POLL - When does life begin

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Klixxer
At the first breath.

Im not an expert on pregnancy but dont babies breath amniotic fluid?

Exactly. Fish don't breathe air, and they're definitely alive.

Yes, just like the cells that divide. Stop killing millions of children in those dishes.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Klixxer
At the first breath.

Im not an expert on pregnancy but dont babies breath amniotic fluid?

No

Yes.

No

They don't receive oxygen through the fluid, but it is in their lungs.

So it is not comparable to fish, and it is not comparable to breathing either because when you are born, what would happen if you would breathe that fluid?

Your argument is moot.

 

[chess9]

?One of the success stories in modern medicine has been the increasing survival of very premature babies, some after only 22 weeks in the womb. The technology and the skill of the doctors allows us to save babies earlier and earlier and for some parents to have children they could have never otherwise hoped for."

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2004/509

This is my point. But, we stay in regular contact with the neo-natal physician who cared for our daughter and he told us 5 years ago of a surviving 20 week old baby. Regardless of where the line is drawn, it is now obvious that smaller and gestationally younger babies are surviving, though not without significant impairments.

And, I was taking the poster's question to encompass human life at it's inception (egg fertized by sperm, plus a few hours) or some time later. Subsequent discussion has proven that was indeed his focus. The irrelevant discussions of colon cells are, er, irrelevant and certainly do little to explicate the topic.

-Robert

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Klixxer
At the first breath.

Im not an expert on pregnancy but dont babies breath amniotic fluid?

Exactly. Fish don't breathe air, and they're definitely alive.

Humans, however do not breathe water.

If your argument is that humans are fish then i dunno what to say.

Are you a retard face? What are you talking about? Where did I make a correlation between fish and humans? Nice try on debate technique (twist your opponent's words to make his argument sound faulty). I was making a point that animal life is not contingent on breathing air. Dogs and humans are alive and both breathe air. Are you saying dogs are human? 😕

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
In my opinion, I think people have convinced themselves (or been convinced by others) that life does not start until birth, because it supports their position on abortion. People view those who are opposed to abortion as being religious whackos who want to force their Christian beliefs on others. It's not that at all. I just don't like murder. I don't believe in murdering children, adults, disabled people, nursing home residents, babies, or fetuses. It feels odd to be criticized for being opposed to murder.

:beer::beer::beer::beer::beer:

This is the jackpot. A doc in my family, who was in obstetrics for >30 years, said "The truth is obvious. Ask any child what they would think if their mom ended a pregnancy. The kids know that it's a baby. It's only after they've been 'educated' by the abortion industry that they begin to try to justify such an obviously unjustifiable position."

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Oh, and fish don't breathe water either.

http://papa.essortment.com/howdofishbrea_rlyl.htm

Many animals have gills at some stage of their life (even humans have them at an early stage of their development in the womb), but fish retained these gills and they are still a functional part of their anatomy. Fish use their gills to extract oxygen from their watery environment. The process starts with the fish?s mouth, which is how the fish takes in water. When a fish opens and closes its mouth, it is actually pumping water back through the gills and is thus breathing. Most fish have an effective pumping system that involves the mouth and the outer cover of the gills, called the operculum. When the fish?s mouth opens, the operculum closes, drawing water into the fish?s mouth. When the fish closes its mouth, the operculum opens, allowing fresh water to cross the gills. Other fish have a less effective pumping system, requiring them to swim constantly to keep fresh, oxygenated water flowing over the gills. These types of fish, such as tuna, generally swim with their mouths partly open. Incidentally, while many fish have nostrils, the nostrils are used only for a sense of smell, and play no part in respiration.

I actually didn't know that humans had gills early on until I searched for this. A quick search on google indicates that it's true. Does that change your opinion on the subject, knowing that babies are breathing before they're born?

Very interesting article discussing the development of all vertebrates: Link

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Klixxer


So it is not comparable to fish, and it is not comparable to breathing either because when you are born, what would happen if you would breathe that fluid?

Your argument is moot.

