Those Who Say "Life Begins At Conception" Need To Research "Implantation Failure"

[brycejones]

Poorly thought out thread title proposes a meaningless proposition.

Poorly thought out greenman response is meaningless.

 

[dank69]

And when "human life" begins is moot because no person has a right to occupy another person's body without their consent so why rehash this argument anyway? Even if we grant the embryo full personhood status with all the rights that conveys, the woman has the right to defend her bodily integrity with lethal force. Pro-lifers don't like it? Then they also must support a law that says the government has the right to take your blood to save someone else's life without your consent.

 

[brycejones]

And when "human life" begins is moot because no person has a right to occupy another person's body without their consent so why rehash this argument anyway? Even if we grant the embryo full personhood status with all the rights that conveys, the woman has the right to defend her bodily integrity with lethal force. Pro-lifers don't like it? Then they also must support a law that says the government has the right to take your blood to save someone else's life without your consent.

I would go with mandatory heart donation from registered pro-lifers.

 

[eelw]

Going to cost him a few bucks too.

Texas bill would fine men $100 each time they masturbate | CNN

Rep. Jessica Farrar knows her bill isn't going to get very far. But she proposed it last week to make a point.

www.cnn.com

Waits for the countering bill by an old white Republican geezer making menstruation illegal unless controlled by a man

 

[hal2kilo]

You hear that imported_tajmahal? You committed mass murder growing up with all that masterbation you did.. you didn't even think about the children.

Reminds me of a song.

Every Sperm is Sacred - Monty Python's The Meaning of Life - Bing video

 

[Paratus]

In other words, life is a continuum, not an event.

Yes. So saying life starts at conception is false which makes setting conception as the termination point for abortion problematic.

You can’t even say for certain an individual begins at that point.

And when "human life" begins is moot because no person has a right to occupy another person's body without their consent so why rehash this argument anyway? Even if we grant the embryo full personhood status with all the rights that conveys, the woman has the right to defend her bodily integrity with lethal force. Pro-lifers don't like it? Then they also must support a law that says the government has the right to take your blood to save someone else's life without your consent.

Well if the anti choice people ever manage to ban abortions we’d have to look into reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. Since banning abortion effectively gives the state control of a woman’s reproductive system to turn her into a govt incubator I don’t see any reason the government could take control of the fathers reproductive system.

Since it takes two to tango and men would need some skin in the game to prevent women being used as incubators. I say any woman who didn’t want to be pregnant can simply identify the father to the government. A simple DNA test would confirm the father. Then he could be incarcerated until a surgical vasectomy could be performed and fine levied to pay for it.

Wouldn’t affect any responsible couple and would reduce the guy accidentally causing an unwanted pregnancy to almost 0 after being caught.

 

[HomerJS]

Poorly thought out thread title proposes a meaningless proposition.

Allergic to science? Implantation exposes the fallacy of life beginning at conception. It's one of the reasons conservatives want ban the pill. It prevents a fertilized egg from implanting on the uterine wall. They consider that murder.

 

[Greenman]

Allergic to science? Implantation exposes the fallacy of life beginning at conception. It's one of the reasons conservatives want ban the pill. It prevents a fertilized egg from implanting on the uterine wall. They consider that murder.

This would be easier if you'd read what I say and not what you want to believe I said. The thread title is nonsensical, the two ideas have little to do with each other.
The embryo's life starts at conception, though both the sperm and egg were alive prior to that. What happens after that moment has no bearing on prior events. Even if 100% of those fertilized eggs fail it doesn't change or affect the fact that the egg was alive.

 

[dank69]

This would be easier if you'd read what I say and not what you want to believe I said. The thread title is nonsensical, the two ideas have little to do with each other.
The embryo's life starts at conception, though both the sperm and egg were alive prior to that. What happens after that moment has no bearing on prior events. Even if 100% of those fertilized eggs fail it doesn't change or affect the fact that the egg was alive.

And? Who argued that is was not alive? Nobody. The OP seems to be implying that people who object to abortion on the basis that "the human is alive" need to understand that the very act of unprotected sex leads to lots of spontaneous abortions. Many more than the number of elective abortions.

