When Does Life Begin?

Pepsiguy

Argument Topic: At conception

This is when life begins, at conception. Here's a link from an atheist pro lifer site:

https://secularprolife.org/myths/
https://secularprolife.org/2020/02/very-pro-choice-biologists-agree/

more links:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703

This is not religion, this is pure, unadulterated science. 

OakTownA

Life is a continuum that began as a single cell about 3.7 billion years ago. If you are asking when a new life begins, I would ask what your definition of "life" is or what it looks like. If you are asking as a way to start a debate around abortion, it does not matter, as no living being has the right to use another person's body without their permission.

just_sayin

@Pepsiguy
For me the key line in the University of Chicago dissertation that you link to is this one:

Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502).

The consensus of science is that life begins at fertilization.  That's a biological reality.  Unfortunately, politics is trying to alter science to fit its whims.  When life begins is settled science.  Some have mistaken the philosophical question of when does life have meaning with the biological question of when life begins.  Biology has settled the question of the start of life.

"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." - Dr. Jerome Lejeune, "Father of Modern Genetics"

Pepsiguy

Argument Topic: FAXX!!

@just_sayin
Abortionists are seriously some of the most unscientific people I've ever seen. One of them even said that a 5 week old heartbeat is an "invented sound" made to keep women without the right to their bodies. This is not just clear nonsense but it is the definition of a conspiracy theory. Except that Alex Jones(Not a big fan BTW) has gotten more things right(a very, very low bar) than leftists ever did,

Pepsiguy

Argument Topic: Answer

@OakTownA
All life is made up of cells.

just_sayin

@OakTownA
First, no one has the right to kill an innocent human life that is not their own.  To do so is immoral.  If abortion where really about a woman's body then she would be the one dead after having an abortion.  Instead an innocent unborn baby girl is killed instead.  Abortion is about the killing of innocents.

To suggest that rights are not legally subjugated for a greater good is a mistaken notion.  A parent is not allowed to kill or abandon a newborn baby because she is dependent upon the person for life.  The police have the right to enter someone's home under the right circumstances without permission.  There are two sets of rights in discussion regarding abortion - a woman's right of choice, and the unborn's right to life.  

While it may be emotionally painful and devastating to not be allowed to kill an innocent human life, the greater evil is the killing of the unborn child because her life is taken from her.  While the pain the progenitor may experience can be very real, the permanent taking of life is a greater violation of justice.  Death is permanent.

OakTownA

@Pepsiguy

I think you need to look up what makes something scientific, as nothing in the links you posted qualify as "pure, unadulterated science."

https://secularprolife.org/myths/

This links to a pro forced pregnancy web site that claims to "deconstruct three pro choice myths:"

1. Biologically, we don’t know when human life begins. (2m8s)
2. Most or all late-term abortions are medical emergencies. (11m56s)
3. Abortion restrictions don’t stop abortions. (27m59s)

The second and third points have noting to do with this discussion, so can be ignored at this time. For the first myth, the site links to your second posted link, which provides a link to the third site you posted. The third link is to a paper that looks at people's attitudes towards when they believe (a new) human life begins. The researchers polled the general populace to see who the surveyed individuals thought would be able to answer the question as to when a new human life begins. The options were religious leaders, voters, Supreme Court Justices, biologists, or philosophers. The majority of those polled chose "biologist." The researchers then poled the biologists as to when new human life begins, and the majority chose at conception. While this does demonstrate that there seems to be a consensus among biologists as to when a new human life begins, the survey in itself does not count as scientific data towards when new life begins. The paper itself also states that:

"While this article’s findings suggest a fetus is biologically classified as a human at fertilization, this descriptive view does not entail the normative view that fetuses deserve legal consideration throughout pregnancy," which is the conclusion you seem to reach.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703

Dee

It matters not, the  unborn do not nor ever should have a 'right'  that tops a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

This debate is over in most civilised countries the exceptions being as usual countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Yemen and of course the good 'ole " USA a country populated by (mostly) narrow minded religious bigots

In the US the same religious bigots mostly refused to mask up during Covid because it was an intrusion on their 'goddamned ' rights and the health of others was none of their concern so most refused to mask up

Let an American woman demand a right to bodily autonomy and you will hear them shriek in unison "you murderer , jail her" you see rights should only apply to certain Americans and not others ,and, worse still they now want women jailed and classified as murderers for abortion; leading to the ridiculous scenario that the one doing the abortion is then a paid hit -man /woman and guilty as well as anyone who aided and abetted in the abortion 

One American bigot on here claimed women should be executed for abortion,  American bigots would not be out of place in Isis who view rights in the same way only applicable to them , no one else 

Think about it a nation where armed guards are required in schools and colleges to stop kids getting shot and the same relgious bigots care about the lives of the unborn ........lol

Americans constantly bleat on about the "land of the free" and claim "we have the best goddamned constiiiiiiiiituuuuition in the world" yet at the same time want to criminalise and jail women for wanting what only the bigots should have as in rights 

just_sayin

@Dee
First it is wrong to think that atheists are not capable of coming to the conclusion that it is morally wrong to kill an innocent human life.  Abortion is not exclusively a religious issue; it is a moral one.  And as such, one does not need to be religious to conclude it is unjust to kill someone.  

