Life isn't a scientific definition, it's a philosophical one. A sperm is alive according to science. So is a tree. So is a bacteria. So when you say "life" what the heck do you even mean. Because you are inherently talking about a definition injected with religious thinking. I seriously doubt your ideas for abortion came from watching sit-coms growing up. You have no evidence to say an embryo is a human being other than that is has the potential to become on. Is a seed a tree? Is a plot of land the next sky-scraper? Is an egg an omelet? Since everything will die eventually, is everything already dead anyway? No...potential is not reality. It's not for you to decide how one should live their life. You can't take away someone's rights because of your religious beliefs or "religiously influenced beliefs". They are your beliefs nonetheless. You have shown you do not have evidence to justify that an embryo is a human being and therefore enabling you to take the rights away from the mother, who we know to be human. I know an embryo is not a human being. 100% sure of it. There's no freakin doubt in my mind. The evidence is clear as I have provided. There's nothing more to debate here, you simply are not acknowledging these facts.
Then why do you keep harkening back to science? I asked about HUMAN LIFE not just life. So your life and death decisions are philosophical ones, not scientific? I call it humanistic. That thing in there always comes out a human being-- alive or dead. You have no "evidence" that it's not; you only have your own crafted definition. In fact, I too have a definition; you just don't want to recognize it. The evidence is plain. Given time and nurturance, the outcome is Human one hundred percent of the time. Is Humanitarianism a philosophy? If so, we are both guided by philosophy. You can't manage the scientific proof that that creation is not a human life from the moment of conception and I don't need the science as I just assume that to be the case since they all result in human births. You have provided NO EVIDENCE, only a definition. May I remind you that a one week old can no more fend for itself than a child one week prior to birth. Left to their own devices, both will die. We all have rights taken away from us-- especially when and where another's life is at stake. Nothing new there.
You sound like Royce White here. I have provided tons of evidence. A human being is an independent breathing, thinking, conscious, entity. A blastula is none of these. A blastula does not always result in a human being. Many times it is ejected by the body. Many times the woman does not even know this happened. So you are incorrect there. A Blastula can only survive inside the mothers womb. A one week old can survive without their mothers. A embryo / blastula can not grow without a mother. It is not an independent organism. A fetus one week before birth can survive outside it's mother's womb. That's because at that stage it is a human being! But a blastula can not. It is not human. It can not think, breath, eat, or take action. It has no conscious. It is alive only in the way that any living tissue is alive. These are the facts. How you can say something is human and a human life when it exhibits no characteristic of either is a leap of FAITH. The above fact are EVIDENCE. Do not say they are not because you are simply making poop up at this point.
This is your definition. Again you have an intermim term to suit your purposes. Try to implant one 22 YO onto/into another 22 YO and one would reject the other. Any rejection may just be part of some evolutionary process. I am not incorrect to say that some women grieve if they have a miscarriage. It is probably a blessing if the woman doesn't know it happened. A week old cannot survive on it's own. It requires constant care and attention. It must have everything provided for it. That goes on for quite a long time after birth. I know; I've raised four children. Again, you are operating in the framework of your preferred definitions. I have my own and they grant life while yours are structured to deny it. You evidence is very convoluded. A newborn will die within a few days without constant care-- the same kind of constant care that is provided in utero-- just without the womb. Your facts are contrived out of your own aggressive terminology. My facts are contrived out of doing the least harm to the child.
giddy is slaying poor Sweet Lou in this thread The problem with "science" is that it's simply scientists' best ideas of the time. It quickly gets outdated. When we look back 100 years from now, what people today defend with science could be very different...
This is borderline gibberish. My definition. Nope - it's your lack of any kind of definition. We're going in circles here. Instead of providing any substantial case you are making non-sensical examples. A one week old is independent. It breathes on it's own. It will not die if it's mom goes into the other room. It is self-sustaining as a creature. We all depend on one another to survive. That's not the point. The point is it can exist as a separate entity.
