from a certain perspective that would be absolutely correct. I hate to tell you this, but really to say something like no one can be opposed to abortion that's not religious is just an expression of hubris. I think I know my thoughts better than you know my thoughts, but thanks for playing and better luck next time .

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
Cell-------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Human

Long way from cell to human.

Human cell well I guess not...

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Slammy1

Originally posted by: RBachman

If you extend your line of reasoning, we'd do nothing to treat cancer, as tumors are sacred living tissue. Women with failed pregnancies (a great many are, most are all but undetectable as they fail so early on) would be jailed. Obviously there needs to be a compromise. I don't see why we should impose such draconian restrictions on, of course, women only, for what amounts to bad luck more often than promiscuity, not that either should be punishable. You seek to ruin fully formed female adolescent and adult lives - and bring unwanted children into bad situations - for a lump of cells which won't attain consciousness for 2-3 years. If you don't mind me asking, can I inquire about your age? You claim atheism... Yet around 95% of people believe in a higher power. AT is full of kids, and kids rebel - it's natural and instinctual. What better to rebel against than religion? It would account for the ~50/50 split of "atheists" here, most of which will change their mind in another five years at most. You give the belief a bad name. Again, you can't see abortion as wrong without the influence of deism - even if you won't admit it.

Dude. First, you do understand that cancerous tumors are not a normal bodily function, right? There's also a big difference between a miscarriage and abortion, certainly. You could induce miscarriage, not go to the doctor, have someone beat you in the stomach, that sort of thing. So, how do those 2 statements imply that a compromise is needed? You kinda hit on the point I mentioned earlier, that it's a social not a moral issue as it would force poor women to drastic measures, but where do you get "draconian restrictions" if we were to, say, eliminate government support for abortions that did not involve rape, incest, or health risk? Or if we were to preclude abortions past 3-4 months rather than the current 5 months (except in cases listed prior)? You state that consciousness does not occur until age 1-2? Do a Google search on the issue, there is a body of medical evidence on the matter. Have you ever dealt with a 3 month old on a personal level? They're smarter than you give them credit for, I trained my niece to point to where she'd want to go by age 5 months and my nephew could turn on the computer, start his games, then properly turn off the computer by age 2. Of course, he was kinda weak on troubleshooting . I've been atheist, as much as you can be, since my teen years through college and grad school. I think I've been one long enough to not qualify as just a life phase. In fact, I did my grad work in physical chemistry, so I can discuss molecular biology with you some though (obviously) it's not my field.


You see, you're missing some very fundamental scientific issues by taking a purely reductionist approach. By your logic, man really is just a self-perpetuating chemical factory even in adulthood, and from a certain perspective that would be absolutely correct. I hate to tell you this, but really to say something like no one can be opposed to abortion that's not religious is just an expression of hubris. I think I know my thoughts better than you know my thoughts, but thanks for playing and better luck next time .

I love it when people put words in my mouth, nothing says "you win" like making stuff up to continue a debate Here's a homework assignment, "grad student" (though I get the feeling you're more like 15) - sift through this thread and find me claiming our government should pay/help pay for abortions.

 

[Slammy1]

Actually, just look in the same post:
"I don't see why we should impose such draconian restrictions"

Draconian: describes laws, government actions, etc. which are unreasonably severe; going beyond what is right or necessary

I'm sorry, but it seems apparent you're the one resorting to ad hominem ataacks and logical fallacies such as begging the question to preserve a debate you're losing horribly.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Slammy1
Actually, just look in the same post:
"I don't see why we should impose such draconian restrictions"

Draconian: describes laws, government actions, etc. which are unreasonably severe; going beyond what is right or necessary

I'm sorry, but it seems apparent you're the one resorting to ad hominem ataacks and logical fallacies such as begging the question to preserve a debate you're losing horribly.