Hell no it isn't. Fetuses need oxygen to live. They get it via the umbilical cord. Without oxygen, they would die. If fetuses aren't alive, then how do you explain a stillborn birth? It's a fetus that has died inside the womb.

If anyone's argument is moot, it's most definitely yours.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Klixxer
At the first breath.

Im not an expert on pregnancy but dont babies breath amniotic fluid?

Exactly. Fish don't breathe air, and they're definitely alive.

Humans, however do not breathe water.

If your argument is that humans are fish then i dunno what to say.

Are you a retard face? What are you talking about? Where did I make a correlation between fish and humans? Nice try on debate technique (twist your opponent's words to make his argument sound faulty). I was making a point that animal life is not contingent on breathing air. Dogs and humans are alive and both breathe air. Are you saying dogs are human? 😕

Fvck off trollboy, you tried but you didn't get far.

Am i a retard face? LMAO, man, is that a 10 year olds insult?

Read the rest of the posts, your argument can be that as fetuses breathe fluids and fish breathe fluids then fetuses must be fish.

I just don't understand your argument and i doubt you do either.

Humans cannot breathe fluids, can they? So if a fetus breathes fluids it cannot be human, can it?

That is another argument, the whole stupidity started with nutxos troll post and you jumping on the bandwagon, everyone KNOWS what i meant by the first breath but you try to twist it.

If you have no real argument i suggest you stay out.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Again, this discussion might be more productive if we were discussing human beings, not just life. You need a human being to assign it human rights. IMHO, a fertilized egg is not a human being.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Klixxer


So it is not comparable to fish, and it is not comparable to breathing either because when you are born, what would happen if you would breathe that fluid?

Your argument is moot.

Hell no it isn't. Fetuses need oxygen to live. They get it via the umbilical cord. Without oxygen, they would die. If fetuses aren't alive, then how do you explain a stillborn birth? It's a fetus that has died inside the womb.

If anyone's argument is moot, it's most definitely yours.

My spermies are alive until i ejaculate, the deer in my freezer was alive until i shot it, that is not the point.

The point is, a fetus is not a human being.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Again, this discussion might be more productive if we were discussing human beings, not just life. You need a human being to assign it human rights. IMHO, a fertilized egg is not a human being.

THANK you.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Again, this discussion might be more productive if we were discussing human beings, not just life. You need a human being to assign it human rights. IMHO, a fertilized egg is not a human being.

How can you deny that a fetus is human? link

Not to attack you personally, but this misinformation is exactly the problem in this country. People have been fed lines for almost 40 years now on abortion, and many genuinely believe it. I've been fed similar lines in other areas and am only now starting to realize it.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Again, this discussion might be more productive if we were discussing human beings, not just life. You need a human being to assign it human rights. IMHO, a fertilized egg is not a human being.

How can you deny that a fetus is human? link

Not to attack you personally, but this misinformation is exactly the problem in this country. People have been fed lines for almost 40 years now on abortion, and many genuinely believe it. I've been fed similar lines in other areas and am only now starting to realize it.

 

[Infohawk]

Isn't it true that fetuses follow the development of the ancestor animals? Like they start out as simple multicell life, then they go to fish-like creatures or lizards? Anyone? Specifically I know the brain starts with the most basic parts and then develops the complex ones later in gestation.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Again, this discussion might be more productive if we were discussing human beings, not just life. You need a human being to assign it human rights. IMHO, a fertilized egg is not a human being.

Hmmmm, you'd have to tell that to the President and a gazillion Religious Fundamentalist Radical Right Wing Neocons ruling this Country that beg to differ with your opinion.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Heaven forbid you admit that you're wrong. Fact is, your argument doesn't stand up to even cursory inspection, yet you'll stand by it through thick and thin. Who is the troll?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Who is the troll?

That's my line CycloWizard, get your own. 😉 Nevertheless, imitation is the highest form of flattery (or whatever that saying is). You are learning well grasshopper.

