The abortion debate and 'life begins at conception'

[Wreckem]

Also I might add. Only fundamentalist Christians and Catholics believe life begins at conception. These are the only people that do.

Jewish believe life begins at first breath and in Islam life begins at 120 days gestation(about 17-18 weeks).

Let’s not forget science certainly doesn’t back life beginning at conception.

Essentially you only have a tiny percentage of the population that actually believe life begins At conception.

Tyranny of minority based on a work of fiction that actually also says abortion isn’t wrong.

 

[Meghan54]

Found this to be an interesting read vis a vis Catholics and abortion:

The history of Catholic teaching on abortion isn’t as clear cut as you think

Its position has hardly been “unchangeable” throughout the past two millennia.

theoutline.com

 

[mikeymikec]

Also I might add. Only fundamentalist Christians and Catholics believe life begins at conception. These are the only people that do.

Jewish believe life begins at first breath and in Islam life begins at 120 days gestation(about 17-18 weeks).

Let’s not forget science certainly doesn’t back life beginning at conception.

Essentially you only have a tiny percentage of the population that actually believe life begins At conception.

Tyranny of minority based on a work of fiction that actually also says abortion isn’t wrong.

I don't see any pro-lifers complaining at the basis for abortion bans is that 'life begins at conception', and AFAIK every one of the pro-life states' new laws are hinged on that notion, so IMO it's essential to take that argument to the cleaners.

 

[sportage]

[devils advocate]
Yes, because the Human has a soul, that God gave to us that makes us special.

How the hell do WE know what a SOUL is?
All we have is an awareness of life, a sense of survival, and every crawling species shares THIS instinct with humans. Even a fly will escape when it detects danger. And if you know other animals you know how HUMAN those other animals can be. Even a cow has a sense of survival and an awareness of life.
I knew a farmer who raised a calf and whenever that farmer came close to that calf the calf ran around in circles excited and simply loved that farmer. It was sweet to watch, like watching a dog showing affection for the owner.

We humans think we know it all because we are human, but other spices show great intelligence as well including an ant.
Humans aren't so smart. And besides, ants and roaches will out survive humans on this earth, so who's the more intelligent species again?

I did come across a big fat orange ant one day. All the other ants were gathered around the big fat orange ant. They followed the big fat orange ant for no apparent reason. Then one day that big fat orange ant lead all the other ants into a nest of ant eaters and bye bye to the ants. All the ants lost their lives from being eaten by the anteaters, but the big fat orange ant escaped. That big fat orange ant now lives at in a hole inside Mar-a-lago, and oh boy has that big fat orange ant gotten even fatter.

 

[Dribble]

Scientifically life begins then - it is when the sperm and the egg combine we have the DNA for that complete human, it just needs to grow from there. Trying to argue that it's at a certain stage of growth (currently based off how early science can keep them alive outside of the womb) makes little scientific sense.
Morally it's very similar to slavery - the dehumanisation of a group of humans for the benefit of others. Slavery existed because forced labour was the only way to build a great society, and ended mostly due to the industrial revolution making it unecessary but it was the christians who pushed it through.
Abortion will end primarily due to science meaning you can keep someone alive from conception outside of the body using an artificial womb or something similar and it is likely it will be the christians that push the change through.
In 200 years a bunch of liberals will probably go around knocking down statues and cancelling people that were pro-abortion today.

 

[Moonbeam]

Right now I'm wondering how many people here, including you, didn't read the OP.

I read it and it made no difference to Greenman. In order to defeat the notion that a unique human being isn't created at the moment of conception is just pointless no matter how sound you consider your logic. I am pro abortion and your argument doesn't phase me. At the moment of fertilization is when a unique human being is a single cell. No matter what argument you apply, to some people life will always be seen as sacred including pro choice me.

As long as men and women are driven biologically to have sex and the choice not to conceive without protection is non existent, a society will have to determine on a secular basis what to do about abortion. We are now entering a period when the Supreme Court has violated the will of the people based on the the inculcation within them of religious beliefs. That is going to create a fucking mess in my opinion, and likely many many back alley deaths. The Spanish Inquisition had judges of similar certainty of opinion. Those assholes will have their opinions overturned in time.

