• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

POLL - When does life begin

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: 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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Do you have the ability to say ANYTHING intelligent?
 
Originally posted by: chess9

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
Click to expand...

actually it is relevant. a zygote has the potential to become a human given the environment. however, given a different environment, it can turn into any organ (heart, colon, brain), or it can just keep growing as a mass of cells without differentiation.
 
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Potentially almost every cell in the body could mature into a human being through reproductive cloning. "Potential" carries very little weight with me.
Click to expand...

Through the natural process, it will become a human being. It's purpose for existance, is to become a human being. If left alone, it will become a human being. You sound like you're scraping the bottom of the barrell to come up with rebuttals.
 
jhu:

I don't think it's necessary to set out the predicate, subseqent, and possible biology for this discussion. We are talking about a zygote in a uterus or fallopian tube. If it wasn't implied to you, it was to me and almost everyone else who wasn't trying hard to be obstreperous. 🙂


-Robert
 
jack:

This is a definitional issue at heart but I'm not sympathetic to your point of view.

What is the harm in defining a zygote as a human being when deciding whether the mother should abort? Almost no abortions? Why is that a bad thing?

Treating zygotes as appendixes does nothing to elevate the human condition nor could it be called remotely ethical for doctors and nurses to be participating in the destruction of even POTENTIAL human beings. This line of reasoning is the sort of reasoning that has led us into Iraq and caused numerous other problems. It's all about ME and POWER.

I'm not a religious zealot (to say the least!) but I do think we can almost eliminate this problem with birth control, self-control, and a great education program. No woman, even those who favor them, wants to have an abortion. Taking the necessary predicate steps to avoid pregnancy is the wisest choice for everyone.

-Robert
 
Originally posted by: chess9
jack:

This is a definitional issue at heart but I'm not sympathetic to your point of view.

What is the harm in defining a zygote as a human being when deciding whether the mother should abort? Almost no abortions? Why is that a bad thing?

Treating zygotes as appendixes does nothing to elevate the human condition nor could it be called remotely ethical for doctors and nurses to be participating in the destruction of even POTENTIAL human beings. This line of reasoning is the sort of reasoning that has led us into Iraq and caused numerous other problems. It's all about ME and POWER.

I'm not a religious zealot (to say the least!) but I do think we can almost eliminate this problem with birth control, self-control, and a great education program. No woman, even those who favor them, wants to have an abortion. Taking the necessary predicate steps to avoid pregnancy is the wisest choice for everyone.

-Robert
Click to expand...

:beer::thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: 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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Your argument still makes no sense, it never did, you shot down nothing, you just trolled until it was forgotten in this thread without answering it.

Quit trolling fvckface (fVckface is this joke insult i use at home, it is meant to be used at the most ignorant of the most ignorant, hence me using it to describe you)
 
Originally posted by: chess9
jack:

This is a definitional issue at heart but I'm not sympathetic to your point of view.

What is the harm in defining a zygote as a human being when deciding whether the mother should abort? Almost no abortions? Why is that a bad thing?

Treating zygotes as appendixes does nothing to elevate the human condition nor could it be called remotely ethical for doctors and nurses to be participating in the destruction of even POTENTIAL human beings. This line of reasoning is the sort of reasoning that has led us into Iraq and caused numerous other problems. It's all about ME and POWER.

I'm not a religious zealot (to say the least!) but I do think we can almost eliminate this problem with birth control, self-control, and a great education program. No woman, even those who favor them, wants to have an abortion. Taking the necessary predicate steps to avoid pregnancy is the wisest choice for everyone.

-Robert
Click to expand...

1) there is no harm in calling a zygote a "human being." however, that still does not make it a human being. it still has the same 40-80% chance of not developing for a multitude of reasons. one of them is an intrauterine device that prevents embryo implantation, but still allows fertilization.

2) i'm not quite sure what you're getting at. almost everything is a potential human being. those zygotes they threw away at the fertility clinic are potential human beings.

3) it is true that many women who favor abortions don't want to have them. but it is good to have an option when circumstances change. while all those preventative measures mentioned do help prevent pregnancy, sometimes there is still an unwanted pregnancy.
 
Originally posted by: jhu
Originally posted by: chess9
jack:

This is a definitional issue at heart but I'm not sympathetic to your point of view.

What is the harm in defining a zygote as a human being when deciding whether the mother should abort? Almost no abortions? Why is that a bad thing?

Treating zygotes as appendixes does nothing to elevate the human condition nor could it be called remotely ethical for doctors and nurses to be participating in the destruction of even POTENTIAL human beings. This line of reasoning is the sort of reasoning that has led us into Iraq and caused numerous other problems. It's all about ME and POWER.

I'm not a religious zealot (to say the least!) but I do think we can almost eliminate this problem with birth control, self-control, and a great education program. No woman, even those who favor them, wants to have an abortion. Taking the necessary predicate steps to avoid pregnancy is the wisest choice for everyone.

-Robert
Click to expand...

1) there is no harm in calling a zygote a "human being." however, that still does not make it a human being. it still has the same 40-80% chance of not developing for a multitude of reasons. one of them is an intrauterine device that prevents embryo implantation, but still allows fertilization.

2) i'm not quite sure what you're getting at. almost everything is a potential human being. those zygotes they threw away at the fertility clinic are potential human beings.

3) it is true that many women who favor abortions don't want to have them. but it is good to have an option when circumstances change. while all those preventative measures mentioned do help prevent pregnancy, sometimes there is still an unwanted pregnancy.
Click to expand...

:beer:

Definently, you should post more around here.
 
"almost everything is a potential human being"? Uh, hyperbole is now your strong suit?

