A Conception's Right To Life

[samsara15]

Very well.

If you wish to present your minority viewpoints as mainstream, enjoy your fantasy. If you believe it is true, you are merely deluding yourself.

However, deluding others is not good.

 

[Chip]

It's already been explained numerous times that there is more to a full person than just the beginnings of fertilization and cells dividing.

Meaningless, erroneous and irrelevant.

That you've whined the "full" person pro-abortionist's sophistry is not a scientific presentation.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

A complete person has feelings and numerous other attributes that a fertilized egg just does not hold.

Meaningless, erroneous and irrelevant.

Your "complete" person sophistry is not a scientific presentation.

Science does not use a post-conception growth or development stage to define the existence of a human being.

You need to use accurately presented scientific premise and conclusion, much like the form of the opening post, to present science.

What you've presented so far is merely your court jester sophistry.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

What you have @ conception is the possibility of a person being born and even that possibility is often naturally removed by just regular nature such as in a miscarriage or still born birth.

Erroneous, meaningless and irrelevant.

You are merely continuing to wax sophistrical ... and it gets old.

Where is your scientific premise and conclusion?

Review the opening post; it presented in scientific terms the step-by-step presentation of how science declares that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.

All you've done so far is court jesterly present ubiquitous pro-abortionist sophistry.

You've yet to present your refutation in scientific terms and scientific form.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

This being the case

Erroneous.

None of what you've just stated is true ...

to try and label women as murderers for having an abortion would bring up another interesting circumstance.

... and so your conclusion is false as well.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

What if the woman forced to have a child against her will were to die in childbirth and the child survive. Since the child killed her and even that act was forced by the state... should not all offending parties be held criminally liable? Certainly appears that way.

Erroneous, meaningless and irrelevant.

If the woman's life was known to be in legitimate danger from her pregnancy than self-defensive action should have been taken long ago.

If the woman's life was known to be in legitimate danger from her pregnancy and she chose not to defend herself, no one else is to blame for her death.

If the woman's life was not known to be in legitimate danger from her pregnancy and she died in childbirth, it is accurately ruled an accidental death, just like spontaneous abortion is an accidental death -- it's no one's "fault", it just sometimes happens, just like sometimes anyone can die unexpectedly from an aneurism or an accident.

But again, as always, you stray greatly from the point.

The point of this thread is that a person, a unique individual human being, has been scientifically proven beyond rational conjecture to begin to live at the moment of conception, and is thus endowed with the unalienable right to life.

You've yet to present anything scientific and in scientific premise-conclusion step-by-step form that says otherwise.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

All this being the case

Again, simply erroneous.

None of what you've presented is "the case" in truth.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

it's just nice to point out that the country is moving away even further from your preference.

False.

Polls continue to show that more and more people are accepting the scientific truth that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.

It's only a matter of time that science will win out and the unalienable right to life of the newly conceived will be legally protected.

I don't know where you reference your polls, Top Gun, but you really do need to get a grip on reality.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

And that my friend even though it upsets you Clinic Creepers is a very good thing for women in general.

Erroneous, unjustified ad hominem name-calling, and meaningless.

Your false assumption that the nation is moving away from accepting the personhood of the newly conceived is merely your pro-abortionist fantasy at work.

Your use of the unwarranted and abusive term "Clinic Creepers" illustrates that you are in last-resort land when you have to call people erroneous derogatory names to make your "point".

And, once again, you illustrate your complete lack of knowledge of psychology and human emotions, as when a woman commits murderous abortion, she is always physiologically and neuropsychologically-emotionally scarred by that process for life.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

 

[Chip]

Very well.

If you wish to present your minority viewpoints as mainstream, enjoy your fantasy. If you believe it is true, you are merely deluding yourself.

However, deluding others is not good.

Erroneous and meaningless projection.

It is you and your pro-abortionist cohorts who are attempting to be misleading via your self-delusions, as that is what pro-abortionists base their sophistry upon ... and sophistry appears to be all that they have.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

 

[palerider]

The point is that biologists, or doctors, or other scientists working in related fields of inquiry do not normally say anything about when 'human' life begins unless they have an ideological axe to grind. I looked to see if I could find any such 'scientific' or 'medical' definition of a human being on the Internet, but found zilch. Does AAAS make any such definitiopn? I think not.

No one is arguing about when "human life" began and I don't know when any scientist has ever approached that question. It is observable science however when an individual human's life begins and I have provided plenty of references to support my claim and you have yet to provide anything that challenges it. Can you provide any credible evidence that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is ever something other than a human being?