Abortion is about 2 sets of conflicting interests - the interest of the progenitor and the interest of the unborn child.  I believe the child's interests outweighs the interests of the progenitor's because the child's life is taken from her, and that is the greater harm.  Again, it is not the pregnant man or woman's body that is ripped limb from limb, and head from torso, in a D&E procedure. It is the unborn baby girl's body that is severed.  It is her bodily autonomy that is actually violated in an abortion.

If rights should apply to all Americans, as you said, then wouldn't the rights of the child matter?  It seems that they are not by those who only consider the progenitor's interests.  While not being allowed to kill an innocent human life may be traumatic and harmful, the harm done to the unborn baby girl by an abortion is greater.  The harm she experiences is death, which is irreversible and permanent.  Her very life is taken from her.  This is the greater harm.

Those who dismiss the rights of the unborn have deemed her somehow less than human.  They have set some arbitrary reason to rationalize their killing.  Her size, her age, her level of dependency, her physical location are often mentioned as justifications to kill her.  But none of these things changes the fact that she is a living human being.  

Why is it just to kill an innocent human life?  Why does her life not matter?  Why should we not protect the most innocent and defenseless among us? Why is it OK to toss her dead body out in a bio-waste bag, as if she were just mere trash, and not a human life? I hope you'll take a moment and respond.

Dee

@just_sayin

First it is wrong to think that atheists are not capable of coming to the conclusion that it is morally wrong to kill an innocent human life.  

I never made that argument , you need to read what I say not what you think I said  

Abortion is not exclusively a religious issue; it is a moral one.

Again I never mentioned it was 'exclusively ' a religious issue but certainly the US claim to be a majority Christian country so any Christian's who agree with abortion aren't your textbook Christian's as according to the Bible god is the only one allowed inflict abortion (which he does ) his flock are certainly not allowed.

Your moral code is your subjective moral code like others have  theirs 

  And as such, one does not need to be religious to conclude it is unjust to kill someone.  

My advice to you is don't kill someone then  Also again it's not in the least unjust to kill someone , would you watch someone rape your wife? 

Abortion is about 2 sets of conflicting interests - the interest of the progenitor and the interest of the unborn child.  

Who in the name of f--k says "progenitor"?

I believe the child's interests outweighs the interests of the progenitor's because the child's life is taken from her, and that is the greater harm. 

You believe that yes I don't, nor would I care either way a woman's body a woman's choice 

 Again, it is not the pregnant man or woman's body that is ripped limb from limb, and head from torso, in a D&E procedure. It is the unborn baby girl's body that is severed.  It is her bodily autonomy that is actually violated in an abortion.

A fetus has no bodily autonomy "ripped limb from limb " LOL 

If rights should apply to all Americans, as you said, then wouldn't the rights of the child matter?

A fetus isn't child , but you admit rights don't apply to the born in this case but only to the unborn 

  It seems that they are not by those who only consider the progenitor's interests.  While not being allowed to kill an innocent human life may be traumatic and harmful, the harm done to the unborn baby girl by an abortion is greater.  The harm she experiences is death, which is irreversible and permanent.  Her very life is taken from her.  This is the greater harm.

Boo hoo 

Those who dismiss the rights of the unborn have deemed her somehow less than human. 

Those who dismiss the mother have deemed her somehow less than human. 

They have set some arbitrary reason to rationalize their killing. 

Why did you interview each and every one of them?

 Her size, her age, her level of dependency, her physical location are often mentioned as justifications to kill her.  But none of these things changes the fact that she is a living human being.  

So the mother a born citizen who you and fellow nuts want to force into birth or criminalise her 

Why is it just to kill an innocent human life?

Because it has no right to sustenance from a woman's body it's there  by the wishes of the mother which she may withdraw at her will

  Why does her life not matter? 

Read above 

 Why should we not protect the most innocent and defenseless among us? 