The "draconian restrictions" I spoke of were in reference to the agenda of the pro-life movement. Again, don't put words in peoples' mouths. You don't have to be bright to avoid looking stupid, just follow a few simple rules

 

[Slammy1]

Ah yes, that was "implied" in your message. Perhaps you shouldn't use such big words if you don't know their meaning. In as much as the term "draconian" was referenced to my post, I'd assumed you were talking of my agenda on the issue which has been spelled out in the thread. Way to back pedal and avoid the issue. How about this, research the issue more thoroughly before taking a stand. It's all right to have your opinion as stated (free abortions for all) just make it a somewhat defensible rather than the drivel you've been spouting.

So does it make me a troll to respond to trolls in a trollish manner?

 

[Somniferum]

I've not read the entire thread, so my apologies if this has already been stated elsewhere.

The most interesting fact concerning the whole "when does life begin" debate, to me, is the fact that up until around the two-week mark, a fertilized egg can still split into identical twins. That is, two weeks after conception.

So, if you believe that "human life" begins at conception, meaning that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception ... then what happens in the case of identical twins? Do they each get half a soul?

Clearly there is some room for debate here. If there is an indivisible soul, it must come into play at least two weeks after conception. Possibly more, but certainly not less. Unless you believe identical twins are somehow less than human.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Slammy1
Ah yes, that was "implied" in your message. Perhaps you shouldn't use such big words if you don't know their meaning. In as much as the term "draconian" was referenced to my post, I'd assumed you were talking of my agenda on the issue which has been spelled out in the thread. Way to back pedal and avoid the issue. How about this, research the issue more thoroughly before taking a stand. It's all right to have your opinion as stated (free abortions for all) just make it a somewhat defensible rather than the drivel you've been spouting.

It's ok, learn to read.

So does it make me a troll to respond to trolls in a trollish manner?

Don't know, respond to one so I can see an example of it.

 

[Slammy1]

Originally posted by: Somniferum
I've not read the entire thread, so my apologies if this has already been stated elsewhere.

The most interesting fact concerning the whole "when does life begin" debate, to me, is the fact that up until around the two-week mark, a fertilized egg can still split into identical twins. That is, two weeks after conception.

So, if you believe that "human life" begins at conception, meaning that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception ... then what happens in the case of identical twins? Do they each get half a soul?

Clearly there is some room for debate here. If there is an indivisible soul, it must come into play at least two weeks after conception. Possibly more, but certainly not less. Unless you believe identical twins are somehow less than human.

I wouldn't know how to answer that, it's based on an assumption there's a spark of the divine in all of us. A medical equivalent might be the ability to interact with the environment, which is suggested as early as 6 weeks, or to feel pain, as early as 7 weeks. The concept of the soul is rather vague so I don't really think you can answer that in any meaningful manner.

EDIT: This is an authoritative description of fetal development as it applies to pain reception and consciousness. It's meant as a discussion of anesthesia in fetal operations, but I do wonder as, past a point, it does seem to promote the pro-life agenda. I'd take what it says with a grain of salt, but understand how they define some of these terms.
www.wrtl.org/Fetal_Pain_Jean_Wright_Testimony.ppt

 

[Somniferum]

Originally posted by: Slammy1

I wouldn't know how to answer that, it's based on an assumption there's a spark of the divine in all of us. A medical equivalent might be the ability to interact with the environment, which is suggested as early as 6 weeks, or to feel pain, as early as 7 weeks. The concept of the soul is rather vague so I don't really think you can answer that in any meaningful manner.

I guess my point is really addressed to those who believe life begins at conception. Usually that belief is predicated on the concept a "soul" that comes into play at the moment of conception -- hence the zygote is fully human and "different" from some other collection of cells, like skin cells on your finger or something. For those who hold that belief -- how do you account for identical (monozygotic) twins? Has this unique, inviolable soul somehow split in half two weeks after conception?

 

[tcsenter]

How can anyone actually believe that life starts at any time other than the moment of conception?

Because that's what one must convince themselves of in order to support abortion. Classic rationalization. You select the outcome you want first, then reason backwards to make it morally permissable, if not merely less reprehensible.