I recall when I used to post on the "Bad Science" web site, and encountered a bunch of creationists PHDs in Physics trying vigorously to argue that the earth was the center of the universe, being challenged by other mainline physicists. Needless to say, they were far outside the mainstream of their profession, and were being badly battered.

I suppose they were being bttered because they could not produce credible evidence to support their claims. Too bad for them. I am sitting here thinking that very thing about you. We both know that you are not going to be able to produce any credible evidence that refutes, or even challenges that which I have already posted. I asked you earlier if you were grown up and intelligent enough to admit when you are wrong. Are you now providing that answer?

To stand there and rail that you are right when you can provide no credible evidence to refute that which I have already provided is flat earth thinking. Are you going to join the ranks of the flat earthers; arguing your faith against credible science?

 

[palerider]

AAAS, BTW, normally DOES take a stand on political issues of interest to sciencists. Evolution and Global Warming, for example. So their silence on the matter of when human life begins is telling us something.

Refer to the supreme court. "Silence implies consent."

 

[palerider]

Just like GWB, you label the largest organization of mainstream scientists in the world, the voice of science in the US, 'Left Wing', because they dare oppose your POV, as they did that of GWB on Stem Cell research. Apparently, you don't even know who or what they are. OK.

They are silent on the issue. They have opposed no one. Again. Silence implies consent.

Just don't expect everyone else to take your views of what is 'good science' very seriously. The scientific truth of the matter is quite clearly not what you state. What you choose to label as relevant or irrelevant is also clearly not of serious interest.

What exactly are your views on what is "good science"? Your opinion vs medical textbook after medical textbook on the very topics we are discussing? Tell me, according to your "good science" how might the offspring of two human beings be something other than a human being?

Zygote, infant, blastocyst, toddler, embryo, teenager, fetus, adult, old geezer. All are words that we use to describe the same individual at various stages of their lives. We don't become human beings by virtue of having been something else. We come into being as human beings because that is what we are. "Good science" does not make contentions that it simply can not support.

 

[palerider]

It's already been explained numerous times that there is more to a full person than just the beginnings of fertilization and cells dividing. A complete person has feelings and numerous other attributes that a fertilized egg just does not hold.

Once more, there is no such thing as a fertilized egg. That term has gone the way of the dinosaurs with our increased knowledge. Further, your claim is patently wrong because there are individuals who exist, who are undeniably human beings who lack most, or all of the attributes that you claim are necessary to be human beings. You might rightly claim that a mature human being has more of those attributes than an immature human being, but with or without said attributes, both are human beings.

What you have @ conception is the possibility of a person being born and even that possibility is often naturally removed by just regular nature such as in a miscarriage or still born birth.

You keep saying that but have yet to provide even a scrap of credible evidence that suggests as much. I have my position and have provided both legal and scientific evidence to support it. Of what value is your opinion in this if credible materials have been provided that state explicitly that your opinion is wrong?

As to miscarriage, or still birth, it is nothing more and nothing less than dying a natural death. The fact that they can die proves that they are alive and since their parents are human beings, it stands to reason that they are the same. Unless, of course, you can provide soome credible evidence that suggests that they are something else at some point. Can you?

This being the case to try and label women as murderers for having an abortion would bring up another interesting circumstance. What if the woman forced to have a child against her will were to die in childbirth and the child survive. Since the child killed her and even that act was forced by the state... should not all offending parties be held criminally liable? Certainly appears that way.

Murder is one human being killing another human being with intent. Can you prove that unborns are something other than human beings?

All this being the case it's just nice to point out that the country is moving away even further from your preference. And that my friend even though it upsets you Clinic Creepers is a very good thing for women in general.

Again, not true. The more we learn in the field of human developmental biology, fewer people favor abortion on demand and more favor restrictions. You are in a very small minority in your abortion on demand position topgun.

 

[palerider]

Very well.

If you wish to present your minority viewpoints as mainstream, enjoy your fantasy. If you believe it is true, you are merely deluding yourself.

However, deluding others is not good.

All you have to do is provide a body of credible information that supports your claims. You accuse fantasy when it is you who is arguing your faith rather than the facts. Faith is defined as a belief in a thing which can not be proven. As many times as Chip has asked you to provide some supporting evidence for your position, one has to think that if you had it you would have posted it. Clearly it is you who is operating from a position of fantasy.

