Life DOES begin at conception.

Wow. Where do I start? Closed minded? You have no idea...but anyway, let's continue.

I did not say human life is more valuable. It's more important. Top of the food chain (until we enter the ocean).

But I like discussing atoms and the subatomic realm. It get's odd.

Consider this: Molecules and elements make up the matter we experience. Those are made up of electrons, protons, and neutrons. (Yes, I know you know, but follow me here)

We've build contraptions to break these down into ever smaller particles and find mostly empty space. The theory goes that the final solid piece of matter that everything is made of will be a vibration; a small charge of energy.

Then, poof! nothing. We are mostly empty space and energy. All the same. Agreed.

Now you postulate that all life is equal. None more or less deserving(or valuable, in your words) than the other.

I believe all life is valuable. I said that earlier, I think. But instigating a hierarchy and abiding by that in a way that allows humans to survive cannot be a bad thing. Would you put the life of a sub-Saharan mosquito on equal footing as the life of the people living there and subject to the diseased those mosquitos inflict? I hope you would not argue with repression of the mosquito population to the benefit of the locals.



Last Edited by Maguyver on 04/26/2016 02:23 PM

Again, I'm not the one picking and choosing which life is more important to fit what I'm saying.

Just to recap, I'm saying that if you are "pro-life" then you must be pro-life in all aspects. No picking and choosing what is more important life than other life. That whole premise defeats your argument.

I am not pro-life because I am not a hypocrite, I understand that we need to kill things to survive. I would not kill anything intentionally unless I had to to survive. That includes bugs.

Fair enough, but you did ask somebody to explain something and I just wanted to point out that you already know the answer.

I often know the answer to things I ask. I ask them to show that that person does not know.

Also, with my above statement, keep in mind that my interpretation of "when life starts" may be different than others. So when I say I would not intentionally kill a living thing to survive but then say I am pro-abortion (to a certain point), I am not being hypocritical. Just wanted to make that clear.

Can we have a discussion here without the personal adjectives? We don't agree. Convince me your position is preferable to my own.
Calling me 'arrogant...and...disgusting' is juvenile.

As to your logic. Do you not see mine? Granted we are treading on philosophicals where logic turns gray and morals interfere. The importance of life is a moral issue that can't be expressed by measurable data.

So let me ask you, in the simplest of terms, what logic am I not seeing?

Oh, and I read the report,(scanned, really), but correlation does not equal causation. It just says these events occurred in tandem. I could postulate that the issuance of CHL's beginning in 1980 contributed to the lower crime rates, and using ctl/f no mention is made of that. Or could be higher conviction rates, the war on drugs, see the logic here? I will look closer later.

This is logic you are not seeing:

You are saying you are pro-life but some life is more important than others to the extent that it is okay for one life to live over another life; completely defeating your argument.

If I personally had a choice between eating an animal to survive and eating a human, i'd kill the animal to eat, but i'm not the one saying that aborting a freshly conceived zygote is the same as killing a grown human or animal.

You are literally saying that you shouldn't kill a zygote because you are "pro-life" but then saying other life other than humans doesn't "fit" with what you consider your scale of "life hierarchy" therefore, you are "pro-life" when it comes to human zygotes but not "pro-life" when it comes to any other form of life that may or may not be human.

It's called hypocrisy. And I apologize for calling you names. It's just frustrating that you do not see how are you are fitting the definition of a hypocrite.

This changes nothing. Baby killers are still baby killers. They will never change their minds.

Odd that you think I said I was Pro-Life. I did not. Not once.

The argument has been what is life, what is 'alive', and within that, which, if any is more important than another.

Abortion only appeared in the last couple of posts, and I regret that because it completely bashed the debate into a moral one. Go re-read it.

I have to go pick up the kids...I'll be back in a bit to follow up.

I must have misunderstood your intentions as you appeared to be taking the "pro-life" side of "abortion at any stage is wrong."

Why exactly are you arguing then, if you are not here to argue about abortion directly? Instead you are tunnel visioned on just a small argument that fits inside of the whole argument of abortion. Technically you are just trying derailing this debate.

Someone came in with a veiled comparison of fetus to an appendix, then came the discussion of what is a living cell vs. what is alive. I was arguing from the position that cells like skin are not the same as a collection of cells make up an organism.

Then I responded to you asking if the only life was human life. To which I responded that it's the most important (to us).

No derailing, just trying to get back to the question of what is life, thus, when does life begin?

If someone believes a baby exists, and is not just a clump of cells or tissue, the mind has a much more difficult time destroying that existence. Tissue: easy to remove Baby: not as easy.

If, in this debate, I cause someone the think about their position toward life and when it begins, perhaps more consideration will be taken when the topic of abortion come up.

My goal is not to force my position on anyone, but, rather to instigate thought. I find when people come to their own conclusions, debate is much more civil and effective.

We have not talked about the legal consequence and how to deal with human life if it's decided that life begins at conception. Until then, it's a moral issue. Moral issues are difficult to debate and, even more, change.

If one believes life begins when the zygote is formed or when the embryo is implanted for the 9 month ride, or with the first breath of air, the responsibility up to birth is on the mother. Not the courts, not the politicians, not anyone.

However, some feel the responsibility to protect innocent human life. When, in reality, only the mother can do that. The baby has the best chance if the mother sees the baby and just that and not tissue.

In full disclosure, I do not know exactly when a zygote becomes a human life. But I do believe it is some time well before birth. I also believe we all have a soul or conscience that exists beyond our realm of existence. (but that's a whole other discussion.) When is the soul encumbered within the living tissue? That, I believe, is when life begins, but where along in the process? Immediately? At implantation? With the first heartbeat? The first breath? I don't think we'll know for sure in this lifetime. But any time, abortion is, at best, an invasive surgery and at worst the killing of a baby. I believe the mother bears the decision and the burden.

I do not believe the procedure should be outlawed. There are conditions that could call for pregnancy termination. I don't believe convenience should be one nor do I believe late term abortions should be considered except for the most grave of circumstances.

a pregnancy begins before conception

Hogwash. Is 4 wheels and a frame considered a car? No. It has the potential to become car. Neither is a mass of tissue considered a human. It has the potential to become human.

No soul (spirit) is going to enter a mass of tissue and wait 9 months for the body to grow and result in a live birth. If you ordered a new car, would you sit in it while it's being built? Same thing.

Odd comparison. I don't buy it. If the fetus has brain activity, a heartbeat, and can move around, and potentially survive outside the womb, it's still just a mass of tissue? I have a difficult time grasping that. At some point within the 9 months before birth, this mass of tissue becomes a person. I don't know when that is and you are speculating.

Your first example I believe is an example of a false equivalence fallacy. The zygote is the introduction of a completely new self-replicating DNA-code base of living cells. I'll look to you to be rational and admit your error.

I may be wrong on this one but I think your second example is either a special pleading fallacy (or possibly the Argument from Incredulity fallacy). How could you possibly determine what "a soul" would or would not prefer? The baby growing in a womb is a less useful/productive/intelligent human than adult...but then again the same applies to a newborn, however their humanity remains. Is your position that a baby...or fetus as you might prefer...becomes a person when it exits the womb and breathes it's first breath?

Will you admit that you don't really see human life as valuable at all?