When Does Life End?

apple0154 said:
Unfortunately it's not that simple. Often, the woman decides to keep the child after she bears it even though she isn't able to look after it properly.
Click to expand...
In other words, she accepts personal responsibility. Why is that bad? You must want to kill the child since her clothes aren't as nice as yours.
 
Southern Man said:
In other words, she accepts personal responsibility. Why is that bad? You must want to kill the child since her clothes aren't as nice as yours.
Click to expand...
Well that and, apparently, if at some point something should die it means that it isn't alive so it's okay to kill her child because it will die at some point.
 
Southern Man said:
In other words, she accepts personal responsibility. Why is that bad? You must want to kill the child since her clothes aren't as nice as yours.
Click to expand...

Personal responsibility? Wrong guess. Wanting/insisting upon keeping the child even though she can't look after it is not accepting personal responsibility. That's being irresponsible.

As for the clothes remark try and follow along here. A child is brought into the world and neglected. Poorly fed. Unsupervised. Poorly clothed. Goes through childhood being teased and bullied while the parent is in another space.

When the child gets older he/she joins up with some hoodlums/street kids. Drops out of school. The downward spiral continues. Maybe jail or a minimum wage job.

Then the typical Compassionate-Conservative says, "Take personal responsibility" meaning if the now-adult requires medical attention they better have some money.

From day one the child's life is hell and continues until they die. Sure, there are exceptions but the vast majority simply continue on the only road they've known. Poverty and illness.

Maybe we should change society before we start demanding children be brought into this world.
 
apple0154 said:
Personal responsibility? Wrong guess. Wanting/insisting upon keeping the child even though she can't look after it is not accepting personal responsibility. That's being irresponsible.

As for the clothes remark try and follow along here. A child is brought into the world and neglected. Poorly fed. Unsupervised. Poorly clothed. Goes through childhood being teased and bullied while the parent is in another space.

When the child gets older he/she joins up with some hoodlums/street kids. Drops out of school. The downward spiral continues. Maybe jail or a minimum wage job.

Then the typical Compassionate-Conservative says, "Take personal responsibility" meaning if the now-adult requires medical attention they better have some money.

From day one the child's life is hell and continues until they die. Sure, there are exceptions but the vast majority simply continue on the only road they've known. Poverty and illness.

Maybe we should change society before we start demanding children be brought into this world.
Click to expand...

Again, that's what adoption is for.
 
Damocles said:
Well that and, apparently, if at some point something should die it means that it isn't alive so it's okay to kill her child because it will die at some point.
Click to expand...

Poor Damocles, tilting at windmills.

Just can't let go of the discussion, can you? All that anti-abortion nonsense claiming science/DNA proves human beings pop into existence at the moment a sperm and egg unite is exactly that, nonsense. And the worst part is your anti-abortion buddies posted links showing that's not true.

Like anti-abortionists down through history you continue to grasp at whatever straw is throw your way. From souls that enter male fetuses before female fetuses to quickening to the moment the sperm enters the egg and, now, when cells divide......as each idea is shown to be both deceptive and delusional there's always another straw to grab onto.

It really is a shame.
 
apple0154 said:
Poor Damocles, tilting at windmills.

Just can't let go of the discussion, can you? All that anti-abortion nonsense claiming science/DNA proves human beings pop into existence at the moment a sperm and egg unite is exactly that, nonsense. And the worst part is your anti-abortion buddies posted links showing that's not true.

Like anti-abortionists down through history you continue to grasp at whatever straw is throw your way. From souls that enter male fetuses before female fetuses to quickening to the moment the sperm enters the egg and, now, when cells divide......as each idea is shown to be both deceptive and delusional there's always another straw to grab onto.

It really is a shame.
Click to expand...
Again. That wasn't my argument. "Being" is not a word I used in this argument because of the different definitions used by different posters in the thread.

Let's see if you can reiterate my argument so that we can be clear you actually understand what I actually have stated. I challenge you to reiterate my argument cogently.

I know that you, in arguing that it wasn't "alive" at all, argued that because there were a myriad of different natural deaths that could occur while in the womb (including chimerism, mutations, and other forms of natural death) that no zygote could have been alive. In arguing this you rejected every scientific article posted that clearly indicated that it was definitely alive. Thus the exaggeration and extension of your argument into the after-birth arena, and the obvious "sting" you felt upon reading it.
 
apple0154 said:
What would be the point of telling him that? You see, the problem is the parent is not the one going through the suffering. It is the child.
Click to expand...

so I should tell Tim he would be better off if his mother had killed him?...Tim would consider you a fool.....

apart from that why do you justify the killing of 46 million on the chance that a small percentage of them are going to be disabled?......
 
apple0154 said:
The problem is many women do not put the child up for adoption. She keeps the child and the child ends up living a disgusting life. Even if, as an adult, it does straighten itself out the emotional/psychological damage is always there.
Click to expand...
Instead of spending effort trying to kill children then you lib-tards should spend effort getting her to adopt.
 