And majority, minority has nothing to do with truth and to suggest so constitutes several logical fallacies. Appeal to popularity, appeal to common practice, circumstantial ad hominem, and appeal to the bandwagon come to mind. What does have to do with the truth is fact and the presentation of credible material that supports your claim.

Can you credibly support your position or not?

 

[Dr.Who]

Samsara, you are going over old ground that was covered somewhere in the last interminable 440 posts. I will fill you in. Essentially the argument of the anti-choice movement represented here is that scientists refer to "human zygotes". They are human because of the deoxyribonucleic acid, a chemical template for humans. The next step is that Black's Law Dictionary defines "person" as "human", therefore any mention of person in the constitution means human, and therefore a zygote. They also consider that frozen zygotes and dead people are human too.

This is, by and large, an accurate restatement.

(I would add that refering to the other side by their less preferred names is inflammatory and not generally helpful. Pro-life should be called pro-life and pro-choice should be called pro-choice except when either demonstrate that their real intentions are anti-life or pro-abortion)

So, anyway, yes a Zygote is human by virtue of it's DNA and after all is not a dog.

And yes the law does have a long long history of defining any human as a person. Notable exceptions all take place only when someone wants to restrict the rights of some group which in the past have always later been recognized as persons, e.g. slaves, foreigners.

Yes frozen zygots are still humans as they did not suddenly start being dogs for example.

And yes, dead people are still humans as they also did not suddenly turn into dogs for example. I thought I would just go and get the first definition of corpse I could find to demonstrate that by definition a corpse is just a dead human. Little did I know that it would be even stronger than that.

Corpse:

1) a dead body, esp. of a person
2) something once vigorous but now lifeless and of no use

So not only did the definition assume that a corpse is human but went on to state that it is a person. Just as you did when you called it "dead people." What it is not is living. And of course the reason that corpses don't have a right to life is not because they are not human or not because they are not persons but because they are not living.

Almost all cultural and legal definitions of Human has always assumed that a human is a person. But occasionaly those trying to remove someones rights want to change that definition. And recently as in the abortion arguments people want to raise the bar and add new criteria to what it takes to be a person. No one, even among those who are pro-choice can agree what criteria it should be to be a person. Some say sentience, some say viability and on and on it goes.

And since we are discussing the constitutional application we should at least agree that at the time the constitution was written the writers intended the word person to mean any human. Changing the definition of a word will never change the intent of the highest law of the land.

But all that is irrelvent and pro-lifers should not get sucked into an argument about the merits of each proposed reason for defining a human as a person. That argument can't be won or lost. We will never agree today. Pro-lifers need to constantly point out that human has always meant person and those who want to change the definition to suit their arguments rather than change the arguments to suit the definition need to provide some really good reasons why the standard definitions should be changed.

 

[Lagboltz]

But all that is irrelvent and pro-lifers should not get sucked into an argument about the merits of each proposed reason for defining a human as a person. That argument can't be won or lost. We will never agree today. Pro-lifers need to constantly point out that human has always meant person

There is one correction: Palerider called it a "blatant lie", that I referred to "human" when I should have referred to "human being" as a person. It was a slip up on my part, but he overreacted in his assessment of my character.

and those who want to change the definition to suit their arguments rather than change the arguments to suit the definition need to provide some really good reasons why the standard definitions should be changed.

I would amend that assessment. The thrust of the pro-choice need not be to change the definition. English words have multiple meanings in different contexts. The thrust should be to consider the context of usage.

Basically pro-lifers here do not want to distinguish any degree of humanness, whether the human being is a frozen or active zygote, a born person, or a dead person. They apply the word "human being" to all the different contexts of it's usage as an English word in both law and science. To do otherwise is dogmatic (and other more derogatory descriptors).

I pointed out in post #498 that if "person" in the context of law always means "human being", that brings about many ludicrous interpretations of the constitution, such as a dead person has the right to vote (a zygote does not because it is underage). Also congressional representation is based on a census of "persons", so the census should count bodies in a cemetery and pregnant women.

Palerider's response to this was, "I never said that dead humans are covered by the constitution. That is your fabrication." He did not care to recognize that I did indeed fabricate that as a reductio ad absurdum, to show cases where a universal non-contextual definition of human being leads to absurdities.

I think these are good reasons that the definitions should be clarified. Perhaps the law dictionaries will clarify the legal definition of person if or when the pro-lifers ever bring that to the courts.