Read above 

Why is it OK to toss her dead body out in a bio-waste bag, as if she were just mere trash, and not a human life? 

Because it's of no use to anyone 

hope you'll take a moment and respond.

Are you open to the government taking one of your kidneys by force or your blood to save a life seeing as life is so precious; if not why not?

MayCaesar

Depending on where you put the threshold, life begins at different stages - but the biological convention is that life begins at a single cell. Every single human being alive today is a product of a continuous cellular life cycle that began billions years ago. In a sense, every one of us is billions years old!

Now, if you want to say that all life is sacred and endow it with rights... you are in quite a pickle. Every time a cell tears down another cell somewhere on this planet, someone's rights are violated. Good luck policing that.

maxx

depends on your idea of life. cells are biologically alive 
@Swolliw

just_sayin

@Dee
Thanks for responding.

Again I never mentioned it was 'exclusively ' a religious issue but certainly the US claim to be a majority Christian country so any Christian's who agree with abortion aren't your textbook Christian's as according to the Bible god is the only one allowed inflict abortion (which he does ) his flock are certainly not allowed.

I don't feel you are being honest.  I sense you are trying to minimize the moral issue of abortion by an ad hominem attack on people of faith.  The moral issue is not changed either way by who makes the argument.  The argument that it is wrong to kill an innocent human life is either valid or it is not.  Who makes the argument does not change its validity.

Your moral code is your subjective moral code like others have  theirs 

I'm sure many a serial killer and psychopath has made that same argument.  Should we have laws that are subjective to allow them the freedom to kill whomever they deem less than human also?

Also again it's not in the least unjust to kill someone , would you watch someone rape your wife? 

To me it seems like there is a huge difference between an innocent human life and a guilty one.  Are you suggesting that an unborn baby girl is equivalent to a rapist?  What crime is she guilty of?  

 "progenitor"

It is a word to denote descendant.  I use it because I'm not comfortable calling those who kill their children "mothers".  

either way a woman's body a woman's choice 

But it isn't a woman's body that is killed by an abortion.  Do others have the right to intentionally kill you without your consent and without you having been found guilty of a crime?

Every single cell in the unborn child's body is unique.  She is a distinct human life apart from the progenitor.  

So [is] the mother a born citizen who you and fellow nuts want to force into birth or criminalise her 

So are you admitting that killing the child is killing an innocent human life?  I'm more focused on protecting the innocent from being killed than criminalizing the mother.  By the way, this is a canard.  Those who wish to enact legislation focus any criminal charges on the doctor who should know it is illegal to kill an innocent human life, not the mother. 

Because it has no right to sustenance from a woman's body it's there  by the wishes of the mother which she may withdraw at her will

The unborn child is not some invader.  She is the child of the progenitor.  There is a personal relationship.  The claim that the mother can withdrawal at her will claim seems to suggest that you believe the interests of the child are never equal or greater to the progenitor's.  If that is so, then can a person abandon an infant in a field, and allow her to die?  If not, then you do recognize that the parent-child relationship does have some responsibilities associated with it that recognize that the interests of the child must be taken into account.

Are you open to the government taking one of your kidneys by force or your blood to save a life seeing as life is so precious; if not why not?

Great question.  Thank you for the opportunity to answer this common deflection.  The relationship between parent and child is intimately personal to begin with.  The responsibilities of a parent to child are different than the responsibilities someone would have to a stranger.  Further, by not giving a kidney, I am not intentionally killing the other person. My act may or may not help the person, but there is no certainty that by denying them a kidney, I kill them.  Someone else may provide a kidney, or they may die for other reasons before getting it.  So, the scenario is very different than one where someone intentionally kills someone else.  Whereas abortion is an INTENTIONAL act that kills the unborn child.  

A fetus isn't child , but you admit rights don't apply to the born in this case but only to the unborn 

Actually a fetus is a child.  A fetus is a stage of development, not some unique life form.  The term child is a generic term that encompasses the time in the womb also.  That's why a mother can say she is with child, and we know what she means.  Rights do apply to the born also.  No one has the right to kill an innocent human life, whether born or pre-born.  

Again, the rationalization that it is OK to kill the innocent human life of an unborn baby girl means that in some way she is deemed less than human.  These kinds of "personhood" arguments have been bandied about whenever an oppressor wanted to rationalize their cruelty and victimization of the oppressed.  Examples that immediately come to mind are when the Nazis said that Jews were not true citizens to rationalize the Holocaust, or when slave owners claimed that slaves did not have full rights and were considered 3/5ths of a person in census counts as a result.   

