US Becoming Pro-Life

[GenSeneca]

You have made a good case that the human body begins when the sperm meets the egg. You haven't shown that the resulting cell has a mind.

Pale is correct, you are begging the question and offering nothing to support your specious argument...

Consider children born with ancepthaly. They are born with no brain...they are human beings and they are, in fact, protected by the law. -- Pale

Clearly he doesn't have to show that a mind exists.

Pale has offered several credible scientific sources that support his position - that from the moment of conception a living individual human being is created - but you have yet to offer even one to support your claim that a mind is a requirement for one to be considered a human being. Unless you can offer credible scientific sources that support your assertion, your argument is not a rational one.

 

[PLC1]

Pale is correct, you are begging the question and offering nothing to support your specious argument...

Consider children born with ancepthaly. They are born with no brain...they are human beings and they are, in fact, protected by the law. -- Pale

Clearly he doesn't have to show that a mind exists.

Pale has offered several credible scientific sources that support his position - that from the moment of conception a living individual human being is created - but you have yet to offer even one to support your claim that a mind is a requirement for one to be considered a human being. Unless you can offer credible scientific sources that support your assertion, your argument is not a rational one.

Now, the two of you are bringing up an interesting question.

Why is it that a child with anancephaly is a human being with full rights as such, while a week old fetus has no rights, and can be legally killed?

To me that makes no sense.

Arguing from your definition of life i.e. biology only, then both the zygote and the anancephalic child are equally alive and human.

If, as I've been contending, a biological organism with no functioning mind is not truly a living human being, but only a potential one, then the anancephalic child is not even a potential.

I'm beginning to think that the real rationale for legal abortion is that the child doesn't yet look like a baby, or if it is beginning to have some resemblance, it can't be seen except perhaps in an ultrasound.

The above is totally illogical, of course, but then, human laws often are totally illogical.

 

[palerider]

Getting back to the original question of life beginning at conception, just what is the definition of life?

The argument keeps going in circles, "life begins at conception because that is the beginning of a human body."

It goes in circles because you set it up as a circular argument rather than a rational argument. The question isn't "when life begins". That is nothing more than a word game of your own construction that serves no other purpose than to possibly save you from answering the actual issue.

The question is when does "an individual''s life begin. There is no ambiguity there. It is a simple matter of direct observation. You can trace your life back to a finite point in time. Prior to that point, you did not exist. After that point to present you have been a living human being.

"No, life requires a mind as well as a body."

You say it, but can't begin to prove it while there are mountains of credible science that state explicitly that we are, in fact, human beings from the time we are concieved. Your inability (or unwillingness) to wrap your mind around the facts does not alter the facts.

"Here is scientific proof that a human being begins when the unique DNA results from fertilization of an egg."

This is a statement of fact.

"No, the human mind does not start to function at that point, but at a later point."

This is a logical fallacy that begs the question and simply assumes that the human mind is what makes a human being, a human being. The assumption is proven wrong by the fact of ancephaleptic children and anyone who might be described as severely mentally retarded.

The debate keeps going on, and keeps coming up against the same point of definition:

The debate continues because one side rejects fact and direct observation in favor of a faith based fantasy of its own creation.

You say that a human is just a body. I say no, it requires a mind as well.

I can offer credible proof to support my statement while you can offer nothing but an unsubstantiated, uncorroborated opinion.

That ancepthalic body your bring up is not alive in any real sense. There is no awareness, no functioning mind. It is simply a body that failed to develop, no different from a tubal pregnancy that has no chance of ever having a functional mind and must be expelled.

Of course it is alive in the only sense that matters. You may argue that the quality of that life does not meet some arbitrary standard that you may set, but then your right to live isn't based on your quality of life. Again, your argument is a logical fallacy that begs the question and simply makes an assumption that can not be proved.

Your analogy of an ancephaleptic child and a tubal pregnancy is not apt. Try again.

You have made a good case that the human body begins when the sperm meets the egg. You haven't shown that the resulting cell has a mind.

I don't need to show that it has a mind. It isn't my claim that one must have a mind in order to be a human being. If you can prove it, then you have an argument. If you can't, then all you have is a fallacious line of reasoning that you are pitting against a fully substantiated argument. Where exactly does that leave you?

 

[palerider]

Now, the two of you are bringing up an interesting question.

Why is it that a child with anancephaly is a human being with full rights as such, while a week old fetus has no rights, and can be legally killed?

Specifically, because in 1972, the Supreme Court decided the roe case based on an assumption that unborns were something other than human beings. They admit freely that they made the decision in a state of uncertainty violating both their judicial responsibilities and ethics. They had no evidence to support that assumption but it was required in order to carry out their pre existing agenda.

To me that makes no sense.

You are correct. It doesn't make sense. There is a reason that roe is called the worst decision in the history of the court even by lawyers who hold a pro choce stance. There is no rational justification, or defense for the decision.