 

[Moonbeam]

I did come across a big fat orange ant one day.

That's because an orange ant isn't an ant it is a wasp.

 

[Paratus]

I want to talk about the whole soul thing @Bitek brought up the other day. Such an interesting epistemological question. To make it fair I won’t be using any Bible passages to support my position since there aren’t any that support theirs.

Our vehemently pro-life folks say life starts at conception, abortion is murder, a fertilized egg is the same as a baby, and women have to be responsible for what happens if they have sex.

Now what they really mean when they say “life starts at conception” is that’s when the soul shows up. Therefore aborting that cell is murder because it has a soul and the mother who aborts is evil because murder of the innocent is evil.

Now we know that between 15% and 85% of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort or miscarry for all mothers based on their age at conception.

(Since I know some of our religious conservative friends don’t necessarily have an intuitive grasp of math let me put these percentage in terms of things you do understand. 15% is about equal to the risk of blowing your head off if you put a single round ina revolver, spun the cylinder, put it to your head and pulled the trigger. 85% is equivalent to the risk of abortion if the mother took one of the pills in the two drug abortion combo)

That means if you don’t use protection and have regular intercourse and it takes a couple of months to get pregnant - congratulations you just had a spontaneous abortion.

So since we are going a religious route here we can assume God was responsible for those abortions. I mean with the number of people trying to have kids the number of babies he aborts is astronomical.

If you are Catholic and don’t use any birth control methods then over a woman’s 25 or so years of fertility while married you’re looking at probably dozens of natural abortions and stillbirths.

So at first blush God has no problems with abortions. Hell by your forties he seems to prefer them.

So why isn’t it evil when God aborts them? It could be since he is omniscient when he knows the fertilized egg will spontaneously abort he just doesn’t provide a soul.

However, if he doesn’t provide a soul in the case of a medical abortion then medical abortion wouldn’t be murder as there would be no “person” killed.

If he does provide a soul in that case he’s knowingly using the death of an innocent to punish the guilty. Fairly evil in my mind.

It’s why I love it when pro-lifers insist choosing abortion is murder. It means they believe their God is not omniscient, omnipotent or loving. It’s just another version of the Epicurean paradox.

Of course if we follow the science, that the mother, father, sperm, and egg are alive before fertilization, that the fertilized egg is alive after joining, that it’s not possible for their to be a person who dies until there is something like a functioning brain which occurs sometime after 24 weeks, then we leave room for an omniscient, omnipotent, loving God and for choice.

Abortion chosen or spontaneous doesn’t scientifically kill a person before then and a loving all powerful God just doesn’t put a soul in those fetuses. After ~24 weeks scientifically the risk of miscarriage is down to single digits or lower making the risk acceptable.

If the worst occurs then the woman (& family & doctor) can choose what to do because it hers and their responsibility as the parents. The loving all powerful God wouldn’t provide a soul in the case of a loss of the fetus in this scenario either.

 

[tweaker2]

The pro-lifers can believe and practice anything they want. They have that ability and practiced it without interference from the gov't and non-members. However, when it comes to forcing their beliefs on others through legislating theocratic laws and stacking our courts with their church members, they really should mind their own fucking business and stay out of the lives of those who don't practice religious doctrine, like everyone else that stay out of the lives of those who do.

 

[dank69]

I want to talk about the whole soul thing @Bitek brought up the other day. Such an interesting epistemological question. To make it fair I won’t be using any Bible passages to support my position since there aren’t any that support theirs.

Our vehemently pro-life folks say life starts at conception, abortion is murder, a fertilized egg is the same as a baby, and women have to be responsible for what happens if they have sex.

Now what they really mean when they say “life starts at conception” is that’s when the soul shows up. Therefore aborting that cell is murder because it has a soul and the mother who aborts is evil because murder of the innocent is evil.

Now we know that between 15% and 85% of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort or miscarry for all mothers based on their age at conception.

