US Becoming Pro-Life

[PLC1]

Sorry but its fact that biology determines whether or not you are an individual. If we all had the exact same DNA, we'd be clones, not individuals. We could still have individual personalities (social, philosophical and theological individuality) but biologically, we'd be identical.


We don't know? Here's just one example:



Corpses are protected by law, they retain some rights as individuals even after death.


That depends on the definition of "is".... We've been through this before already and you said you would leave the unprovable, philosophical and theological arguments at the door and focus solely on the scientifically provable aspects of the discussion... Can we do that now?


DNA, without which you would not exist and could not grow. Without your DNA being different from everyone elses, you would not be an individual but a clone. You continally add this layer of spirituality... I think you do it because there is no answer to those unknown question and its comforting for you to think there are no answers to tough questions... you refuse to stay focused on what is known, and knowable, regarding these difficult topics.


I don't call myself an Atheist but that is basically my position. However I don't believe we're "simply" biological entities but its only the biological aspects of our existance that can be scientifically quantified and empirically proven... We cannot quantify, much less prove with any level of certainty, the other aspects of being human, e.g. existence of the soul.

The spiritual, theological and social aspects are all subjective to the individual pondering them and have no definitive answers, its only those with faith who can look at the unprovable and claim that they know for sure.

If I had to guess based on our discussion, I'd say you were Agnostic... You refuse to deal in absolutes and like to stay safely in the gray areas saying that we'll never know because no one can answer the unanswerable questions you insist on adding to the answerable ones.

Safely in the gray areas? We've been discussing a gray area for several pages, now. You're trying to make them black and white, but they're not.

We cannot quantify, much less prove with any level of certainty, the other aspects of being human, e.g. existence of the soul.

Perhaps not, but we can prove with certainty that the human mind exists in an adult human, but not in a days old embryo.

DNA, without which you would not exist and could not grow. Without your DNA being different from everyone elses, you would not be an individual but a clone. You continally add this layer of spirituality... I think you do it because there is no answer to those unknown question and its comforting for you to think there are no answers to tough questions... you refuse to stay focused on what is known, and knowable, regarding these difficult topics.

OK, so it is known that our DNA is one thing that makes us a unique individual, that's so. How, though, does it follow that life begins when our DNA is complete? It seems to me that there is a disconnect there.

More on DNA:

Mice carrying a "humanized version" of a gene believed to influence speech and language may not actually talk, but they nonetheless do have a lot to say about our evolutionary past, according to a report in the May 29th issue of the journal Cell, a Cell Press publication.

"In the last decade or so, we've come to realize that the mouse is really similar to humans," said Wolfgang Enard of the Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. "The genes are essentially the same and they also work similarly." Because of that, scientists have learned a tremendous amount about the biology of human diseases by studying mice.

If it is our DNA that makes us unique human individuals, what are mice that have human DNA spliced into their genes? Are they partly human as well?

 

[GenSeneca]

Safely in the gray areas? We've been discussing a gray area for several pages, now. You're trying to make them black and white, but they're not.

1. A fertilized egg is alive - True or False

Your answer: That depends on what the meaning of "Is" is...

2. The fertilized egg has unique DNA to both parents - True or False

Your answer: You must answer my unanswerable questions to figure out any of that.

3. The fertilized egg is alive and is an individual based on DNA - True or False

Your answer: Without taking into account the philosophical and theological answers to unanswerable questions, we cannot know when the life of an individual begins. So its best to avoid thinking about it.

 

[PLC1]

1. A fertilized egg is alive - True or False

Your answer: That depends on what the meaning of "Is" is...

2. The fertilized egg has unique DNA to both parents - True or False

Your answer: You must answer my unanswerable questions to figure out any of that.

3. The fertilized egg is alive and is an individual based on DNA - True or False

Your answer: Without taking into account the philosophical and theological answers to unanswerable questions, we cannot know when the life of an individual begins. So its best to avoid thinking about it.

A days old zygote has a human mind, true of false?

An adult human has a human mind, true or false?

There is more to an individual human than his/her DNA, true/ false?

A mouse that has human DNA is part human true/false?

You're right. There are some yes or no, black and white questions.

 

[GenSeneca]

You're right. There are some yes or no, black and white questions.

There are only two options where Life is concerned: Continue to live, or die. No gray area in that statement, its the most basic truth of life.

A fertilized egg must either be alive, or dead.

For something to continue to live, its must already be alive because it cannot be dead and continue to live.

So my question of whether or not a fertilized egg is alive can only have 2 possible anwers: Its alive or Its dead. Given there are just two possibilities, we can then use a true or fasle question:

A fertilized egg is alive - T or F?

 

[top gun]

I do understand that... That's why I don't say we need to ban abortion but look for other ways to eliminate the 95% who use it as birth control.

And again I am agreeing with you on that... except I'm also pointing out that since we don't know which are which (only the woman does) we have to leave it safe & legal to all requesting it

But that's not what you said before...