Furthermore, a zygote is a human being, as far as I'm concerned until the alleged intra-uterine device interferes with its implantation, or any other host of potential problems occur. To argue it isn't life because it can die from any number of causes is ridiculous. You could die from any number of causes. Are you life? 🙂 Some might say no if all they saw was your avatar, but based on the host of limiting factors you posit, you aren't life.

We just aren't going to agree on this "baby", so I see no sense in going further with this discussion.

-Robert

 
Originally posted by: chess9
"almost everything is a potential human being"? Uh, hyperbole is now your strong suit?

Furthermore, a zygote is a human being, as far as I'm concerned until the alleged intra-uterine device interferes with its implantation, or any other host of potential problems occur. To argue it isn't life because it can die from any number of causes is ridiculous. You could die from any number of causes. Are you life? 🙂 Some might say no if all they saw was your avatar, but based on the host of limiting factors you posit, you aren't life.

We just aren't going to agree on this "baby", so I see no sense in going further with this discussion.

-Robert
Click to expand...

Genetically speaking, almost everything is a potential human being.

Your twisted sense of what makes a human a human does not a human make.
 
Life begins at conception. No one has the right to end a life, no matter how early it is. People need to stop using abortion as retro-active birth control.
 
chess9

This is a definitional issue at heart but I'm not sympathetic to your point of view.

What is the harm in defining a zygote as a human being when deciding whether the mother should abort? Almost no abortions? Why is that a bad thing?

Treating zygotes as appendixes does nothing to elevate the human condition nor could it be called remotely ethical for doctors and nurses to be participating in the destruction of even POTENTIAL human beings. This line of reasoning is the sort of reasoning that has led us into Iraq and caused numerous other problems. It's all about ME and POWER.

I'm not a religious zealot (to say the least!) but I do think we can almost eliminate this problem with birth control, self-control, and a great education program. No woman, even those who favor them, wants to have an abortion. Taking the necessary predicate steps to avoid pregnancy is the wisest choice for everyone.
Click to expand...

There is always the danger that calling something that which it is not is will lead people think of and treat it as that what it is not.

If you want to use Iraq as an example, it was the thinking that there was the potential to attack us that led us to war. And if a woman takes a morning after pill for example, there is only one person to consider....that woman.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need auto insurance either as no one would drive drunk, use a car as a weapon, everyone would practice safe driving habits, only drive after proper training, and and cars would be so perfect that weather would never be a factor. A nice, Utopian world to think about, but one that will never exist in reality.
 
Originally posted by: chess9
"almost everything is a potential human being"? Uh, hyperbole is now your strong suit?

Furthermore, a zygote is a human being, as far as I'm concerned until the alleged intra-uterine device interferes with its implantation, or any other host of potential problems occur. To argue it isn't life because it can die from any number of causes is ridiculous. You could die from any number of causes. Are you life? 🙂 Some might say no if all they saw was your avatar, but based on the host of limiting factors you posit, you aren't life.

We just aren't going to agree on this "baby", so I see no sense in going further with this discussion.

-Robert
Click to expand...

as klixxer pointed out, nearly any cell in your body can be considered a potential human being. just take the dna from any cell, stuff it into an egg, implant the egg into a willing (or unwilling) participant, cook for 40 +/- 2 weeks, and you get an infant. how is that a hyperbole?

furthermore, i did not say that a zygote is not life. it is. however, it is not a human being. having the properties of being a life does not make the subject in question a human being.

from your post, you imply that an extra-uterine zygote is not a human being whereas an intrauterine zygote is. i fail to see the distinction.
 
I will only accept the definition of life as defined by the God that gave it to me just as he did Adam in the begining, with breath------the first breath of life. Anything else is just a potential for that event, and God controls that by placing a spirit in the flesh at that time. Then that life has a spirit, the spirit has the gift of life given by God almighty.
 
I don't care when it begins it should be legal to abort both parents if they fvck but don't want the kid and don't use contraception.

Your ass is crass.
 
I vote none of the above. Life begins when you realize that you are alive. Anyone who doesn't realize that they are alive could be subject to retroactive abortion. Yes I am serious. I would say roughly 3 years old.
 
Originally posted by: jhu
Originally posted by: chess9
"almost everything is a potential human being"? Uh, hyperbole is now your strong suit?

Furthermore, a zygote is a human being, as far as I'm concerned until the alleged intra-uterine device interferes with its implantation, or any other host of potential problems occur. To argue it isn't life because it can die from any number of causes is ridiculous. You could die from any number of causes. Are you life? 🙂 Some might say no if all they saw was your avatar, but based on the host of limiting factors you posit, you aren't life.

We just aren't going to agree on this "baby", so I see no sense in going further with this discussion.

-Robert
Click to expand...

as klixxer pointed out, nearly any cell in your body can be considered a potential human being. just take the dna from any cell, stuff it into an egg, implant the egg into a willing (or unwilling) participant, cook for 40 +/- 2 weeks, and you get an infant. how is that a hyperbole?

furthermore, i did not say that a zygote is not life. it is. however, it is not a human being. having the properties of being a life does not make the subject in question a human being.

from your post, you imply that an extra-uterine zygote is not a human being whereas an intrauterine zygote is. i fail to see the distinction.
Click to expand...

Exxxxxxxxxxxxxxactly.

Thank you.
 
Originally posted by: element
I don't care when it begins it should be legal to abort both parents if they fvck but don't want the kid and don't use contraception.

Your ass is crass.
Click to expand...

Why? It is HUMAN NATURE, you can deny that all you want but it still is.

If it wasn't you would not exist.

Your ass is stupid.
 
The question isn't really where does life begin; it is when is life considered human?
I would have to pin it at when a new unique dna sequence is created which is the beginning of human life. That seems the most logical to me. Life form having 100% human dna = human.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top