(Since I know some of our religious conservative friends don’t necessarily have an intuitive grasp of math let me put these percentage in terms of things you do understand. 15% is about equal to the risk of blowing your head off if you put a single round ina revolver, spun the cylinder, put it to your head and pulled the trigger. 85% is equivalent to the risk of abortion if the mother took one of the pills in the two drug abortion combo)

That means if you don’t use protection and have regular intercourse and it takes a couple of months to get pregnant - congratulations you just had a spontaneous abortion.

So since we are going a religious route here we can assume God was responsible for those abortions. I mean with the number of people trying to have kids the number of babies he aborts is astronomical.

If you are Catholic and don’t use any birth control methods then over a woman’s 25 or so years of fertility while married you’re looking at probably dozens of natural abortions and stillbirths.

So at first blush God has no problems with abortions. Hell by your forties he seems to prefer them.

So why isn’t it evil when God aborts them? It could be since he is omniscient when he knows the fertilized egg will spontaneously abort he just doesn’t provide a soul.

However, if he doesn’t provide a soul in the case of a medical abortion then medical abortion wouldn’t be murder as there would be no “person” killed.

If he does provide a soul in that case he’s knowingly using the death of an innocent to punish the guilty. Fairly evil in my mind.

It’s why I love it when pro-lifers insist choosing abortion is murder. It means they believe their God is not omniscient, omnipotent or loving. It’s just another version of the Epicurean paradox.

Of course if we follow the science, that the mother, father, sperm, and egg are alive before fertilization, that the fertilized egg is alive after joining, that it’s not possible for their to be a person who dies until there is something like a functioning brain which occurs sometime after 24 weeks, then we leave room for an omniscient, omnipotent, loving God and for choice.

Abortion chosen or spontaneous doesn’t scientifically kill a person before then and a loving all powerful God just doesn’t put a soul in those fetuses. After ~24 weeks scientifically the risk of miscarriage is down to single digits or lower making the risk acceptable.

If the worst occurs then the woman (& family & doctor) can choose what to do because it hers and their responsibility as the parents. The loving all powerful God wouldn’t provide a soul in the case of a loss of the fetus in this scenario either.

I like the idea that there is a line of souls in heaven waiting to be born and when one is aborted they lose their only chance at life. Real fine religion people have there.

 

[fskimospy]

That life starts at conception is beyond doubt. Those cells are alive. All the rest of the argument is convenience/cost opposed to belief.
There is no solution that will be acceptable to everyone, and changing anyone's mind is near impossible. I know a few that would be willing to die to stop abortion, and a few that wouldn't feel all that bad about pulling the trigger for them.

There is no person on this planet, including you, that actually believes life that is even remotely equivalent to human life begins at conception.

I do not understand why conservatives continue to lie about this.

 

[HomerJS]

Scientifically life begins then - it is when the sperm and the egg combine we have the DNA for that complete human, it just needs to grow from there. Trying to argue that it's at a certain stage of growth (currently based off how early science can keep them alive outside of the womb) makes little scientific sense.
Morally it's very similar to slavery - the dehumanisation of a group of humans for the benefit of others. Slavery existed because forced labour was the only way to build a great society, and ended mostly due to the industrial revolution making it unecessary but it was the christians who pushed it through.
Abortion will end primarily due to science meaning you can keep someone alive from conception outside of the body using an artificial womb or something similar and it is likely it will be the christians that push the change through.
In 200 years a bunch of liberals will probably go around knocking down statues and cancelling people that were pro-abortion today.

200 years later and those same Christians still practice in the dehumanization of a group of humans. It's called racism. Alive and well being practiced by the Republican Party

 

[interchange]

Many pro-choice proponents regard the 'life begins at conception' argument to be a red herring (as they consider it to be missing the point) and choose to focus on bodily autonomy of living, breathing human beings, which I think is a valid argument, but I can't help but think that pro-lifers will consider this to be ignoring arguments that pro-choicers disagree with.

IMO if you want to change peoples' minds on a topic like abortion, the best tactic is to dismantle their own argument.

With regard to 'life begins at conception', pro-lifers tend to like it a lot because it's an absolutist technicality that they can hinge their entire argument on. My counter-argument is this:

Do you believe that human beings deserve rights that other lifeforms don't? If so, why?