 

[Chip]

As I'm seeing that this has become a minor sub-issue in this thread, here are the terms used to allude to the general perspectives on this and related issues.

Pro-life:

This is a generally accepted cross-philosophical term, not self or other described. It represents the philosophy of those who are opposed to murderous abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, murder of the extremely old, non-defensive war, careless slaughter of civilians during war, and the like. The pro-life position does not condone killing, and accepts the absence of guilt in killing only in matters of immediate self-defense of one's very life, where the assailant was killed as an incidental result of a justifiable defense against the assailant's unjustified attack.​

Pro-death:

This is not a generally accepted cross-philosophical term, as it is other described. Pro-death is the moniker pro-lifers and anti-abortionists use to derogatorally refer to pro-abortionists. Anti-abortionists and pro-lifers use this other-described term to often erronously imply unsubstantiated that pro-abortionists are opposite to pro-lifers in all respects, and that pro-abortionists love death and killing people.​

Anti-abortion:

This is a generally accepted cross-philosophical term, not self or other described. It represents the philosophy of those who are opposed to murderous abortion, but who may or may not adhere to all of the other pro-life tenets. Generally, a person who is accurately referred to precisely as anti-abortion does indeed not adhere to all of the other pro-life tenets.​

Pro-abortion:

This is a generally accepted cross-philosophical term, not self or other described. It represents the philosophy of those who are in support of murderous abortion, and whether they don't adhere to any other pro-life tenets is irrelevant.​

Pro-choice:

This is not a generally accepted cross-philosophical term, as it is self-described, though it's acquiesed usage is unfortunately and inappropriately common. Pro-choice is a self-described term used by pro-abortionists to deflect attention from the fact that they advocate murderous abortion. They use the term pro-choice as their preferred moniker as they hope to focus attention on the choice the mother would make (to murder or not murder her pre-natal offspring), thus hoping to detract from the fact that as pro-abortionists they support murderous abortion of pre-natal people for reasons that would be most certainly unjustified if applied to post-natals.​

Anti-choice:

This is not a generally accepted cross-philosophical term, as it is other-described. Anti-choice is the moniker pro-abortionists use to derogatorally refer to pro-lifers and anti-abortionists. Pro-abortionists use this other-described term to complete their spin deflection, coupling their inaccurate labeling of pro-lifers and anti-abortionists as anti-choice with the pro-abortionists' own self-described label of pro-choice. The monikers of anti-choice and pro-choice are labels created only by pro-abortionists in their attempt to draw attention away from the fact that they advocate murderous abortion, murder being a sociologial taboo they prefer not to be known by.​

Clearly, the correct cross-philosophical terms to be used in this discussion are pro-life, anti-abortion, and pro-abortion.

The terms pro-death, pro-choice and anti-choice are not cross-philosophical, and exist only within the respective movement itself to further that movement's spin, and are not labels that rightly apply to anyone within the germane of this discussion.

 

[top gun]

Chip;84064]Meaningless, erroneous and irrelevant.
That you've whined the "full" person pro-abortionist's sophistry is not a scientific presentation.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

The fact that someone (most people by the way ) don't agree with you doesn't mean any of those things.

There are extreme, obvious and abundant differences between a fertilized egg and a child at childbirth... or even a fetus for that matter. This is why there are the many documented & different medical (scientific ) stages of development that if nothing natural or imposed goes wrong "could" eventually create a child.

If the woman's life was not known to be in legitimate danger from her pregnancy and she died in childbirth, it is accurately ruled an accidental death, just like spontaneous abortion is an accidental death -- it's no one's "fault", it just sometimes happens, just like sometimes anyone can die unexpectedly from an aneurism or an accident.

There of course would be nothing "accidental" about it in your Clinic Creeper Gestapo world! When you are FORCED TO PARTICIPATE against your will in an action that ends up killing you... that's a clear definition of murder.

The point of this thread is that a person, a unique individual human being, has been scientifically proven beyond rational conjecture to begin to live at the moment of conception, and is thus endowed with the unalienable right to life.

There is nothing a "conception" in the Constitution. The words, all men are created equal... and endowed by their creator are speaking of discrimination as is pertain to different types of people at the beginning of Gods time. The word conception is never spoken anywhere... however the words BORN IN are.

There's no disputing that a fertilized egg is living human cells splitting and dividing... but that is not a complete person. If is were it would not require life support from another just to survive. This is why "viability" is the recognized legal standard.