 

[GroundZero]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: meltdown75
ahhaha, someone compared human life to dust mites in your bed.

good one.

I didn't make the comparison. If people like the OP are going to hold "life" in such high reguard, they need to do so in all cases.

mmk.

Look - don't blame me becuase you can't see the faults in personhood arguments.

Anti-Abortionists usually adopt a definition of life that too broad to have any kind of contextual relevance.

Pro-Choicers usually adopt personhood arguments that define human life in such narrow terms, that people who are in vegetative states and infants don't qualify as life.

If you want to argue about this topic - the rights of the mother need to be addressed.

Damn! I acually agree with Ryan on this one.

 

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: Somniferum

Originally posted by: Slammy1

I wouldn't know how to answer that, it's based on an assumption there's a spark of the divine in all of us. A medical equivalent might be the ability to interact with the environment, which is suggested as early as 6 weeks, or to feel pain, as early as 7 weeks. The concept of the soul is rather vague so I don't really think you can answer that in any meaningful manner.

I guess my point is really addressed to those who believe life begins at conception. Usually that belief is predicated on the concept a "soul" that comes into play at the moment of conception -- hence the zygote is fully human and "different" from some other collection of cells, like skin cells on your finger or something. For those who hold that belief -- how do you account for identical (monozygotic) twins? Has this unique, inviolable soul somehow split in half two weeks after conception?

Well, if I were to take a guess I would take the stand that since God and spirits transcend time and space it would seem to me that at the moment of a split, the twin would inherit a soul.

I don't believe souls exist although I won't rule it out.

 

[Slammy1]

I think at issue isn't whether life begins at conception, of course it does, but instead when would a fetus be considered distinctively human and thereby given the rights and priveleges thereof.

 

[Somniferum]

Originally posted by: Slammy1
I think at issue isn't whether life begins at conception, of course it does, but instead when would a fetus be considered distinctively human and thereby given the rights and priveleges thereof.

Actually if you take the "human" part out of the equation, it becomes even more complicated. You can say "life" obviously begins at conception because a zygote is alive -- but isn't a sperm cell alive in the same sense? Or an egg cell? So basic, non-human life doesn't begin at conception, it actually precedes it.

You are right though, that what's at issue is when "human life" begins. Clearly a zygote is not physically a human in any recognizable sense of the word ... which is why those who believe human life begins at conception have to resort to the concept of a soul. It's this soul that makes the zygote not just life, but a unique, inviolable human life. Which is why I think the identical twin question is interesting -- it seems to refute the existence of a unique, inviolable soul, at least prior to the period where the zygote can still split in two.

 

[Syrch]

I was completely against abortion until my more recent thread. Now i'm still against it but understand why people take that option and dont' look down on those that do.

 

[Slammy1]

To even further complicate things:

There is very little motive for fetus evolution (at least in the Darwinian sense, there is little to no survival advantage). Looking at a chicken embryo and a human embryo, unless you know what to look for they're very similar. Sure, one has more chromosomes but all mammals possess the same metabolic pathways, difference arise as one is expressed over the other. I don't think science in any way defines humanity as beginning at the point of conception (short of molecular biological arguments).

 

[ZachMarius]

Anyone wanting more information (especially you BigTorque!!) go here.

www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm

Read it, understand it, learn it then, shut your mouth if you think you're always right.

Oh and you will learn here.

 

[Somniferum]

Originally posted by: ZachMarius
Anyone wanting more information (especially you BigTorque!!) go here.

www.religioustolerance.org/abortion

Read it, understand it, learn it then, shut your mouth if you think you're always right.

Oh and you will learn here.

That url is broken....

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: Ryan
There is a difference between life, and a person.

You can't be serious... from the moment of conception to the moment of death there is one entity. Development does not change what something is. From conception to death a human being is always a hunan being.

Ah, so that explains that butterfly I saw today. It must have been a neat little thing when it was first loosed upon this world. I'm sure it made its parents proud!