My logic being that if one considers human beings to be fundamentally different from other life forms and so therefore deserving of extra rights, the basis for their argument has to be based on the intellectual merits of the human condition. Logically you can't grant a clump of cells human rights because biologically speaking there are billions of lifeforms on this planet that are capable of the same feat. Nor do we grant children the rights of an adult because they don't have the mental capacity of an adult, but they do get some rights. A foetus at most stages of development is not even capable of breathing unaided.

Any thoughts on the validity of this argument? It's not the whole picture obviously, but I think it's sufficient and is compatible with the general pro-choice perspective.

If you're talking about fundamental religious beliefs surrounding this, then I don't see why the question poses conflicts. The answer given is that yes, human beings deserve other rights because they have souls and other living things don't. If the soul is what grants right to life and the soul is created at conception, then the argument is logically consistent.

 

[Homerboy]

Except in the case of humans, upon conception, its not a single cell. Its a unique strand of 46 chromosomes independent of the mother and father. Pro-abortion people think because that embryo is dependent on the mother (or host) until birth is irrelevant.

stop using this phrase. nobody is "pro-abortion"
you're either doing it becuase you're brainwashed, or you're trying to brainwash.

 

[SMOGZINN]

How the hell do WE know what a SOUL is?

The entire point I was making is that they don't know. They believe. You can argue with something that they think they know, because that is knowledge, you can't argue against something they believe, because that is emotion.

Scientifically life begins then - it is when the sperm and the egg combine we have the DNA for that complete human, it just needs to grow from there. Trying to argue that it's at a certain stage of growth (currently based off how early science can keep them alive outside of the womb) makes little scientific sense.

This is exactly what I mean. This poster does not KNOW that when a sperm and egg combine it is then life, they BELIVE that. Both the sperm and the egg were already alive. The real scientific truth is that life is an unbroken chain going back to (at least) the very first metabolic process that formed in the primordial soup of this planet. There is not a single life on this planet that is not billions of years old, because as far as science can tell life is (probably, or maybe almost) never created. Cells do not generate new cells by building them from scratch. They split. One cell divides and becomes two, neither of those cells were ever not alive. They might not be identical cells, for example the sperm is a specialized version of a stem cell, but they were all alive.

 

[Greenman]

There is no person on this planet, including you, that actually believes life that is even remotely equivalent to human life begins at conception.

I do not understand why conservatives continue to lie about this.

The entire point is that life undeniably starts at conception. Every living thing has a starting point, a place where life begins, and that always comes from other life. It's never been created in a lab.
I know several people that absolutely believe that a human begins at the point of conception. That's a very troubling thought for many because it leads to a place we don't want to go. But the logic behind that thought process isn't flawed.
Choosing viability as the point where a fetus becomes a human is no more or less logical than choosing conception or birth. The main difference is that by choosing viability as the point where a human starts gives us the option of stopping the process without feeling bad.
I don't have a problem with that logic, but to claim it's some kind of cosmic threshold everyone needs to accept is absurd. It's simply the point a lot of people agree with because it allows us to choose weather that life continues or not. I'm ok with that.

 

[Meghan54]

If you're talking about fundamental religious beliefs surrounding this, then I don't see why the question poses conflicts. The answer given is that yes, human beings deserve other rights because they have souls and other living things don't. If the soul is what grants right to life and the soul is created at conception, then the argument is logically consistent.

Prove it or bullshit.

 

[ch33zw1z]

The entire point is that life undeniably starts at conception. Every living thing has a starting point, a place where life begins, and that always comes from other life. It's never been created in a lab.
I know several people that absolutely believe that a human begins at the point of conception. That's a very troubling thought for many because it leads to a place we don't want to go. But the logic behind that thought process isn't flawed.
Choosing viability as the point where a fetus becomes a human is no more or less logical than choosing conception or birth. The main difference is that by choosing viability as the point where a human starts gives us the option of stopping the process without feeling bad.
I don't have a problem with that logic, but to claim it's some kind of cosmic threshold everyone needs to accept is absurd. It's simply the point a lot of people agree with because it allows us to choose weather that life continues or not. I'm ok with that.

undeniably? I’m not sure you know what that words mean.

life undeniably is created in a man’s testicles and every few days the body is killing life by the millions. Every unnecessary ejaculation is akin to genocide.

life undeniably starts before a female is born, because eggs are life, and females are born with all the eggs they’ll have, for life. She’s killing life monthly when she starts ovulating.

see how crazy you sound?