Polls continue to show that more and more people are accepting the scientific truth that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.

Not! You are so far out in Clinic Creeper land you haven't even let your mind tune into current political events. Our new President just signed his first order on abortion and that was to open up funding for those who offer abortion counseling and abortion. Your position has long ago drowned my friend... and now the dept of the water is rising almost daily!

And it's easy to see why.

 

[palerider]

The fact that someone (most people by the way ) don't agree with you doesn't mean any of those things.

Appeal to popularity and no more. You can't prove your claim so you point to the crowd which also can't prove their claim. As I have pointed out over and over, it is logical fallacy with you every time you try to justify your postion.

There are extreme, obvious and abundant differences between a fertilized egg and a child at childbirth... or even a fetus for that matter. This is why there are the many documented & different medical (scientific ) stages of development that if nothing natural or imposed goes wrong "could" eventually create a child.

There are documented stages of development and decliine from birth to death. There are, however, no documented metamorphosis stages in which a human being becomes a human being having been something else.

By the way, there is no such thing as a fertilized egg. That is an outdated term only used by the uneducated, or by ageists who are deliberately trying to dehumanize a human being via language.

"Often,this morula is inaccurately referred to as a ‘fertilized egg’ because the blastomeres remain inside the female parent’s oocyte outer cell membrane. That is an incorrect characterization, because the 23 -chromosome oocyte no longer exists; all the cells within the morula have the unique genome—46 chromosomes and a complement of mitochondrial DNA —of the newly conceived individual life." Moore and Persaud, The Developing Human, 6th ed., (p. 43)

There of course would be nothing "accidental" about it in your Clinic Creeper Gestapo world! When you are FORCED TO PARTICIPATE against your will in an action that ends up killing you... that's a clear definition of murder.

And out roll the ad hominem attacks. No one has suggested that a woman whose life is in genuine danger doesn't have the right to terminate a pregnancy. You have no argument so you resort to hand wringing emotionalism.

There is nothing a "conception" in the Constitution. The words, all men are created equal... and endowed by their creator are speaking of discrimination as is pertain to different types of people at the beginning of Gods time. The word conception is never spoken anywhere... however the words BORN IN are.

Grab yourself a thesarus from the period. You will find that conception and creation are interchangable terms. And once again, the word born is only used in reference to the priviliges and rights of citizenship. It is a losing proposition for you to keep claiming that the right to live somehow applies only to citizens. Clearly you are forgetting, or deliberatey ignoring the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. If your argument were supportable by the constitution, my bet is that the justices who decided roe would have said as much rather than making the clearly mistaken assumption that unborns were not human beings.

There's no disputing that a fertilized egg is living human cells splitting and dividing... but that is not a complete person. If is were it would not require life support from another just to survive. This is why "viability" is the recognized legal standard.

There is no disputing that the newly concieved individual is in fact, a living human being. If there were a dispute, surely you could provide some credible information to support that claim. In practice, your argument breaks down entirely. What exactly is a "complete" person. Do amputees cease being humans because of their loss? Do those born without limbs, or eyes, or any other part never become human because they aren't "complete". Of course not. Do those who require life support stop being human as a result? Of course not. Do those who require life support after birth not become humans until such time as they can come off of life support? Again, of course not. And then there is the case of conjoined twins where one is required to support the other for life if the other is not a threat to his or her life.

By the way. Viability is a pseudo legal standard, not a factual finding.

Not! You are so far out in Clinic Creeper land you haven't even let your mind tune into current political events. Our new President just signed his first order on abortion and that was to open up funding for those who offer abortion counseling and abortion. Your position has long ago drowned my friend... and now the dept of the water is rising almost daily!

Sorry topgun, but those who favor abortion on demand as opposed to limits on abortion are in a rapidly shrinking minority. Some polls suggest that the percentage of Americans who believe as you is down into the single digit range. Science is winning the war. Don't place too much faith in the results of any number of battles.

 

[samsara15]

Single digits, eh, PaleRider. Can you cite us an example of such a poll? That we can verify on the Internet?

When it comes to science, you obviously don't care what the true science behind your opinions might be, or you would not dismiss AAAS's silence on this issue so quickly. What you have provided here is merely boilerplate knowledge accompanied with hard line anti-abortion interpretations and opinions.

 

[samsara15]

Here are some polls I have pulled up:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abopoll05.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abopollover.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

I see no single digit approval. Stricter limits, perhaps.