A Conception's Right To Life

[Lagboltz]

My problem is that I have just finished taking a biology course. What emerges from meiosis is not yet a human being, by my definition of the term. It is not yet concious, in any sense of the way we define consciousness. DNA is not yet a human being. What apparently drives the anti-abortion people seems to be emotion, not reason. Emotion so strong that it will attempt to use any means to achieve ideological victory.

Yes, the DNA is a template for a human not the human itself. But you will get a deep seated emotional response from that viewpoint by the anti-choice Taliban here.

You are right about the emotion as you can see from chip's last post.

 

[Chip]

My problem is that I have just finished taking a biology course.

Immaterial.

If you didn't learn from that course that a conception is that's person's earliest moment of being a living being, then the fact that you "just finished taking a biology course" is, of course, immaterial.

What emerges from meiosis is not yet a human being,

Erroneous.

by my definition of the term.

Irrelevant.

You don't get to decide "definitions".

Science has already presented, as the opening post unmistakably presents, that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.

DNA and life science is the valid authority for determining the definition and application of a human being, not you, Samsara15.

Clearly, DNA and life science has declared that, as the opening post presents, a conception of the human species is a new living being, thus, a human being, thus, a person, a very young person, without question.

It is not yet concious, in any sense of the way we define consciousness.

Irrelevant.

DNA and life scientists did not use "consciousness" in their analysis of whether something is a human being or not.

Consciousness is not a scientific determiner of whether the living entity is a human being, a person.

DNA is not yet a human being.

Unclearly stipulated, but as you probably intend it, simply irrelevant.

There is more in a newly conceived human being than just DNA.

Thus your statement is meaningless.

What apparently drives the anti-abortion people seems to be emotion, not reason.

False, obviously false.

Reason is the foundation of our presentation, as the opening post in this thread clearly presents.

The opening post in this thread isn't an "appeal to emotion" -- it's pure unconjecurable science, typical of high school science textbooks today.

The truth of the matter is that yours and every pro-abortionist's denial of the unconjecturable scientific fact, that a person, a unique individual human being that begins to live at the moment of conception, is emotionally based -- many pro-abortionists simply can't bring themselves emotionally to a place where they can accept that they advocate the murder of pre-natals via abortion.

For pro-abortionists, their position is all about emotional denial.

The emotion associate with the pro-life and anti-abortion contingent is their understandable and appropriate emotional outrage over the millions of pre-natal people who have been in fact murdered via abortion!

Emotion so strong that it will attempt to use any means to achieve ideological victory.

Your projection here, Samsara15, is soooo obvious.

Like your "big-brother", Lagboltz, you too can hide from the truth by misusing scientific jargon, but that won't change the truth, the truth that the opening post in this thread has clearly presented beyond any rational conjecture.

 

[Chip]

Yes, the DNA is a template for a human not the human itself.

Misapplied, and thus erroneously irrelevant.

But you will get a deep seated emotional response from that viewpoint by the anti-choice Taliban here.

Translation: "Those who see through our smokescreen will call us on our obvious errors, and the best we can do is call them names, which, sadly, does indicate that we've surrended in point of fact."

You dodge my direct questions, Lagboltz, direct questions that require you to be emotionally honest.

No wonder you attack emotions.

Emotional denial is the pro-abortionist's foundational orientation.

You are right about the emotion as you can see from chip's last post.

Strange, Lagboltz -- there aren't too many people around who would call the rational and accurate professorial point-of-fact evaluation of "More erroneous, out of context, mental masturbation from Lagboltz, as usual." to be anything close to being the irrational emotional outburst you allege it to be.

Common sense would then tell me that you might be the kind of person who would try to convince someone that a cat is a dog, if convincing them of that obvious errroneousness was necessary for you to remain in emotional denial.

Indeed, you are always the one to errantly initiate reference of emotion, like you just can't wait to interject emotion into the discussion as if it was a "bad" thing.

No wonder you see emotion as "bad" -- facing honestly your emotions in the matter will cost you your "precious" denial!

Your projection is, thus, obvious ... and, you thereby reveal that your psychological defense mechanisms ... are weakening.

 

[samsara15]

Chip, you are not persuading me. Or even coming close. Doesn't that tell you anything? Thanks for givng me yet more reasons to continue to donate my money to Planned Parenthood.