Luigi7255

@MayCaesar

Imagine a child getting arrested for murder if said child ended up absorbing their twin in the womb-

MineSubCraftStarved

@Swolliw
Life begins at conception, this is because an embryo constitutes all the biological rules that make something living. An embryo also constitutes a living human being since it has human DNA. Therefore, life for a human being begins at conception.

MayCaesar

@MineSubCraftStarved

What if I take a spoon and scrub off a small sample of your skin? It will be alive as it consists of living cells, and it will have a human DNA. Will you consider the sample a human?

John_C_87

Are you coming up with reasons why a United States Constitutional right can or cannot be created?
I can't tell over the efforts made here are to keep what is otherwise an illegal invasion of privacy as an ongoing argument before State Court. An argument that has otherwise been illegal since 2000.
Both legal clerks and lawyers get paid by the hour to perform malpractice of law to which you are all contributing to their delinquency.

As we are talking about a female the beginning of life starts at ovulation as scientific fact.

As we are not talking about males specifically life for them begins daily as scientific fact. 

Are you sure as a group this forum of debaters is not just confusing scientific explorations of when life begins with the standards set by science jugment as being made form a collection of peers?

MineSubCraftStarved

@MayCaesar
It is still a part of me as it has the same human DNA as me. A fetus meanwhile has a different genome when compared to its mother or its father or anyone else on the planet, therefore a fetus is considered to be a different person, while the piece of skin has the same genetic code and thus is part of me and not a separate human entity.

OakTownA

@Pepsiguy

"All life is made up of cells."

And? What is your point?

just_sayin

"First, no one has the right to kill an innocent human life that is not their own.  To do so is immoral.  If abortion where really about a woman's body then she would be the one dead after having an abortion.  Instead an innocent unborn baby girl is killed instead.  Abortion is about the killing of innocents."

Define "innocent." It is immoral to force someone to use their body for any purpose without consent. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy before term. Maybe one day there will be a way to transfer the zygote/embryo/fetus (ZEF) to an artificial womb, but for now, an abortion does result in the death of the ZEF. I don't understand how "if abortion where (sic) really about a woman's body then she would be the one dead..." That makes no sense.

"There are two sets of rights in discussion regarding abortion - a woman's right of choice, and the unborn's right to life."

Currently, no one has the right to use another person's body without their consent. Why should an unborn, potential person have rights that no other person has?

" While the pain the progenitor may experience can be very real, the permanent taking of life is a greater violation of justice.  Death is permanent."

According to this statement, if a person is using my body without my permission, I should not do everything within my power to make them stop, because it might kill them. I could not disagree more. If someone were assaulting you or your loved one, would you fight back or defend the person being assaulted?

Luigi7255

(deleted)

Dee

@Pepsiguy

All life is made up of cells.

So is sperm , do you beat your meat ? 

Pepsiguy

Argument Topic: My definition of science.

M@OakTownA

Science is knowledge acquired through the scientific method.

Pepsiguy

Dee said:

It matters not, the  unborn do not nor ever should have a 'right'  that tops a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

This debate is over in most civilised countries the exceptions being as usual countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Yemen and of course the good 'ole " USA a country populated by (mostly) narrow minded religious bigots

In the US the same religious bigots mostly refused to mask up during Covid because it was an intrusion on their 'goddamned ' rights and the health of others was none of their concern so most refused to mask up

Let an American woman demand a right to bodily autonomy and you will hear them shriek in unison "you murderer , jail her" you see rights should only apply to certain Americans and not others ,and, worse still they now want women jailed and classified as murderers for abortion; leading to the ridiculous scenario that the one doing the abortion is then a paid hit -man /woman and guilty as well as anyone who aided and abetted in the abortion 

One American bigot on here claimed women should be executed for abortion,  American bigots would not be out of place in Isis who view rights in the same way only applicable to them , no one else 

Think about it a nation where armed guards are required in schools and colleges to stop kids getting shot and the same relgious bigots care about the lives of the unborn ........lol

Americans constantly bleat on about the "land of the free" and claim "we have the best goddamned constiiiiiiiiituuuuition in the world" yet at the same time want to criminalise and jail women for wanting what only the bigots should have as in rights 

You are citing extremists. You are committing 2 fallacies:

1. Strawman fallacy
2. Ad hominem

No mainstream pro lifer would death sentence a woman who has an abortion(I don't take that position). Yes she should be punished but it would more fair that the harsher punishment(the death sentence) belongs to the abortion "doctor". 

The unborn are innocent, they have no say in the matter. They should not die. 