Now for something that makes even less sense. By federal law, if you or I kill an unborn, we can be charged for murder but if an abortionist kills that child, no crime is comitted. Explain how a single individual may be either a constitutionally protected person or an unprotected non human based on nothing more than the circumstances of his or her death. Explain that within the context of a constitution that features a prominent equal protection clause.

Arguing from your definition of life i.e. biology only, then both the zygote and the anancephalic child are equally alive and human.

Can you prove otherwise? You can prove a different level of maturity but both are the same type of creature. One didn't undergo any sort of metamorphosis to become the other.

If, as I've been contending, a biological organism with no functioning mind is not truly a living human being, but only a potential one, then the anancephalic child is not even a potential.

And yet, the ancephaleptic child is fully recognized by both biology and the law as not only a human being, but a constitutionally protected person, thus proving beyond doubt that mind isn't the basis for the protection of an individual's basic human rights.

I'm beginning to think that the real rationale for legal abortion is that the child doesn't yet look like a baby, or if it is beginning to have some resemblance, it can't be seen except perhaps in an ultrasound.

There is no rationale for legal abortion. The case was decided based on nothing more than an unsubstantiated assumption.

 

[PLC1]

Specifically, because in 1972, the Supreme Court decided the roe case based on an assumption that unborns were something other than human beings. They admit freely that they made the decision in a state of uncertainty violating both their judicial responsibilities and ethics. They had no evidence to support that assumption but it was required in order to carry out their pre existing agenda.



You are correct. It doesn't make sense. There is a reason that roe is called the worst decision in the history of the court even by lawyers who hold a pro choce stance. There is no rational justification, or defense for the decision.

Now for something that makes even less sense. By federal law, if you or I kill an unborn, we can be charged for murder but if an abortionist kills that child, no crime is comitted. Explain how a single individual may be either a constitutionally protected person or an unprotected non human based on nothing more than the circumstances of his or her death. Explain that within the context of a constitution that features a prominent equal protection clause.



Can you prove otherwise? You can prove a different level of maturity but both are the same type of creature. One didn't undergo any sort of metamorphosis to become the other.



And yet, the ancephaleptic child is fully recognized by both biology and the law as not only a human being, but a constitutionally protected person, thus proving beyond doubt that mind isn't the basis for the protection of an individual's basic human rights.



There is no rationale for legal abortion. The case was decided based on nothing more than an unsubstantiated assumption.

You are consistent, no question about it.

You consistently state that a human being is no more than DNA, as that is all that it has at conception. I'm consistent, too, in saying that there is more to a human being than DNA and a few cells.

Given that we're just going around on that one, neither of us is willing to give on the definition of human life, then answer this one:

Do you support in vitrio fertilization?

Is it OK for a couple to create embryos that will never be implanted so that a baby that otherwise would never exist can be born?

On the one hand, you have the zygotes, fully human according to your definition, that will be discarded.

On the other, were there no in vitrio, those zygotes would not exist at all. One or two of them have a chance at a real life, and they would not have existed at all had there been no in vitrio.

So, do we ensure that those embryos never begin life at all,
or do we allow them to have a chance at life, knowing that some of them will go back to a state of non existence once the procedure is finished?

 

[palerider]

You are consistent, no question about it.

You consistently state that a human being is no more than DNA, as that is all that it has at conception. I'm consistent, too, in saying that there is more to a human being than DNA and a few cells.

Again, you are mistaken. I don't state that we are no more than DNA. A zygote is far more than simply DNA. I do argue that we are human beings from the time we are concieved. I argue this because there is a great body of science out there that says explicitly that we are human beings from the time we are concieved and no credibile information that I can find that says otherwise.

I say what I say because of the vast perponderance of the evidence. Being a thinking person, I have no choice but to hold the position that I do. Precisely what do you base your own position on? The position of the stars? The number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin? The tides? What exactly because it isn't fact.

You keep arguing that "I say this, or I say that". That is not an honest argument at all. I say what the perponderance of the evidence says and I provide the sources that prompt me to say what I say. Now you, on the other hand do say what you say and that is as far as it goes.

If you want to make an honest statement, then it should take a similar form to this:

"All of the credible evidence, science, medicine, molecular biology, molecular biochemistry, fetology, embryology, developmental biology, OB/Gyn, etc. says that unborns are living human beings from the time they are concieved but I say that we are not." It is dishonest and pointless to try and make my argument into no more than my own opinion.

Given that we're just going around on that one, neither of us is willing to give on the definition of human life, then answer this one:

I base my unwillingness to give because of a very large body of science as stated above; medicine, molecular biology, molecular biochemistry, fetology, embryology, developmental biology, OB/Gyn, etc., says explicitly that we are human beings from the time we are concieved. What, precisely, is the reason that you are not willing to give in and why should it convince me?