 

[Lagboltz]

Misapplied, and thus erroneously irrelevant.

False.

Translation: "Those who see through our smokescreen will call us on our obvious errors, and the best we can do is call them names, which, sadly, does indicate that we've surrended in point of fact."

Erroneous

You dodge my direct questions, Lagboltz, direct questions that require you to be emotionally honest.

Irrelevant.

No wonder you attack emotions.

Emotional denial is the pro-abortionist's foundational orientation.

False and irrelevant.

Strange, Lagboltz -- there aren't too many people around who would call the rational and accurate professorial point-of-fact evaluation of "More erroneous, out of context, mental masturbation from Lagboltz, as usual." to be anything close to being the irrational emotional outburst you allege it to be.

Immaterial and irrelevant and emotional.

Common sense would then tell me that you might be the kind of person who would try to convince someone that a cat is a dog, if convincing them of that obvious errroneousness was necessary for you to remain in emotional denial.

Erroneous and irrelevant.

Indeed, you are always the one to errantly initiate reference of emotion, like you just can't wait to interject emotion into the discussion as if it was a "bad" thing.

False and immaterial.

No wonder you see emotion as "bad" -- facing honestly your emotions in the matter will cost you your "precious" denial!

False and emotional.

Your projection is, thus, obvious ... and, you thereby reveal that your psychological defense mechanisms ... are weakening.

psychological projection and emotional.

 

[Chip]

Chip, you are not persuading me. Or even coming close. Doesn't that tell you anything?

Yes, it tells me that the facts of truth mean nothing to you in this matter ...

... It tells me that your pre-conceived ideology is overwhelming your ability to think with common sense and reason ...

... And it tells me that there is possibly some association with abortion in your past.

Thanks for givng me yet more reasons to continue to donate my money to Planned Parenthood.

It also suggests to me that you may suffer to some degree from oppositional defiant disorder.

 

[Chip]

False. Erroneous Irrelevant. False and irrelevant. Immaterial and irrelevant and emotional. Erroneous and irrelevant. False and immaterial. False and emotional. Psychological projection and emotional.

Though immitation may sometimes be the sincerest form of flattery, here, coupled with what you, once again, don't say, it is merely an indication of emotional immaturity, much like one might expect from an obstinate mimicking child.

You address Palerider because you think you can BS Palerider with your erroneous out-of-context obfuscation to similarly divertively digress from the heart-of-the matter you simply don't want to face.

And you refuse completely to answer my heart-of-the-matter questions from way back, posting adolescent mimicry in lieu of honest and rational presentation.

Grow up, Lagboltz ... or be judged as having lost the debate on the grounds of incapability.

Once again, the pro-abortionist contingent could really use more capable representatives.

 

[samsara15]

Chip

You continue to equate a clump of cells with a living human being. You dismiss all contrary comments as irrelevant. You engage in ad hominem attacks. Your purpose is apparently not to hold any sort of dialogue, but appears to be to provide those who disagree with you with a lecture. Can you provide us with any substantive reasons why we should take you seriously?

 

[Pandora]

Re: Chip

You continue to equate a clump of cells with a living human being. You dismiss all contrary comments as irrelevant. You engage in ad hominem attacks. Your purpose is apparently not to hold any sort of dialogue, but appears to be to provide those who disagree with you with a lecture. Can you provide us with any substantive reasons why we should take you seriously?

a baby in the 5th month and over is a whole lot more than a clump of cells but they are killed all the time because some lazy wench doesnt want to deal with it.

 

[samsara15]

Re: Chip

a baby in the 5th month and over is a whole lot more than a clump of cells but they are killed all the time because some lazy wench doesnt want to deal with it.

Very good.

Now can we start discussing sentience, and at what stage sentience that might reasonably be called begins, and what criteria might be used to make that judgement?

How do you know they are killed simply because some 'lazy wench' doesn't want to deal with it? Isn't that a value judgement you have made about someone else without knowing their circumstances?

What if they have severe birth defects? What if her life is endangered? Who will pay for the medical expenses? Isn't each case different, to be evaluated differently?

 

[Pandora]

Re: Chip

Very good.

Now can we start discussing sentience, and at what stage sentience that might reasonably be called begins, and what criteria might be used to make that judgement?

How do you know they are killed simply because some 'lazy wench' doesn't want to deal with it? Isn't that a value judgement you have made about someone else without knowing their circumstances?