Also "full bodily autonomy" does not exist. You don't have the right to go naked on the streets, and you don't have the right to snort cocaine. If we apply "my body, my choice" elsewhere we could justify drug abuse, self-mutilation, suicide, drinking gas tanks, drinking poisons, etc. 

Also you were once a fetus. Would you like to be killed?

Also what if the baby is a girl? Does the unborn female baby have a right to her body? Also what if we could tell in the future we could tell an unborn baby's sexual orientation and a pregnant woman decides to abort her child only because he's gay? What if the mom wanted a boy instead of a girl?

Abortion for rape should also be illegal. The innocent baby should not be punished for the father's misdeed. This is purely barbaric and Babylonian, and not how justice works. It would be more fair to punish the father. What if your dad raped a woman and you were punished for it even though you had no part?

MayCaesar

MineSubCraftStarved said:

@MayCaesar
It is still a part of me as it has the same human DNA as me. A fetus meanwhile has a different genome when compared to its mother or its father or anyone else on the planet, therefore a fetus is considered to be a different person, while the piece of skin has the same genetic code and thus is part of me and not a separate human entity.

This is technically innaccurate. DNA macrostructures dynamically evolve all the time, and your DNA composition now is slightly different from what it was a minute ago. The piece of your skin separated from you from this perspective could be thought of as a separate human being. 

It is not the same DNA that makes parts of you, well, parts of you. It is the fact that all of them are a part of the macroscopic organism, a mammal. If I cut off your hand and sew in a hand cut off from another human being, and establish proper neural connection (will become easy to do in the decades to come), it will be your arm, despite its DNA structure being associated with another human being.

I fail to see what someone's DNA has to do with the question if whether they should have rights or not. What if someone clones you, producing an individual with a similar genome? Will you two be considered one person? Will a murder committed by your clone warrant a jail time for you? This approach does not seem coherent to me.

Pepsiguy

Argument Topic: Its still your unique dna

@MayCaesar
Functional clones of humans are not possible. DNA is the building block of all life. Your clone is different, as you said "your DNA composition now is slightly different from what it was a minute ago. The piece of your skin separated from you from this perspective could be thought of as a separate human being. " So technically, your DNA and your clone's DNA are not the same.

CONGRATULATIONS!!! You have destroyed your own arguments!! 

Dee

@Pepsiguy

You are citing extremists. You are committing 2 fallacies:


I agree the majority Christian populating population that deny women rights are extremists . I'm not you do not know what a fallacy even is going on your ignorance of what constutes one 

1. Strawman fallacy

Nonsense , I addressed the arguments made 


2. Ad hominem

Telling the truth regards America being a majority 'Christian ' nation which disapproves of abortion is a fact sorry you get b-tt hurt over facts? Do you deny this is the case?

No mainstream pro lifer would death sentence a woman who has an abortion(I don't take that position). 

You and fellow tyrants brand a woman who aborts a murderer do you wish to withdraw that bit of foolishness now?

Yes she should be punished but it would more fair that the harsher punishment(the death sentence) belongs to the abortion "doctor". 

Ah right the death sentence to the doctor now because a woman  doesn't want to be forced to birth an unwanted , are you Saudi Arabian by any chance? 

The unborn are innocent, they have no say in the matter. They should not die. 

Don't kill them if you feel that strongly about it so

Also "full bodily autonomy" does not exist. 

Not for American women I agree 

You don't have the right to go naked on the streets, and you don't have the right to snort cocaine

Yes but that right applies to all men and women 

. If we apply "my body, my choice" elsewhere we could justify drug abuse, self-mutilation, suicide, drinking gas tanks, drinking poisons, etc. 

But people have a right to abuse drugs , self mutilation , suicide , drinking gas poisons etc ,etc 

Also you were once a fetus. Would you like to be killed?

Yes I was . No one asked if I wanted to be born did they?

Also what if the baby is a girl? Does the unborn female baby have a right to her body? 

Well considering she cannot make any decisions on such how do you know what they may think in the future?

Also what if we could tell in the future we could tell an unborn baby's sexual orientation and a pregnant woman decides to abort her child only because he's gay?

But we cannot tell the future only you can it seems

 What if the mom wanted a boy instead of a girl?

What are you on about 

Abortion for rape should also be illegal

Well American 'christians ' would agree with you 

. The innocent baby should not be punished for the father's misdeed. 

Don't do it then if you feel that way 

This is purely barbaric and Babylonian, and not how justice works. 

Yes Justice in the US included blacks being segregated up to the 1960's and lunatics being perfectly entitled to carry assault rifles don't lecture others on justice when you come from a society that hasn't a clue what justice is 

It would be more fair to punish the father. What if your dad raped a woman and you were punished for it even though you had no part?