 

[abj13]

Scientifically life begins then - it is when the sperm and the egg combine we have the DNA for that complete human, it just needs to grow from there. Trying to argue that it's at a certain stage of growth (currently based off how early science can keep them alive outside of the womb) makes little scientific sense.

I'm always interested when people want to label something as "science" when their argument fails to actually account for what science says.

Can you explain, why molar pregnancies exist? They involve combination of the egg and sperm, and in the case of partial molar pregnancies, they include genetic material from both the egg and sperm. And yet, they turn into a cancerous growth and never a human being.

Why is that? I thought "scientifically" life definitely starts when a sperm and egg combine? Why does science actually say otherwise? Are molar pregnancies also human beings?

 

[fskimospy]

The entire point is that life undeniably starts at conception. Every living thing has a starting point, a place where life begins, and that always comes from other life. It's never been created in a lab. I know several people that absolutely believe that a human begins at the point of conception. That's a very troubling thought for many because it leads to a place we don't want to go. But the logic behind that thought process isn't flawed.

They do not actually believe that a human life remotely equivalent to a baby exists at that point. If they tell you this they are either lying to you or themselves as literally no one on the entire planet believes this.

As I've said many times, if they believe that such a life is remotely equivalent to a human life like a baby if they had a choice to save trays with a billion embryos in them or one baby they would clearly choose the embryos. We all know anyone who actually saved the embryos would be considered a psychopath.

I imagine it's mostly due to the fact that they haven't thought through the logical consequences of their statement but regardless it's a silly idea no one believes.

Choosing viability as the point where a fetus becomes a human is no more or less logical than choosing conception or birth. The main difference is that by choosing viability as the point where a human starts gives us the option of stopping the process without feeling bad.
I don't have a problem with that logic, but to claim it's some kind of cosmic threshold everyone needs to accept is absurd. It's simply the point a lot of people agree with because it allows us to choose weather that life continues or not. I'm ok with that.

The entire discussion is about the sliding scale of when something is considered a human and 'being able to live on your own' is a perfectly reasonable standard for this.

 

[HomerJS]

We all know religion is the justification of pro-lifers. What does the Bible say?

Genesis 2:7

7 Then the Lord God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Read that and it says man becomes a living being at birth

Genesis 2:7 NIV - Then the LORD God formed a man from the - Bible Gateway

 

[interchange]

Prove it or bullshit.

To be clear, I was stating the beliefs of others, not my own.

 

[pmv]

Prove it or bullshit.

The poster didn't say it was "true", only that it was "logically consistent".

 

[K1052]

The entire point is that life undeniably starts at conception. Every living thing has a starting point, a place where life begins, and that always comes from other life. It's never been created in a lab.
I know several people that absolutely believe that a human begins at the point of conception. That's a very troubling thought for many because it leads to a place we don't want to go. But the logic behind that thought process isn't flawed.
Choosing viability as the point where a fetus becomes a human is no more or less logical than choosing conception or birth. The main difference is that by choosing viability as the point where a human starts gives us the option of stopping the process without feeling bad.
I don't have a problem with that logic, but to claim it's some kind of cosmic threshold everyone needs to accept is absurd. It's simply the point a lot of people agree with because it allows us to choose weather that life continues or not. I'm ok with that.

You're a pro-life fireman who shows up at a hospital almost fully engulfed in flame. Do you head for the cryogenic storage wing where there could be 10s of thousands of fertilized embryos or the crying babies in the maternity ward?

 

[fskimospy]

You're a pro-life fireman who shows up at a hospital almost fully engulfed in flame. Do you head for the cryogenic storage wing where there could be 10s of thousands of fertilized embryos or the crying babies in the maternity ward?

I have asked this question dozens of times and not one 'life begins at conception' person has ever been able to adequately answer it.

This is because the answer is blindingly obvious but their logic depends on pretending it isn't.