Do you support in vitrio fertilization?

I support in vitro fertilization if the embryos are created and implanted one at a time. It would certainly drive up the cost, but there is the option of adoption for couples who could not afford the more expensive treatment.

On the other, were there no in vitrio, those zygotes would not exist at all. One or two of them have a chance at a real life, and they would not have existed at all had there been no in vitrio.

A woman has millions of eggs that will never be fertilized. So what?

So, do we ensure that those embryos never begin life at all,

If they are embryos, their lives have already begun. Any argument that suggests otherwise is logical fallacy. It begs the question and simply makes an assumption that the facts prove wrong.

 

[PLC1]

If they are embryos, their lives have already begun. Any argument that suggests otherwise is logical fallacy. It begs the question and simply makes an assumption that the facts prove wrong.

If they never get to be embryos, that is to say, if the eggs never get fertilized, then they never begin their life. If they do get fertilized, then discarded before they begin conscious life, then the end result is the same.

But, back to your assertion that you have proven that life begins at conception, and that I'm just making things up with no evidence: I had to do some serous surfing to find a scientific site, as opposed to one that is promulgating either a pro life or a pro choice position, i.e., a political site or a religions one.

Here is one that explains the issue in some depth.

One view:

Metabolic View:

The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.

Another view (yours):

Genetic View:

The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life.

Still another:

Embryological View:

In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation.

Yet another (closer to my own view):

Neurological view:

Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern.

So, let's rewrite the words you'd like to put in my mouth as follows:

If you want to make an honest statement, then it should take a similar form to this:

"All of the credible evidence, science, medicine, molecular biology, molecular biochemistry, fetology, embryology, developmental biology, OB/Gyn, etc. points to the fact that we don't really know when life begins. Some say that unborns are living human beings from the time they are concieved but, others say it happens at gastrulation, when neurological development produces an EEG pattern, or at some other time. I say that it is likely that the neurological point of view, while Palerider says it is at conception." It is dishonest and pointless to try and make my argument, or for Pale to make his, into more than opinion, so I'll rely on the research and scientific opinions of others who have made a study of the matter.

Further, I will rely on scientific sites, not religious or political ones, when making up my mind.

In fine, my opinion is just as good as yours. You could be right, but you haven't proven your opinion any more than I have proven mine, nor are either of us able to come up with a definitive proof.

Nor will we.

 

[GenSeneca]

But, back to your assertion that you have proven that life begins at conception, and that I'm just making things up with no evidence: I had to do some serous surfing to find a scientific site, as opposed to one that is promulgating either a pro life or a pro choice position, i.e., a political site or a religions one.

Here is one that explains the issue in some depth.

Great find PLC1!

You left out a good line from that website:

When does life begin?

Science has not been able to give a definitive answer to this question.

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770.

 

[PLC1]

Great find PLC1!

You left out a good line from that website:

When does life begin?

Science has not been able to give a definitive answer to this question.

Which is exactly what I've been saying all along.

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770.

OK, I'll agree with that.

What does it have to do with when life begins?

 

[GenSeneca]

Which is exactly what I've been saying all along.

You were but not offering any evidence to back up such statements.

OK, I'll agree with that.

What does it have to do with when life begins?

It doesn't have anything to do with when life begins, it has relevance to when Jefferson saw us as having a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... Its a statement supporting abortion on demand.

 

[palerider]

If they never get to be embryos, that is to say, if the eggs never get fertilized, then they never begin their life. If they do get fertilized, then discarded before they begin conscious life, then the end result is the same.

If you live to be a ripe old age and die in your sleep with your right to live being protected or you die violently in the street with your right to live being completely disregarded, the end result is the same.

But, back to your assertion that you have proven that life begins at conception, and that I'm just making things up with no evidence:

I don't know why you insist in this dishonest representation of what I say. I have never said that life begins at conception. I have said that AN INDIVIDUAL'S LIFE begins at conception and have provided ample credible evidence to prove it.

I had to do some serous surfing to find a scientific site, as opposed to one that is promulgating either a pro life or a pro choice position, i.e., a political site or a religions one.

Here is one that explains the issue in some depth.

Congratulations. You found a site that lists views from biblical to scientific but made not one single statment of fact. I don't believe that I have provided a single source that has not made a statement of fact.

One view:

The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.

That view disregards the fact that sperm and egg are simply cells from the respective parent's bodies and individually are no more important than a fingernail clipping. This view also begins with your own personal dishonest foundations in that it speaks of "human life" rather than "A HUMAN LIFE" which is a distinctly different thing.

Still another:

Embryological View:

In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation.

This one disregards the hard scientific fact that for a very short window of time (approximately 8 divisions) a human being is capable of asexual reproduction. The ability to split does not mean that the child is not a human being, it only means that human beings are capable of a thing for a very short window of time.