 

[Gravity]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: TravisT
the only answer I see to this is at conception. I believe God looks at that as a miracle at that time, and continues to be a miracle throughout the 9 months and into the delivery room. I don't think God looks at the baby any differently if it was just concepted 1 day ago, or 9 months ago.

Therefore, I have to believe that conception is when life begins.

God must really hate life, huh? I mean considering that there are more miscarriages (if one goes by your definition of when life begins) than there are births, a LOT more even.

Well, miscarriage is a natural process that occurs for a great number of reasons. Chemically, the body understands a miscarriage and treats the event in a myriad of ways.

Abortion, however, interrupts the process abruptly and leaves the body with a very confused message, not to mention the mind. That's why there is a "post abortion syndrome" and not a "miscarriage" syndrome.

Two thumbs up for life beginning at the moment of conception.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Heaven forbid you admit that you're wrong. Fact is, your argument doesn't stand up to even cursory inspection, yet you'll stand by it through thick and thin. Who is the troll?

Owned.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Heaven forbid you admit that you're wrong. Fact is, your argument doesn't stand up to even cursory inspection, yet you'll stand by it through thick and thin. Who is the troll?

Owned.

Where's the justice Rob? I've said something similar plenty of times and you don't cheerlead me...

I think we should get back to the real question: is abortion right or wrong--- I mean life, when does it begin?

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Fvck off trollboy, you tried but you didn't get far.

Am i a retard face? LMAO, man, is that a 10 year olds insult?

Read the rest of the posts, your argument can be that as fetuses breathe fluids and fish breathe fluids then fetuses must be fish.

I just don't understand your argument and i doubt you do either.

Humans cannot breathe fluids, can they? So if a fetus breathes fluids it cannot be human, can it?

That is another argument, the whole stupidity started with nutxos troll post and you jumping on the bandwagon, everyone KNOWS what i meant by the first breath but you try to twist it.

If you have no real argument i suggest you stay out.

First of all, "retard face" is a joke insult I use at home. It's meant to be silly, but thanks for stooping to my level to tell me about how much it bothered you. I'll PayPal you a quarter, so you can buy a sense of humor.

I understand my argument fine, as do most people reading this thread. My point was that life is not contingent on breathing air. The example I gave is that fish don't breathe air, and they're alive. I don't see what's so difficult about that. The only reason I can think for claiming that I'm saying "fish are humans" is because I made an excellent point that shot down you argument, and you had nothing else to say. (The same way you responded to Cyclo with a cookie.)

I don't need some new member on these forums telling me to "stay out". If seniority rules here, then I suggest you stay out. You have no solid argument whatsoever, and just resort to calling everyone you disagree with "trolls". Grow up.

 

[jackschmittusa]

We define ourselves a different from other animals because we are conscious beings. I hardly consider a fertilized egg as conscious. Human protoplasm is of itself not necessarily human. An appendix is human protoplasm containing all the DNA necessary to construct a human being, and yet we discard them every day without a thought.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Owned.

Where's the justice Rob? I've said something similar plenty of times and you don't cheerlead me...[/quote]

I only cheerlead for my own team. 😉

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
We define ourselves a different from other animals because we are conscious beings. I hardly consider a fertilized egg as conscious. Human protoplasm is of itself not necessarily human. An appendix is human protoplasm containing all the DNA necessary to construct a human being, and yet we discard them every day without a thought.

That's an entirely different argument. The question wasn't, "At what point is a baby considered a conscious human?" That can be debated well into the first year of life. That is completely different than "when does life begin".

Based on your statement, then fetuses are most definitely alive, but not yet conscious. And it's OK to kill a living organism with human DNA, as long as it's not conscious? So people in comas are valid targets for euthenasia?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
We define ourselves a different from other animals because we are conscious beings. I hardly consider a fertilized egg as conscious. Human protoplasm is of itself not necessarily human. An appendix is human protoplasm containing all the DNA necessary to construct a human being, and yet we discard them every day without a thought.

But these things, left to their own devices, will not mature into a complete person. There's the key.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Potentially almost every cell in the body could mature into a human being through reproductive cloning. "Potential" carries very little weight with me.