The abortion debate and 'life begins at conception'

[SMOGZINN]

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.

No one has ever mistaken an acorn for an oak.

 

[K1052]

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.

Also for the pro-life crowd why the refusal to expend any additional resources on those lives that you claim are so precious?

Republicans will not pass paid leave. Republicans will not expand healthcare to reduce infant and maternal mortality. Republicans won't increase the CTC. Republicans won't spend more on child services at he state level. Etc.

Until somebody demonstrates that pro-life isn't just pro-birth I think it is fair to call bullshit.

 

[interchange]

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.

Logically speaking, "all human life has a right to exist" doesn't necessarily mean "all human life has equal value".

I don't know why I'm so compelled to play devil's advocate here.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The entire point is that life undeniably starts at conception.

I mean, there is more than a full page of arguments in this topic of people giving good arguments that it does not. It most certainly is deniable. As I pointed out in the post right above yours the science for the idea that life begins at conception is not even very compelling.

 

[interchange]

I mean, there is more than a full page of arguments in this topic of people giving good arguments that it does not. It most certainly is deniable. As I pointed out in the post right above yours the science for the idea that life begins at conception is not even very compelling.

As to people claiming what "science says". Science can help describe what is, not how to categorize it. Categorization is a human endeavor, and biology does not need anything to be neatly categorized.

 

[fskimospy]

Logically speaking, "all human life has a right to exist" doesn't necessarily mean "all human life has equal value".

I don't know why I'm so compelled to play devil's advocate here.

Right, but we aren't talking about equal value. If both embryos and babies were human life and a baby was just a 'more valuable' form of human life then logically there would be a point where preserving a sufficient number of embryos would be the equivalent of a single baby. The thing is we know there is no number - none - where that is the case. This indicates we view embryos as a categorically different thing.

 

[Paratus]

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.

How many aborted souls can dance on the end of a pin?

The whole religious argument is bs and misdirection anyway.

The best example of how the average pro-lifers feels (at least men) was one of our P&N members who used to post here (and I’m spacing on his name at the moment)

He’s spout all the usual bs about sex being for marriage& procreation, life starts at conception, taking responsibility, and abortion is murder.

He however forgot about the search function. You could find old post of him in L&R saying he was banging Catholic girls and if one got pregnant no one was going to trick him into being responsible.

The only thing this ban on abortion is going to do is cause misery and death of women.

 

[mikeymikec]

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.

I wasn't talking about religious beliefs, I was just talking about countering the pro-life argument that is hinged around 'life begins at conception'.

I personally haven't tried to discuss abortion with someone who involved 'God' in the topic.

 

[Dribble]

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?

I think you have mentally substituted science for god in that argument. Science is an observation and understanding of things, it's not something that cares. Science shows you stuff goes wrong, in fact it guarantees death - we all die, some younger then others. It is simply scientific fact that a human with it's full dna exists from conception. The fact that it's not fully grown yet and might not make it to a good age for a human does not stop it being human.

 

[brycejones]

No one has ever mistaken an acorn for an oak.

Squirrels are mass murderers of oak trees. Oak lives matter!

 

[fskimospy]

I think you have mentally substituted science for god in that argument. Science is an observation and understanding of things, it's not something that cares. Science shows you stuff goes wrong, in fact it guarantees death - we all die, some younger then others. Doesn't change the fact that we can scientifically prove a human with it's full dna exists from conception. The fact that it's not fully grown yet and might not make it to a good age for a human does not stop it being human.

Can you provide me with a credible scientific, medical, or legal source that defines a fertilized egg as a human with no qualifiers?

 

[Paratus]

I think you have mentally substituted science for god in that argument. Science is an observation and understanding of things, it's not something that cares. Science shows you stuff goes wrong, in fact it guarantees death - we all die, some younger then others. It is simply scientific fact that a human with it's full dna exists from conception. The fact that it's not fully grown yet and might not make it to a good age for a human does not stop it being human.

Here’s a simple question for you to answer.

This is a human. How many humans is the picture below?

 

[Dribble]

Can you provide me with a credible scientific, medical, or legal source that defines a fertilized egg as a human with no qualifiers?

DNA would be the standard method, that is the code on which defines a particular human and all of us are built. Then you can do simple scientific observation - given a chance that single cell will turn into an adult human with that same DNA - plenty of proof of that, all of us in fact.

 

[fskimospy]

DNA would be the standard method, that is the code on which defines a particular human and all of us are built. Then you can do simple scientific observation - given a chance that single cell will turn into an adult human with that same DNA - plenty of proof of that, all of us in fact.

Can you provide me with any credible scientific, medical, or legal source that determines what is human by this method?

You said it is scientifically proven so presumably lots of sources define human in this way.

 

[Dribble]

Can you provide me with any credible scientific, medical, or legal source that determines what is human by this method?

You said it is scientifically proven so presumably lots of sources define human in this way.

Yes, any medical journal given the picture of a human embro such as I guess the one above is would label it a human embro because it's a human in it's embrotic state. Importantly it's not something that might turn into any human, it will turn into the particular human that DNA chain unique to that embro has. All it takes is the right enviroment to grow in just the same as required by the baby in the other picture which would die without support.