In other words, the "human" being alive does nothing to strengthen the pro-life argument. That, and the thread title is not nonsensical.

 

[HomerJS]

This would be easier if you'd read what I say and not what you want to believe I said. The thread title is nonsensical, the two ideas have little to do with each other.
The embryo's life starts at conception, though both the sperm and egg were alive prior to that. What happens after that moment has no bearing on prior events. Even if 100% of those fertilized eggs fail it doesn't change or affect the fact that the egg was alive.

A more accurate description would be "a zygotes development begins at conception". Absent attaching to the uterine wall an embryo cannot form therefore "life" cannot begin

 

[dank69]

A more accurate description would be "a zygotes development begins at conception". Absent attaching to the uterine wall an embryo cannot form therefore "life" cannot begin

You're never going to win that semantic argument. It is alive. It is a human. Just because it might die soon does not change the fact that it is alive at that point.

 

[MrSquished]

Unity the so called pro-lifers start giving a shit about life after birth with healthcare, education, living wages, the environment, etc... They can eat shit. Their argument has nothing to do with being pro life, it's simply to control women and keep them as baby producers. That's it.

 

[HomerJS]

You're never going to win that semantic argument. It is alive. It is a human. Just because it might die soon does not change the fact that it is alive at that point.

At that point it is a clump of living cells not a human life. Ever seen a picture of an embryo when it first forms? You won't know the difference between a chicken, pig, or human.

BTW - Why is accuracy semantics? Truth is truth

 

[dank69]

At that point it is a clump of living cells not a human life. Ever seen a picture of an embryo when it first forms? You won't know the difference between a chicken, pig, or human.

BTW - Why is accuracy semantics? Truth is truth

Because you are not being accurate. Genetically it is a human, and it is alive. The problem is that you are taking the focus off the real issue (bodily integrity) and putting it on a debate that you will lose and end up creating the appearance of credibility for the pro-life argument.

 

[HomerJS]

Because you are not being accurate. Genetically it is a human, and it is alive. The problem is that you are taking the focus off the real issue (bodily integrity) and putting it on a debate that you will lose and end up creating the appearance of credibility for the pro-life argument.

If fertilized eggs are human lives then these taken to their logical conclusion apply.

Taking the most popular form of birth control is murder. Get those extra Republican DA's hired because we will have hoards of new females in prison
Ectopic pregnancies can't be terminated even if it kills the mother

There are others I just can't think of now.

 

[Perknose]

... the woman has the right to defend her bodily integrity with lethal force. Pro-lifers don't like it? Then they also must support a law that says the government has the right to take your blood to save someone else's life without your consent.

Bingo!

 

[dank69]

If fertilized eggs are human lives then these taken to their logical conclusion apply.

Taking the most popular form of birth control is murder. Get those extra Republican DA's hired because we will have hoards of new females in prison
Ectopic pregnancies can't be terminated even if it kills the mother

There are others I just can't think of now.

No, you are conflating the terms "human life" and "person." A person is born. That is when they are endowed with "rights."

But again, this does not matter. Even if we call a fertilized egg a "person" with all the rights that conveys, that person still does NOT have the right to occupy another person's body without their consent.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Sending a link of your blog to a bunch of your mouth breathing friends who read it while chortling like Beavis and butthead does not a peer review process make.

This paper is trash.

It's a peer reviewed scientific paper that shows clearly that life begins at conception. How about you show a scientific paper that refutes it ? Probably because you can't.

 

[HomerJS]

Why are Republicans still debating when life begins when they were willing to sacrifice it during COVID to save the economy?

 

[MrSquished]

An embryo is a potential person, it's not a person. It has no nervous system. It can't feel pain. Many other things are not developed. It is not viable.

Until pro lifers start giving a shit about the lives of actual people, they can spare me their bullshit pro life stance.

 

[uclaLabrat]

It's a peer reviewed scientific paper that shows clearly that life begins at conception. How about you show a scientific paper that refutes it ? Probably because you can't.