If you are drawing the line at "viability" then you are not leaving the decision 'up to the woman actually involved'... If you are drawing the line at "viability" then you are taking away the womans decision past the point of viability and, through the power of the state, forcing her to carry the child to term.

NO... I simply answered a complex & compound question appropriately.

I said exactly what the SCOTUS has ruled. That the decision should be up to the woman involved up until viability (except in cases of mothers life/health or severe birth defect). After that it would mean you'd be aborting something that no longer really needed the host anyway.

This seems the exact correct measure to me.

 

[PLC1]

There are only two options where Life is concerned: Continue to live, or die. No gray area in that statement, its the most basic truth of life.

A fertilized egg must either be alive, or dead.

For something to continue to live, its must already be alive because it cannot be dead and continue to live.

So my question of whether or not a fertilized egg is alive can only have 2 possible anwers: Its alive or Its dead. Given there are just two possibilities, we can then use a true or fasle question:

A fertilized egg is alive - T or F?

I've already said that a fertilized egg is alive in the same sense that a bacterium is alive.

How about my little T/F quiz?

 

[PredFan]

Bacteria are alive.
Viruses are alive.
Ants are alive.
Skin cells are alive.
Muscle cells are alive.
Fat cells are alive.

None of the above are concidered Human Beings.

The fact that a fertilized egg is alive is irrelivant.

If you think abortion is murder and is wrong and you think God will punish you if you elect to have one, then don't have one. People who don't believe as you do should not have to follow you.

This is still a free country (but for how much longer?).

 

[Pandora]

Bacteria are alive.
Viruses are alive.
Ants are alive.
Skin cells are alive.
Muscle cells are alive.
Fat cells are alive.

None of the above are concidered Human Beings.

The fact that a fertilized egg is alive is irrelivant.

If you think abortion is murder and is wrong and you think God will punish you if you elect to have one, then don't have one. People who don't believe as you do should not have to follow you.

This is still a free country (but for how much longer?).

Very interesting point. When does the fertilized egg become a human being?

Barbara Boxer says that it becomes a human being after its born and not until the mother picks it up and claims it as her own.

What say you?

 

[Dr.Who]

Bacteria are alive.
Viruses are alive.
Ants are alive.
Skin cells are alive.
Muscle cells are alive.
Fat cells are alive.

None of the above are concidered Human Beings.

The fact that a fertilized egg is alive is irrelivant.

None of those things on your list are both human and beings (individuals). The fertilized egg is both human and an individual.

If you think abortion is murder and is wrong and you think God will punish you if you elect to have one, then don't have one. People who don't believe as you do should not have to follow you.

"If you think that murder is wrong and you elect to have on, then don't have one. People who don't believe as you should not have to follow you."

Wrong. The only question is whether or not the law should recognize an unborn child as a living human person? If it is then clearly it is murder to kill it except in self defense.

 

[PLC1]

None of those things on your list are both human and beings (individuals). The fertilized egg is both human and an individual.



"If you think that murder is wrong and you elect to have on, then don't have one. People who don't believe as you should not have to follow you."

Wrong. The only question is whether or not the law should recognize an unborn child as a living human person? If it is then clearly it is murder to kill it except in self defense.

You believe that life begins at conception. OK, if that's what you want to believe.

It does follow, then, that killing a human immediately after conception is the same as killing one as an adult.

Therefore, according to your logic, ending a life at any stage of the game is the same, whether the individual has been born or not.

Now, does that recently fertilized egg realize that it is human? Is it sentient at that point?

That's where your argument breaks down. A human zygote is alive, no doubt. Whether it is human depends on your definition of human. Is it enough to have human DNA, or does it have to have consciousness as well?

Is an acorn an oak tree?

 

[Pandora]

You believe that life begins at conception. OK, if that's what you want to believe.

It does follow, then, that killing a human immediately after conception is the same as killing one as an adult.

Therefore, according to your logic, ending a life at any stage of the game is the same, whether the individual has been born or not.

Now, does that recently fertilized egg realize that it is human? Is it sentient at that point?

That's where your argument breaks down. A human zygote is alive, no doubt. Whether it is human depends on your definition of human. Is it enough to have human DNA, or does it have to have consciousness as well?

Is an acorn an oak tree?

I have a hard time understanding how you don’t think that life begins when something becomes alive. If something or someone is alive then they have life. So since its conception that creates life how can you not think that life begins at conception?
I think I understand your thinking now by your question. “Does a fertilized egg realize that it’s human? Is this the standard?”
If it is then we can off everyone of those freaks who think they are from another planet or part of star trek, every person with a low IQ, is that why it was ok to starve Terri Schiavo to death?
Does a new born baby who had full gestation before birth and maybe lets say has 6 months outside the womb… do they know they are human beings do you think?