What if they have severe birth defects? What if her life is endangered? Who will pay for the medical expenses? Isn't each case different, to be evaluated differently?

not IMO. Life is valuable. There are people who have "severe" birth defects, they were not the sex the parent wanted, or they were blind, or they were imperfect in some other way.....but they are as valuable as the woman who decided their death.

as for when does life begin, we dont all agree... I think anything alive has life. I am unsure why people disagree with that. I also think that humans breed humans, just like dogs breed dogs. so if a woman is pregnant there is an alive human being inside of them. Its not a puppy and its not dead.

so some argue well they are not a person... what is a person? a DNA of thier own? Babies have it before the 2d month

dont get me wrong, I respect you have the right to think women have a right to kill their kids. I just disagreed with the clump of cells statement

 

[samsara15]

Very well.

You may or may not have a case, IMO, for the 5 month old fetus, of which you could persuade me.

As for the newly fertilized egg, the tiny zygote, it is definitely life, I can agree with that, but no further. It has not yet become human, IMO, until it has some vague semblance of what might be labeled human consciousness.

I have heard some biologisrts raise some interesting questions as to what exactly the definition of 'human', in the case of a embryo, might be. There are many gradations possible. Even more so, now that the possibility of genetically blended species has arisen through genetic engineering. One woman actually proposed implanting a genetic blend of chimp and human in her own body.

 

[Pandora]

Very well.

You may or may not have a case, IMO, for the 5 month old fetus, of which you could persuade me.

As for the newly fertilized egg, the tiny zygote, it is definitely life, I can agree with that, but no further. It has not yet become human, IMO, until it has some vague semblance of what might be labeled human consciousness.

I have heard some biologisrts raise some interesting questions as to what exactly the definition of 'human', in the case of a embryo, might be. There are many gradations possible. Even more so, now that the possibility of genetically blended species has arisen through genetic engineering. One woman actually proposed implanting a genetic blend of chimp and human in her own body.

I would agree at the moment of conception it is a clump of cells, I dont like the morning after pill but I cant get to worked up about it. After the second month and most certianly after the third month I see murder.

But the abortion argument is over for a while... pro abortion won the battle. so now pro life has to re-group till next time

 

[samsara15]

The war is never over, but battles get lost, and persuading other people is not ever easy.

I cannot recall when I have ever seen anyone persuaded to change their deep felt viewpoints on one of these forums.

And even if we do happen to feel that won or lost an exchange, we all have our leanings, and so the next time we encounter someone of our original persuasion with stronger arguments than we could muster in support of our original postions, we revert right back to our original opinions. In other words, you're only as strong as the last solid arguments you heard. Or what-have-you-done-for-me-lately...

Nonetheless, it is beneficial to have some sort of dialogue with people who think differently from ourselves, and tempers the stridency of our opinions by making us a little bit doubtful.

Abortion creates more stridency than almost any other issue.

 

[Pandora]

The war is never over, but battles get lost, and persuading other people is not ever easy.

I cannot recall when I have ever seen anyone persuaded to change their deep felt viewpoints on one of these forums.

And even if we do happen to feel that won or lost an exchange, we all have our leanings, and so the next time we encounter someone of our original persuasion with stronger arguments than we could muster in support of our original postions, we revert right back to our original opinions. In other words, you're only as strong as the last solid arguments you heard. Or what-have-you-done-for-me-lately...

Nonetheless, it is beneficial to have some sort of dialogue with people who think differently from ourselves, and tempers the stridency of our opinions by making us a little bit doubtful.

Abortion creates more stridency than almost any other issue.

The abortion battle is all over the board and the biggest problem with it is

if you want the baby its a baby
if you dont want the baby its a lump of cells

When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, he was charged for two murders
because that baby was wanted

but Lacy could have gone in and paid a doctor to kill that baby and no one would have been charged for murder.

I think its a failed argument that its not a baby if its not wanted and it is a baby if it is wanted. and as long as that is what the argument boils down to after the fuzzy words like choice are cleared away....it will always be a hot topic that is never resolved

The same group of people that tell you its ok to kill your offspring if you dont want it will also feel its ok to have the fine for anyone touching an owls egg firtile or not because they are rare, so that egg is valuable.

the argument should be about science not feelings when human life is concerned