Neither will a child in utero die if its mom goes into the other room, but a child on a blanker will die if its mother goes to another room and stays for three days-- if no one takes her place. Of course we are going in circles. You stick to a definition of terms which enables you to justify the abortion. I stick to a definition which enables me to protect an innocent life. The matter is this: is life more valuable than choice. We disagree. I could have told you that years ago!
you haven't even come out and defined life. I stick to THE definition of terms in order to TRY TO HAVE A DEBATE WITH YOU. Your only argument is that an embryo has potential to be a human being there fore it is. Which is so full of logical holes that one can't even begin to debate you because you are coming from a non-sensical place.
I don't need a definition; you do. That's why you keep asking for one. The irony is that you can't really provide one (i.e. when and how and where does human life begin) but you think you are by creating some categories of beings between zygote and teenager and it's "game over." It is your argument that the embryo has the potential to be a human being. I say it already is one at conception. I can neither prove nor disprove it; it just makes sense and it seems the respectful and responsible position to take in consideration of an innocent life.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! What a great argument. "Science is stupid. Why bother with science?" Thanks for letting us know where you stand texxx. LOL
Got it. So it's just an arbitrary statement that you say life begins at conception. You have no evidence or basis for that. It just "makes sense" to you and that's good enough, you don't have to try to prove or show the rational. Ok, fair enough, there's nothing more to say then.
Where else would life begin? Conception is the beginning. You want science? No problem sperm fertilizes egg and life begins. Its sickening, all of these lame excuses to justify the aborting of innocent life.
Some people believe that life begins at birth. Others believe that life begins at conception. It is an ages old debate. People have different beliefs. Some derive from religion and some derive from another source. That we have differing belief systems is part of the beauty of living in this country. It will take quite some time for people with incompatible belief systems to get along.
why is conception the beginning? what about twins? When doesn't the twin's second life begin if it never had a moment of conception? What happens if you have an embryo and you pull off one cell? That cell now divides and creates another embryo. Did they just create innocent life? So each cell in the embryo can make another human being on it's own. All you have to do is separate it off. it happens naturally, that's how you get identical triplets for instance. Sometimes this happens naturally, but may happen because of fertility drugs as well. Since a twin doesn't have a moment of conception - when did their life start? What if you took an undifferentiated cell from your body, and then put it in a petri dish and exposed it to the right chemical agents inducing it to divide and form an embryo. Is that now life? When did that cell pulled from your body become a human being? Does that mean each of our cells are human beings? And if you kill a cell that is murder? This is the problem with using religion/philosophy/beliefs to frame this debate. The truth is far more bizarre and complex. That is why giddy is light on specifics and doesn't want to go there because he knows he will get tripped up pretty badly.
Its about what's right and what's wrong. A women has a fertilized egg in her womb that in 9 or so months will be born. Choosing abortion is stopping a life that was going to begin. This is a fact.
Show me where anyone said that.... All I ever said is that Science has limits and even corrects itself over time so making such a monumental conclusion about life and death over what amounts to a "bold" hypothesis is kind of frightening and smacks of a discipline too in-love with itself. But again, where did anybody say that Science is stupid or why bother with Science?
That is not what I said. I said the evidence is in the outcome. You prefer to demean that by throwing it into some category you've deemed value-less and dubbed "potential." Both of our positions are rather "arbitrary" since neither of us can prove anything but, in fact, I think the 100% HUMAN outcome is an irrefutable argument. I can try to show you my rationale but you will not accept it because it is a beautifully round thing that won't fit into your square hole.
It's just a shared conception: http://www.pennmedicine.org/encyclopedia/em_DisplayAnimation.aspx?gcid=000033&ptid=17 I'm "light" on specifics because I am not driven by them. I think the essential issues lie elsewhere than a petri dish.
Do you have any idea at all about what happens after fertilization? Do the words morula, blastula, germ layers, gastrulation or neurulation mean anything to you? Because if you did, you wouldn't say that life begins at conception. A morula or a blastula is not a human being (yet).