Well the god Americans worship punishes all mankind for the sins of Adam and Eve and you religious nuts think that's just fine 

MayCaesar

@Pepsiguy

What I have destroyed is all arguments based on the considerations of DNA similarity. I personally do not think that the DNA similarity is what defines a single creature; but if it was, then you and your clone would be the same creature. Note also that we are talking about DNA similarity, not equality (which is impossible).

Pepsiguy

Argument Topic: Humans aren't very genetically diverse

@MayCaesar

All human beings are 99.9 percent identical in their genetic makeup.https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Genetics-vs-Genomics#:~:text=All%20human%20beings%20are%2099.9,about%20the%20causes%20of%20diseases.

MayCaesar

@Pepsiguy

I am aware of that, and it only further supports my argument that it is not the DNA similarity that determines whether the entities in question are a part of the same organism.

Pepsiguy

Argument Topic: Here's the pro choicer

@Pepsiguy

Stacey Abrams:
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/stacey-abrams-claims-fetal-heartbeats-manufactured-to-help-men-control-women/

MineSubCraftStarved

@MayCaesar

This is technically innaccurate. DNA macrostructures dynamically evolve all the time, and your DNA composition now is slightly different from what it was a minute ago. The piece of your skin separated from you from this perspective could be thought of as a separate human being. 

It is not the same DNA that makes parts of you, well, parts of you. It is the fact that all of them are a part of the macroscopic organism, a mammal. If I cut off your hand and sew in a hand cut off from another human being, and establish proper neural connection (will become easy to do in the decades to come), it will be your arm, despite its DNA structure being associated with another human being.

I fail to see what someone's DNA has to do with the question if whether they should have rights or not. What if someone clones you, producing an individual with a similar genome? Will you two be considered one person? Will a murder committed by your clone warrant a jail time for you? This approach does not seem coherent to me.

Even if DNA macrostructures do change over time(such as through mutation), a fetus still constitutes a separate human being from its mother and thus would be thought of as a separate living human being. The reason a piece of skin separated from me would not be a separate living human being is that it is not alive in the first place. One of the basic rules of biological life is that an organism needs to be able to respond to stimuli, a piece of skin has no response to any sort of stimuli.

OakTownA

@Pepsiguy

I didn't say that you don't know the definition of science. I said that it appears that you do not understand what makes something qualify as scientific data. An opinion poll, which is what you posted, does not count as scientific data to determine when new life begins.

just_sayin

@OakTownA

Define "innocent." It is immoral to force someone to use their body for any purpose without consent. ... I don't understand how "if abortion where (sic) really about a woman's body then she would be the one dead..." That makes no sense.

Definition of "innocent" - not guilty of a crime or offense.  A fallacy that is often repeated is "my body, my choice", however, it isn't the woman's body that is killed by the abortion, it is the child that is killed.  Her body is the one that suffers the ultimate penalty for an abortion, not the one who has the abortion.  If as you say "no one has the right to use another person's body without their consent.", then the progenitor does not have the right to kill the child.

Currently, no one has the right to use another person's body without their consent. Why should an unborn, potential person have rights that no other person has?

Daily rights are subjugated when higher priorities arise.  We have free speech rights, except if we try to incite violence.  We can be walking one direction on a public sidewalk, and if there is an emergency situation a police officer can force us to go another direction.  We can be driving along, and a police officer can take our car, if there is a high priority need to do so.  A person's right to make choices is restricted if those choices endanger or harm someone else.  You have the right to carry a gun, but if you point it at someone, the police officer can demand you drop the gun or shoot you.  Your rights are restricted by other higher concerns.  In the same way, while a woman has a right to make choices, her unborn child's right to life takes precedence.  Killing her does the greater harm.  You can't logically claim that killing her is a lesser harm, than the harm the woman experiences because death is the ultimate harm.  It is final and steals the baby girls very life from her.

According to this statement, if a person is using my body without my permission, I should not do everything within my power to make them stop, because it might kill them. I could not disagree more. If someone were assaulting you or your loved one, would you fight back or defend the person being assaulted?

This is a strawman argument.  No one has said a person can't defend themselves.  The unborn baby girl is not an invader or attacker.  Again, there is a rationalization going on that seeks to dehumanize the child.  This is immoral.  She is a living human being from the moment of fertilization.  Describing her as anything else may ease some people's conscious but it is an inaccurate representation.

John_C_87

@Swolliw

Are these two different questions?
When does life begin?
When is a patient considered to be old enough to lose the legal right to Doctor patient privacy according to science?

