1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Does human life begin at conception?

Discussion in 'Health' started by PLC1, Mar 21, 2015.

  1. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,087
    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    Distinguishable by the dna which define and cause those qualitues. If that dna us for an elephant you get an elephant, a pine tree you get a pine tree etc.
     
  2. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,928
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63

    This is what I was speaking of. Now you use the definition of what a "human being" is to avoid the definion of "life" which is what we are talking about. Using your own Oxford source, life is defined as:

    The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death:

    Now, explain how that does not apply to the babe in the womb.
     
    Zynni likes this.
  3. Senter

    Senter Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2016
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Oregon
    Logically, in this case, you are referring to me. And characterizations like "those who wish to cheapen life" only seek to substitute character assassination for valid argument of facts. Further, my only agenda in this is to recognize that a person should have control over their own body and it's processes and future. "Never accept the beginnings of life"? Right-to-lifers (who are mostly men) have their own flaws which I will not go into here, but neither will they accept logic or democracy on this issue. The vast majority of people agree that contraceptives are acceptable, the "morning after pill" is acceptable, and that abortion during the first two or three months is acceptable for any reason including choice. Reality is that people will engage in sex, and women will become pregnant in some instances even if they have used every contraceptive and taken every precaution. And the vast majority of people agree that in such a case a timely abortion is acceptable.... --all that is except the "right-to-lifers". They want to control everyone and their private decisions.


    First of all, it is a "fetus" and not a "baby" (or "babe") until it is born. But more importantly, show me evidence of any section of America describing a fetus as a "parasite". You choose to hold false and "evil" views of your opposition ("parasite" and "invading force") and that is usually done so they can be dehumanized and discarded, yet you chant and cheer for the "precious life that is a fetus" in all likelihood.


    Crystals grow. But I agreed that the zygote is alive. So what's your point? How many chickens, steer, sheep, and fish are killed daily for your food? They are "life". An unfertilized egg is alive. A sperm is alive. But you don't seek to protect them. What is the "magic" about a fertilized egg that drives you? Potential? That would be a personal, private interest of hope that you hold to. Ethics or morality? What sort of ethics demands another person face a life of probably hardship because of their own twisted sense of "ethics" or "morality"? What about the ethics and morality of forcing a rape victim to live with the memory and product of her ordeal and that of a criminal mentality, or defective mentality, or violent mentality, or just someone she doesn't love? Irrelevant?
    Strange morals and ethics.

    You refuse to face the fact that the "human that is being formed in the womb" doesn't feel anything, doesn't sense anything, isn't aware of anything any more than an ovum does until about 20 weeks have passed. So it can hardly be considered a "human being" or a "baby".

    Tell me this: above I mentioned rape. Do you stand with that teeny tiny minority who oppose abortion even for a rape victim?
     
  4. Senter

    Senter Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2016
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Oregon
    Ummm . . . . .yeah. So? And 2 + 2 = 4, and day follows night. That says nothing about the importance and value of a precious elephant life.
     
    Openmind likes this.
  5. Senter

    Senter Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2016
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Oregon
    You don't make distinctions very well. You were the one who incorrectly used the word "human (being)". Right-to-lifers do that normally as part of their "confuse, dazzle, and overwhelm" strategy. I was just rejecting that tactic to insist on using words correctly. But go ahead and try to turn that against me. Whatever works, eh?


    That is one of several definitions depending on how you are using the word "life". - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/life

    In this conversation my reply was to a different usage of the word, specifically Oxford's second definition of the word. So please stop trying to distort and confuse the subject. That is why we have the national disagreement we have about this.
     
    Openmind likes this.
  6. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,087
    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    No but it does speak to the very nature of that life. It us human, can never be anything but human.
    I happen to be very involved with the plight of our pacyderns in the face of poaching so baby elephants rhinos etc are quite precious.
     
  7. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,087
    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    The baby is not her body. It's a distinctly different body as defined by its dna.
    It does sense it's environment, feel pain etc and as it gets studied further that point only gets closer to conception.
     
    Zynni likes this.
  8. Senter

    Senter Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2016
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Oregon
    The DNA in a human egg or a human sperm is also "human" but we don't see you rallying to protect and preserve them. So the argument of DNA and the species it represents is unconvincing, unpersuasive, and frankly, irrelevant.
     
    Openmind likes this.
  9. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,087
    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    The dna in a sperm is exactly that of the producer of the sperm. The dna of the fetus is unique and unlike any other. Both denote the species but the significance is the uniqueness. Fetus is not the mother.
     
    Zynni likes this.
  10. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,928
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Now your showing your desparation, and lack of integrity, which seems to be the natural trait of those who approve of killing babies. I used "life" as a reference to the human condition, not as part of a definition of "human being".

    Obviously it is your lack of critical thinking, or even objectivity, that prevents you from admitting to, or even attempting to acknowledge your lack of ability to use the English language. Life, of all kinds, involves the ability to grow. Without this ability we have only death. Abortion deprives the babe in the womb of the ability to live, or to grow. That is "murder" if applied at any other stage in the babes life.

    As to the DNA argument, it serves the purpose of identifying the life of the babe as separate from that of the mother. As such, the mother has no moral justification for killing that individual.

    I understand how it is that people who were NOT aborted seem to feel they have some "right" to determine that others can be aborted. Sad, but understandable in this immoral culture we live in.
     
  11. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,928
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Now your showing your desparation, and lack of integrity, which seems to be the natural trait of those who approve of killing babies. I used "life" as a reference to the human condition, not as part of a definition of "human being".