 

[PLC1]

I have a hard time understanding how you don’t think that life begins when something becomes alive. If something or someone is alive then they have life. So since its conception that creates life how can you not think that life begins at conception?
I think I understand your thinking now by your question. “Does a fertilized egg realize that it’s human? Is this the standard?”
If it is then we can off everyone of those freaks who think they are from another planet or part of star trek, every person with a low IQ, is that why it was ok to starve Terri Schiavo to death?
Does a new born baby who had full gestation before birth and maybe lets say has 6 months outside the womb… do they know they are human beings do you think?

I don't really know. I think that a six month old baby is a sentient being, but there is no way to know that. It is for certain that an embryo that can only be seen in a microscope is not a sentient being.

If life begins at conception, then it follows that abortion at any stage is taking a human life. If life begins at conception, then there should be no difference between killing an embryo, or killing that six month old child, or an adult. Therefore, abortion at any stage would be murder. En Vitrio fertilization would have to take into consideration that every embryo thus created is human, and therefore must be allowed to mature into an adult human.

If life begins when conscious life begins, then abortion in the early stages is just a simple medical procedure, and en vitrio fertilization is a boon to couples who have difficulty conceiving a baby in the usual way.

 

[Pandora]

I don't really know. I think that a six month old baby is a sentient being, but there is no way to know that. It is for certain that an embryo that can only be seen in a microscope is not a sentient being.

If life begins at conception, then it follows that abortion at any stage is taking a human life. If life begins at conception, then there should be no difference between killing an embryo, or killing that six month old child, or an adult. Therefore, abortion at any stage would be murder. En Vitrio fertilization would have to take into consideration that every embryo thus created is human, and therefore must be allowed to mature into an adult human.

If life begins when conscious life begins, then abortion in the early stages is just a simple medical procedure, and en vitrio fertilization is a boon to couples who have difficulty conceiving a baby in the usual way.

It seems like you are trying to make the meaning of life fit in a way that makes abortion ok.

Lets pretend we are not talking about abortion, just basic reasoning and basic common sense.

If something is alive it has life right? At that moment that the sperm (that is alive) meets the egg (that is alive) it makes a new thing, and that new thing is alive, thus has life.

Now it’s another argument entirely if that life is as valuable as your life and if that life is just trash that can be tossed in a garbage can.. We can disagree on that, but I don’t understand how we can disagree that the moment of conception a new life begins, made up from a living part of a male and female.

 

[PLC1]

It seems like you are trying to make the meaning of life fit in a way that makes abortion ok.

Lets pretend we are not talking about abortion, just basic reasoning and basic common sense.

If something is alive it has life right? At that moment that the sperm (that is alive) meets the egg (that is alive) it makes a new thing, and that new thing is alive, thus has life.

Now it’s another argument entirely if that life is as valuable as your life and if that life is just trash that can be tossed in a garbage can.. We can disagree on that, but I don’t understand how we can disagree that the moment of conception a new life begins, made up from a living part of a male and female.

You're making the same case that GenSeca made about the beginning of life, and we went around for quite a few posts on the subject.

OK, if you're talking about a biological definition of life, then it begins at conception. When a sperm meets an egg of the same species, a new life begins. At first, the only difference between spruce, moose, goose, or man is in the genetic code contained in the cells that result from that union.

If you're talking about an actual living spruce, moose, goose, or human, then it takes a few million cell divisions before that new being is identifiable as anything more than a blob of cells.

My contention is that a human is more than just DNA, therefore, human life begins when human consciousness begins. Further, I contend (with admittedly no way of proving this) that an individual human has always lived, and always will. Life on Earth begins when that immortal soul enters the human body that is being created by biological processes. When that happens, the new union of body and soul is conscious. Seen from that perspective, life does not begin, nor does it end. It only changes.

Of course, if the new life is a spruce, then there never will be consciousness, so life just might actually begin at conception.

 

[Pandora]

You're making the same case that GenSeca made about the beginning of life, and we went around for quite a few posts on the subject.

OK, if you're talking about a biological definition of life, then it begins at conception. When a sperm meets an egg of the same species, a new life begins. At first, the only difference between spruce, moose, goose, or man is in the genetic code contained in the cells that result from that union.

If you're talking about an actual living spruce, moose, goose, or human, then it takes a few million cell divisions before that new being is identifiable as anything more than a blob of cells.

My contention is that a human is more than just DNA, therefore, human life begins when human consciousness begins. Further, I contend (with admittedly no way of proving this) that an individual human has always lived, and always will. Life on Earth begins when that immortal soul enters the human body that is being created by biological processes. When that happens, the new union of body and soul is conscious. Seen from that perspective, life does not begin, nor does it end. It only changes.

Of course, if the new life is a spruce, then there never will be consciousness, so life just might actually begin at conception.

OK fair enough, but when does the soul enter the body?

I read yours and Gens posts but I never see you say where you think the limit is. That is probably why I keep asking.

See, I will agree with you that the soul makes us people but I do think the soul comes at conception. I have no way to prove it either but its what I think. When do you think we get a soul?