John_C_87

@Swolliw
If we are talking about scientific specifics life starts mothly for women and it starts daily for men.
What we do know scientifically is that life doesn't ever start at conception because treatment of medical patients begin soon while the patient is just sperm and egg.

John_C_87

@Pepsiguy

This is not religion, this is pure, unadulterated science. 
I did not see one spec of information that descrtibed life begins without the creation of a egg?
Am I see anything about this important detail is it missing?
The same can be said about sperm there was no direct connection ever made that life begins without the cration of sperm.

Science states that sperm and egg are required to begin human life, the confusion is that science & religion as an untied state then goes on to describe what is required for life to become a paying patient of medical science as a whole truth. A united state constitutional right is female-specific amputation not pregnancy abortion. The legal argument is not when does life begin but when does patient privacy end and for which patients does it end. Does it end for just women? Does it end for just men? Or does the medical privacy end for both men and women?

MayCaesar

@MineSubCraftStarved

Cells in that piece of skin do respond to stimuli. It may be a very basic organism relative to an adult human - but then so is the fetus. The fetus, in fact, is attached to the woman's body, while the piece of skin in question is not attached to anyone - so one could say thatvthe piece of skin has more autonomy than the fetus and thus, at least, is as deserving of human rights.

jack

just_sayin said:

First it is wrong to think that atheists are not capable of coming to the conclusion that it is morally wrong to kill an innocent human life. 

Hello j:

You speak the truth.  Abortion is wrong.  However, forcing a women to endure a pregnancy she does not want, is just a tad bit wronger..

excon

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Oppressors rationalize their killing of those they oppress

@Dee:
Normally I would agree with you that the term "Nazis" is used too often.  However, here it is accurately used and in the appropriate historical context.  I'm not calling you a Nazis.  I am pointing out that the Nazis oppressors fashioned a philosophical justification for devaluing the lives of Jews so they could kill them and victimize them.  In the same way, those who support abortion have made up arbitrary philosophical justifications for devaluing the lives of innocent human beings in order to kill them.  These arbitrary reasons vary from person to person - too small, too dependent, sentience, location, etc. When it is pointed out to them that their reasons are inconsistent and not applied when the human life is out of the womb they just shrug.   Establishing arbitrary reasons for devaluing human life is present in both groups' rationalizations.  It is a fair and accurate observation.  

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Death is the ultimate harm

@jack
Having someone endure something they do not want to do could be considered a level of harm.  Sure. However, killing someone is the ultimate harm.  It is final and permanent.  It steals their life and future from them.  Death seems like more harm than having to endure something you don't want to for a specified period of time.  How many years of life have been taken from the victim?  How do you go about measuring the value of what is taken from the child?

Dee

@just_sayin


Argument Topic: Oppressors rationalize their killing of those they oppress

Lying doesn't help your case the argument topic is and remains  When Does Life Begin?

Your god wiped out the entire population of the world because he was pissed off yet you worship this celestial oppressor, there's your hypocrisy in action yet again 

Normally I would agree with you that the term "Nazis" is used too often. 

Only by sore losers 

However, here it is accurately used and in the appropriate historical context. 

So in your mind a woman who exercises bodily autonomy is a Nazi ....seriously?

 I'm not calling you a Nazis.  

Well yes you actually were as anyone who disagrees with you according to your 'logic ' is a Nazi 

I am pointing out that the Nazis oppressors fashioned a philosophical justification for devaluing the lives of Jews so they could kill them and victimize them.

Your god did the same and you kiss his a-s

  In the same way, those who support abortion have made up arbitrary philosophical justifications for devaluing the lives of innocent human beings in order to kill them 

  In the same way, those who are against  abortion have made up arbitrary philosophical justifications for devaluing the lives of innocent women in order to demonise them.

  These arbitrary reasons vary from person to person - too small, too dependent, sentience, location, etc.

These arbitrary reasons vary from anti  person to anti person - "it a child ","you're a Nazi " "hang doctors who carry out abortion" etc


When it is pointed out to them that their reasons are inconsistent and not applied when the human life is out of the womb they just shrug.   

When it is pointed out to them that their reasons are inconsistent and not relevant because  the fetus is using a woman's sustenance use of such may be withdrawn at her will , they just shrug 

Establishing arbitrary reasons for devaluing human life is present in both groups' rationalizations.  It is a fair and accurate observation

Establishing arbitrary reasons for devaluing a woman's  life in favour of an unborn is the mark of a tyrant who normally are so bereft of intelligence everyone they disagree with must be a Nazi

Constant use of the term "arbitrary" proves how idiotic people like you are because you now claim only religious loons like you use reason while screeching "you're a Nazi " at anyone who disagrees with you b-ll 

You're not even attempting to debate you fire of unjustified allegations as in reason is not used by women who abort and any challenge to their position they just shrug their shoulders proving you're a truly dishonest opponent who just wants to preach 

jack

just_sayin said:

@jack

However, killing someone is the ultimate harm. 