 

[sandorski]

Embryo

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, any medical journal given the picture of a human embro such as I guess the one above is would label it a human embro because it's a human in it's embrotic state. Importantly it's not something that might turn into any human, it will turn into the particular human that DNA chain unique to that embro has. All it takes is the right enviroment to grow in just the same as required by the baby in the other picture which would die without support.

So in other words it would not name it as a human without qualifiers. For example they would also describe something as a human blood cell - this would not be calling the blood cell a human.

By the way you won’t find one, your definition is not one used by any reputable scientific or medical group. If YOU want to define it that way that’s fine, but you shouldn’t pretend this is a scientific or medical definition.

Embryos are not humans in any way even remotely equivalent to a baby and as we already showed literally no one on earth believes they are.

 

[interchange]

Right, but we aren't talking about equal value. If both embryos and babies were human life and a baby was just a 'more valuable' form of human life then logically there would be a point where preserving a sufficient number of embryos would be the equivalent of a single baby. The thing is we know there is no number - none - where that is the case. This indicates we view embryos as a categorically different thing.

1. I don't understand where the bolded comes from
2. Should we accept it as true, this really doesn't invalidate the argument. Yes it means that the embryo would be in a different category, but this could still be a sub-category of "human life with a soul"

I wasn't talking about religious beliefs, I was just talking about countering the pro-life argument that is hinged around 'life begins at conception'.

I personally haven't tried to discuss abortion with someone who involved 'God' in the topic.

Absent a religious framework, arguments are only based on what moral constructs we should accept as a society and renders it so that no one can claim that any one stance is absolutely correct. Things are only a matter of opinion, and society should collectively decide on what stances are most productive for them, just as we do with everything else as a matter of law. Personally, I think that this is not something which society benefits from an absolute codified determination for all.

 

[fskimospy]

1. I don't understand where the bolded comes from
2. Should we accept it as true, this really doesn't invalidate the argument. Yes it means that the embryo would be in a different category, but this could still be a sub-category of "human life with a soul"



Absent a religious framework, arguments are only based on what moral constructs we should accept as a society and renders it so that no one can claim that any one stance is absolutely correct. Things are only a matter of opinion, and society should collectively decide on what stances are most productive for them, just as we do with everything else as a matter of law. Personally, I think that this is not something which society benefits from an absolute codified determination for all.

I’m happy to revisit my statement if you can find me a single person who credibly says they would rescue a bunch of embryos - any amount - while leading a baby to die.

As for the rest, great. Now that we have agreed they are of a categorically lesser nature we shouldn’t have a legal system that pretends they aren’t.

 

[HomerJS]

Cake batter. Not a cake

 

[mikeymikec]

Absent a religious framework, arguments are only based on what moral constructs we should accept as a society and renders it so that no one can claim that any one stance is absolutely correct. Things are only a matter of opinion, and society should collectively decide on what stances are most productive for them, just as we do with everything else as a matter of law. Personally, I think that this is not something which society benefits from an absolute codified determination for all.

Which is why my argument in the OP is asking the pro-lifer why they think that humans deserve rights that another lifeforms on this planet don't. One's opinion on the topic (and the prevailing view in society) should have a logical base that scales well throughout the stages of human life.

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.

This is a really long way to say "nuh-uh". While I'm absolutely certain that some people won't bother to honestly engage my counter-argument, that I won't successfully cause every (many... some?) pro-lifer to reconsider their opinion with my argument, it's not helpful to just say "some people won't be swayed" or "this doesn't phase me". I wanted constructive feedback on the quality of the argument. I'm not sure why you're defending Greenman either, just like Jubilex he missed the point entirely.

 

[kt]

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.

Would like to make it abundantly clear that pro-choice IS NOT pro-abortion. Pro-choice people support individual's right to choose having an abortion or not. So, stop with the "pro-abortion" people nonsense.

 

[sandorski]

Cake batter. Not a cake

That is its' superior form.

 

[interchange]

I’m happy to revisit my statement if you can find me a single person who credibly says they would rescue a bunch of embryos - any amount - while leading a baby to die.

As for the rest, great. Now that we have agreed they are of a categorically lesser nature we shouldn’t have a legal system that pretends they aren’t.

A law saying that both (a) and (b) share the same right to life does not have any bearing on any other rights or values. If your thinking applied, then things would have been all hunky-dory if a man decided to murder his wife before 1920.

 

[fskimospy]

A law saying that both (a) and (b) share the same right to life does not have any bearing on any other rights or values. If your thinking applied, then things would have been all hunky-dory if a man decided to murder his wife before 1920.

I'm not sure I follow. While I'm sure there are some particularly unenlightened examples where this is not the case the killing of a woman has, generally speaking, been considered murder just like the killing of a man. In plenty of cases women's lives are more important than a man's (women and children first!). There is never a case, ever, where an unlimited number of embryos would have a greater claim to life than a single baby. In fact all our actions speak to the idea that we consider them to have a far lesser right to life.

I know people SAY it's the same right, but that's my point - they are delusional or lying. If you look at people's actions it is very clear that an embryo does not share the same right to life and humanity has never believed it has.