Wrong, it's a white paper (doesn't require peer review) published by the Charlotte lozier insitute, an anti-abortion think tank:

Lozier Institute – Bias and Credibility

RIGHT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may

mediabiasfactcheck.com

White Papers don't require peer review:

Cultural confusion: white papers vs. peer review

One of the greatest shocks when I started working in industry was the realization that the peer-reviewed paper, the most valuable form of currency in the academic world, was valued so little. In academics, there is a well-established reward system for getting your work published in peer-reviewed...

digitalworldbiology.com

.

Even if it was peer reviewed (there's no evidence it was), they would've sent it to a bunch of cranks, not an impartial editor/referee system.

I repeat, the paper is trash and you're full of shit.

 

[Timorous]

And when "human life" begins is moot because no person has a right to occupy another person's body without their consent so why rehash this argument anyway? Even if we grant the embryo full personhood status with all the rights that conveys, the woman has the right to defend her bodily integrity with lethal force. Pro-lifers don't like it? Then they also must support a law that says the government has the right to take your blood to save someone else's life without your consent.

This is my view. When you have two rights in conflict (right to life and right to bodily autonomy) you need to decide which one is more important.

If you decide life is more important than autonomy then it means forced kidney transplants and forced lung transplants as well as blood transfusions are on the table because if someone needs your kidney when you happen to walk into an ER then their right to life out weighs your right to autonomy so non consensual organ donation becomes perfectly valid.

That is not really something I want to see. If people were really pro-life they would support programmes that improve access to contraception, improved education, improved opportunities for people and so on because those things have been shown actually reduce unwanted pregnancies. We have evidence that banning or restricting abortion has no impact on the number of terminations so it does not work.

 

[dank69]

This is my view. When you have two rights in conflict (right to life and right to bodily autonomy) you need to decide which one is more important.

If you decide life is more important than autonomy then it means forced kidney transplants and forced lung transplants as well as blood transfusions are on the table because if someone needs your kidney when you happen to walk into an ER then their right to life out weighs your right to autonomy so non consensual organ donation becomes perfectly valid.

That is not really something I want to see. If people were really pro-life they would support programmes that improve access to contraception, improved education, improved opportunities for people and so on because those things have been shown actually reduce unwanted pregnancies. We have evidence that banning or restricting abortion has no impact on the number of terminations so it does not work.

It really is the nail in the pro-life coffin. They cannot dispute this from any angle. They are forced to stick their head in the sand and ignore it.

 

[cytg111]

This is my view. When you have two rights in conflict (right to life and right to bodily autonomy) you need to decide which one is more important.

If you decide life is more important than autonomy then it means forced kidney transplants and forced lung transplants as well as blood transfusions are on the table because if someone needs your kidney when you happen to walk into an ER then their right to life out weighs your right to autonomy so non consensual organ donation becomes perfectly valid.

That is not really something I want to see. If people were really pro-life they would support programmes that improve access to contraception, improved education, improved opportunities for people and so on because those things have been shown actually reduce unwanted pregnancies. We have evidence that banning or restricting abortion has no impact on the number of terminations so it does not work.

I think you just added another paragraph to the book.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Wrong, it's a white paper (doesn't require peer review) published by the Charlotte lozier insitute, an anti-abortion think tank:

Lozier Institute – Bias and Credibility

RIGHT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may

mediabiasfactcheck.com

White Papers don't require peer review:

Cultural confusion: white papers vs. peer review

One of the greatest shocks when I started working in industry was the realization that the peer-reviewed paper, the most valuable form of currency in the academic world, was valued so little. In academics, there is a well-established reward system for getting your work published in peer-reviewed...

digitalworldbiology.com

.

Even if it was peer reviewed (there's no evidence it was), they would've sent it to a bunch of cranks, not an impartial editor/referee system.

I repeat, the paper is trash and you're full of shit.

Can't find a scientific article that disagrees with the statement that human life begins at conception, can you? Go ahead and scream, shout and curse. You're the one lying and is full of shit.

You are being redirected...

"
American College of Pediatricians – March 2017

ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism,............"