Hello again, j:

You don't have to convince me..  I HATE abortion..  It's WRONG..  However, I would NEVER force another person to believe as I do.  There is no right and wrong here.. There is only wrong and wronger. 

excon

MineSubCraftStarved

@MayCaesar
Although a piece of skin is separate from your body, it would still be considered to be the same part as you, this is because the chromosomal structure of your skin is still largely the same as yours. Even when taking into account the different mutations that occur in your genes. The DNA on that piece of skin is at least nearly identical to your DNA, and thus it should be treated as an extension of you and a part of you, rather than a separate human being. While a fetus has a far more distinct genetic and chromosomal difference from its mother and would be thought of as a separate being. It also should be noted that even assuming that we treat the skin as a separate human being, it has no ability to process thoughts, pain, feeling, or logic. While a fully grown human has that ability, it is an inevitability for a fetus/embryo to also have it, so a fetus should be treated the same as an adult.

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

Humans naturally value different creatures' lives differently. I am sorry if it sounds harsh, but if I had to choose between you and another 999 people I do not know dying, and just one of my dear friends dying, my friend would live. I am sure the same is true for you: my life is of much less consequence to you than, say, your parent's life. Value is not objective: it is determined by the impact of the creature on your life.

In this context, an unwanted creature in your womb has a negative value to you, and no value to anyone else. Killing it therefore makes everyone's life better or, at least, no worse than not doing so. The fetus is not really conscious, so even it is no worse off upon death than it was before.

Whether it has rights is a separate question from whether killing it destroys some value. Rights are about principles, not value judgements. I may think that a serial murderer is a lowly scum having negative value, yet said murderer still has the same human rights as me. On the other hand, if I had a woman I was deeply in love with and she wanted to terminate pregnancy while I wanted a child, I would see the fetus as having value, but as having no rights.

John_C_87

@MayCaesar

To be clear United States Constitutional Right is only the unprosecuted possible high form of wrong setting legal precedent. As of 2000 there was an addition made by introduction of new criminal law going into effect patient privacy law.

John_C_87

The question MayCaesar ...
When does parien privacy begin?

just_sayin

@John_C_87
Patient privacy?  If a doctor catches a pedophile raping a child does patient privacy apply?  No. If a parent suffocates their new born baby in the doctor's office, does patient privacy apply?  No.  The issue is that abortion kills an innocent human life.  Do privacy concerns ever preempt the prevention of killing innocent lives in any other instance?  No. They do not.

jack

just_sayin said:

The issue is that abortion kills an innocent human life.  Do privacy concerns ever preempt the prevention of killing innocent lives in any other instance?  No. They do not.

Hello again, j:

Aren't you the one who was complaining about people arbitrarily making assessments??  I think so.  I suggest your use of the words "killing" and "innocent lives", are your arbitrarily constructed assessments???

In our legal system, the words "killing" and "innocent", are NOT legal appellations.  Truly, if killing meant what you think it means, then 1,000's of people are guilty of felonious behavior every day.  Yet, they're not arrested.  They're not tried.  They're not put in jail.  That should tell you something about the words you're using.

We BOTH hate abortions. The difference between us is, I won't IMPOSE my views on my neighbor. 

excon

just_sayin

@jack
We BOTH hate abortions. The difference between us is, I won't IMPOSE my views on my neighbor. 

@jack basically said 
" I think its wrong to kill unborn babies, but if somebody else wants to kill them, well, good for them, I won't stop them."

That seems illogical to me.  Imagine if someone said "I think its wrong to molest children, but I won't impose my views on anyone else, so if someone else wants to molest kids, that's their business."  Again, the reason abortion is objectionable is because it kills an innocent human life.  The life taken is not the one who made the decision, instead its the little unborn child that is harmed.  It's not like they like a different color of carpet than someone else.  Abortion does permanent harm to an innocent human being and kills her.  While some may think we shouldn't have laws to keep people from killing others, many would disagree and believe we should protect rather than kill innocent human lives. 

John_C_87

@just_sayin

The Doctor is chatching no one...
The medical institution is asked to take part in a malpratice of law...
And for the record the question which best connects us to whole truth is does patient privacy ever preempt death?