    Obviously it is your lack of critical thinking, or even objectivity, that prevents you from admitting to, or even attempting to acknowledge your lack of ability to use the English language. Life, of all kinds, involves the ability to grow. Without this ability we have only death. Abortion deprives the babe in the womb of the ability to live, or to grow. That is "murder" if applied at any other stage in the babes life.

    As to the DNA argument, it serves the purpose of identifying the life of the babe as separate from that of the mother. As such, the mother has no moral justification for killing that individual.

    I understand how it is that people who were NOT aborted seem to feel they have some "right" to determine that others can be aborted. Sad, but understandable in this immoral culture we live in.
     
  12. Senter

    Senter Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2016
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Oregon
    Ok. You want personal attacks? Fine. I'm game. I can match you. ...Particularly when you want to dance, dodge, spin, and show your disingenuous willingness to misrepresent the conversation in the hope of "winning".

    Either you're consciously misrepresenting again here or you're entirely ignorant of the subject. I've already corrected the misuse of the word "baby" when referring to a fetus, but you extremists like to use such "loaded" terms that inflame and indict others because you can't win honestly, yet you try to impugn my integrity. You're a joke.

    Regarding your spin here on your use of the word "life", you originally said:

    "However, while you can construe the definition of "life" in any manner you want to, the reality is that growth is "life", and the body begins to grow at conception. "Life" for the human that is being formed in the womb does not begin at birth, that is simply the end of one stage, and the beginning of another. And throughout the whole process cells grow, die, and are replaced by more growth."

    That has nothing to do with "a reference to the human condition" as you now claim. And you reference this notion of the use of the word "life" in a reply to your quote of my own comments about the term "human (being)" in which I never even mentioned the word "life". Like so many extremists do, you are using words very sloppily and carelessly to allow yourself an opportunity to attack your "enemy"dishonestly because you can't do it honestly. You also misrepresent statements for the same reason. And this I believe is done honestly in the sense that you really believe you are proceeding with factual honesty and integrity, --which shows your ignorance of principles of debate, logic, effective writing, and good judgement. So your claim that you "used 'life' as a reference to the human condition" is bogus, although I don't expect you know it.


    I submit that in all those areas it is you who is deficient and lacking in the most basic understandings and it appears that would be why you attempt here to attack my ability to "use the English language". And so here again you assert what I never opposed or contradicted, as though I had, in order to contrive a false charge justifying your personal attack again. Pathetic. And any "logic" we may be able to derive from your statement is pregnant with flaws. The "ability to grow" does not necessitate or justify protection of that which grows. Want more examples? "Murder"?? Now you want to deflect to "any other stage in the babes (sic) life"? we are not talking about any other stage in the babe's life. So that doesn't apply, but you didn't notice that.


    That would be your personal and flawed opinion, not shared by the majority of people. And as such, you are entitled to hold it, --but not to enforce it on others.


    Oh! Were you aborted? My apologies! .... -speaking of a lack of ability to use the English language.
     
  13. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,928
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I love it when fools who use terms like "You don't make distinctions very well. You were the one who incorrectly used the word "human (being)". Right-to-lifers do that normally as part of their "confuse, dazzle, and overwhelm" strategy. I was just rejecting that tactic to insist on using words correctly. But go ahead and try to turn that against me. Whatever works, eh?", and then when it is turned against you you whine like the child you are.

    No clown, your use of "fetus" is an attempt to ignore reality, and to sound like you might have a clue as to what life is. Medically speaking, a "fetus" is:

    "the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, which in humans is from the third month after fertilization until birth."

    Which is the "babe in the womb


    You really are funny in a sad way. However, my response was based on another comment of mine which was:

    "This is what I was speaking of. Now you use the definition of what a "human being" is to avoid the definion of "life" which is what we are talking about."

    The topic is about when does LIFE begin, not when one is considered to be a "human being" according to the definition of amoral.

    Again you show your own lack of morals, or integrity. If all babies were aborted there would be no human life left. The very reason as to why the baby is in the womb is to be protected from the elements, and to be nourished, by the mother, not to be destroyed because of the immoral actions (either before the pregnancy, or after) of the parties involved.

    And the ability to grow is not confined to any one stage of the babies life.
     
  14. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,928
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Wrong again. A sex cell (egg or sperm), does not have a complete set of 23 pairs of chromosomes, an egg or sperm has only 23 single chromosomes. When the two unite, the chromosomes combine, giving the new cell the proper number of 46 chromosomes. That new cell is a separate human life.
     
  15. Senter

    Senter Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2016
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Oregon
    Well, it is obvious that you are unable to have a rational conversation and feel a need to be offensive in hope of intimidating a debater whom you cannot beat honestly. You're offensive and more slippery than a snake so go think whatever you want. It doesn't matter that you hold BS opinions because Roe v. Wade is the law.

    I have better things to do.
     
    Openmind likes this.
  16. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,928
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63

    Yeah, crying in your beer, or smoking another joint. Like most of your kind, you lack the ability to rationally think a topic for, and thus must rely on more ********* like Roe v Wade to support your lack of values. Roe relied on the belief that life did not begin at conception, and it clearly stated that if it were ever shown that life did begin at conception then Roe would be moot. Just one reason why those who do not want to take care of what they have created support abortion.

    The next fantasy of Roe, which was based on Griswold v Conn., is the idea of a woman's "privacy" to do with her body as she pleases. Actually, it was an expansion of Griswold in that even Griswold limited the right to privacy to the woman's home.

    Anyway, you are hanging all of your hopes on a fantasy created by a Court that answers not to the people, just to itself.
     
Loading...

Share This Page