So, let's rewrite the words you'd like to put in my mouth as follows:

If you want to make an honest statement, then it should take a similar form to this:

"All of the credible evidence, science, medicine, molecular biology, molecular biochemistry, fetology, embryology, developmental biology, OB/Gyn, etc. points to the fact that we don't really know when life begins. Some say that unborns are living human beings from the time they are concieved but, others say it happens at gastrulation, when neurological development produces an EEG pattern, or at some other time. I say that it is likely that the neurological point of view, while Palerider says it is at conception." It is dishonest and pointless to try and make my argument, or for Pale to make his, into more than opinion, so I'll rely on the research and scientific opinions of others who have made a study of the matter.[/quote]

No, lets not. Lets point out that you have provided a link to a site that lists numerous views but makes no statement of fact and I have provided numerous credible sources that do make statements of fact. Listing views does not lend even the smallest bit of crediblity to them. Making statements of observed scientific fact does.

Further, I will rely on scientific sites, not religious or political ones, when making up my mind.

What is the difference if you are unable to differentiate between a list of views and a statement of fact.

In fine, my opinion is just as good as yours. You could be right, but you haven't proven your opinion any more than I have proven mine, nor are either of us able to come up with a definitive proof.

Sorry, but once again, I am not presenting my opinion.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote is a unicellular human being... Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss), 5, 55. EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY"

That is a statement of fact. It is a scientific observation. It is different from a view in that it is scientifically proven.

Now, if you can come up with a credible source that states explicitly that unborns are something other than human beings from the time they are concieved, you have something upon which to argue. A list of views that may or may not be fact does not constitute proof of anything other than people hold different views and there was no argument on that point in the first place.

 

[palerider]

Great find PLC1!

You left out a good line from that website:

When does life begin?

That question "when does life begin" is a dodge. It is an ethereal question that is pure unadulterated sophistry. The only question that matters in the issue of abortion is "when does an individual's life begin" and that one has been naied down and put on permanant disply by the scientific community.

I don't deny that the pro choice side of the argument is clever and very adept at twisting words in a fashion designed to purposely mislead those who lack specific education and the source that was provided is particularly disingenuous in that it is a textbook that doesn't take a sentence or two to explain to students that what is being presented is not fact but just the various views. It leads them to believe that they may simply "take their pick" and will be OK but that is quite a distance from the fact.

 

[GenSeneca]

That question "when does life begin" is a dodge. It is an ethereal question that is pure unadulterated sophistry. The only question that matters in the issue of abortion is "when does an individual's life begin" and that one has been naied down and put on permanant disply by the scientific community.

You're preaching to the choir, one of the very first things I pointed out on this very thread is the misleading nature of the question "when does life begin" and my conclusion was the same that you have presented - its when the individuals life begins that has importance.

 

[palerider]

You're preaching to the choir, one of the very first things I pointed out on this very thread is the misleading nature of the question "when does life begin" and my conclusion was the same that you have presented - its when the individuals life begins that has importance.

It brings the foundational dishonesty of the pro choice argument into sharp relief.

 

[PLC1]

If you live to be a ripe old age and die in your sleep with your right to live being protected or you die violently in the street with your right to live being completely disregarded, the end result is the same.

You have a point there.

Personally, I'd rather live to a ripe old age, but the end result is the same, sooner or later we all die one way or another.

Had we never been conceived, I suppose the end result would still be the same, or would it?

I don't know why you insist in this dishonest representation of what I say. I have never said that life begins at conception. I have said that AN INDIVIDUAL'S LIFE begins at conception and have provided ample credible evidence to prove it.

Of course, I meant an individual's life. so did the authors of the science site that you didn't like. Did you think we were discussing the moment when the first unicelluar organism came to be? Some kind of gestalt life? What other kind of life is there but an individual's life?

An individual's life begins when the individual begins to have an individual consciousness. That is my opinion, and, according to what I read on that website you didn't like, it is equally as valid as your opinion that an individual's life begins at the moment of conception.

Congratulations. You found a site that lists views from biblical to scientific but made not one single statment of fact. I don't believe that I have provided a single source that has not made a statement of fact.

There is nothing "biblical" about the site I found. I did wade through a number of religious and political sites, none of them with credible facts.

That view disregards the fact that sperm and egg are simply cells from the respective parent's bodies and individually are no more important than a fingernail clipping. This view also begins with your own personal dishonest foundations in that it speaks of "human life" rather than "A HUMAN LIFE" which is a distinctly different thing.

Of course, silly me. The difference is in the capital letters. Now, that makes tons of sense.

What is the difference if you are unable to differentiate between a list of views and a statement of fact.

Not a list of views, but a list of possibilities. The fact is that science does not know when life begins.

And, despite what you and I believe, neither do we.