Damocles said:
Again. That wasn't my argument. "Being" is not a word I used in this argument because of the different definitions used by different posters in the thread.

Let's see if you can reiterate my argument so that we can be clear you actually understand what I actually have stated. I challenge you to reiterate my argument cogently.

I know that you, in arguing that it wasn't "alive" at all, argued that because there were a myriad of different natural deaths that could occur while in the womb (including chimerism, mutations, and other forms of natural death) that no zygote could have been alive. In arguing this you rejected every scientific article posted that clearly indicated that it was definitely alive. Thus the exaggeration and extension of your argument into the after-birth arena, and the obvious "sting" you felt upon reading it.
Click to expand...

First of all it was you who originally took exception to my argument, not I having taken exception to yours. That means it was my point/argument being discussed and my point/argument was the anti-abortionist nonsense about human life or human beings coming into existence did not occur at the moment the sperm and egg combined. That's it.

After pages and pages of you and others jumping around about "life" and "alive" and "humans" and "residual whatevers" the bottom line was the anti-abortionist argument about a human being coming into existence at the moment a sperm and egg combine was shown to be a lie. That was my argument and I was and am correct.

The foundation the anti-abortionists rest their entire case on was shown to be erroneous. Their continued "science/DNA proves it" was nothing but the continuation of a blatant lie. But, as I've repeatedly said, the anti-abortionists are known to jump on any wagon, at any time.

That has been their stock-in-trade for thousands of years. State something outrageous and let others prove them wrong and just as it took centuries to prove some of their more ridiculous claims exactly that it took science time to improve and discover the egg does not fertilize in a moment and no "person fairy" drops by.

That was it. The anti-abortionist argument that science/DNA proves a human being is created or comes into existence at the moment the sperm and egg join is a lie. Science shows us that is clearly not the case.

That's it. That was the argument and it has been concluded in my favor.

If one wants to talk about "life" or "humans" coming into existence when cells divide or whether fetuses are human beings, that's fine. We can all get philosophical and have a grand old time. The point is one can no longer start or base their argument on the falsehood a person is created the moment a sperm and egg combine.

As far as I'm concerned that is an important point/argument and it has been settled.

On that note it's cat nap time. :)
 
apple0154 said:
He's suffered 400 broken bones so far. Have you even broken a bone? If you could somehow know before you were born you would have to endure 400 broken bones would you want to be born? I sure as hell wouldn't and I've broken a few bones in my life.
Click to expand...

Then go to his website and explain how miserable his life is and that you're willing to help him end it.
 
apple0154 said:
First of all it was you who originally took exception to my argument, not I having taken exception to yours. That means it was my point/argument being discussed and my point/argument was the anti-abortionist nonsense about human life or human beings coming into existence did not occur at the moment the sperm and egg combined. That's it.

After pages and pages of you and others jumping around about "life" and "alive" and "humans" and "residual whatevers" the bottom line was the anti-abortionist argument about a human being coming into existence at the moment a sperm and egg combine was shown to be a lie. That was my argument and I was and am correct.
Click to expand...

I took exception to your idea that an embryo wasn't alive, and we found out that the zygote, even pre-embryo, is indeed alive, let alone the embryo.


The foundation the anti-abortionists rest their entire case on was shown to be erroneous. Their continued "science/DNA proves it" was nothing but the continuation of a blatant lie. But, as I've repeatedly said, the anti-abortionists are known to jump on any wagon, at any time.
Click to expand...

Again, that is not what I "took exception to", apparently, you actually cannot cogently explain what I have been saying. I can explain what you said, you cannot explain what I said. This is because you are deliberately obtuse and have largely been throughout our conversation, which began when I pointed out your extreme and ridiculous view that a thinking person minutes before birth is not a "person" because it had never, in your words only, "carried on the processes of life." It's a preposterous and untenable position that made me being to question your intelligence.
That has been their stock-in-trade for thousands of years. State something outrageous and let others prove them wrong and just as it took centuries to prove some of their more ridiculous claims exactly that it took science time to improve and discover the egg does not fertilize in a moment and no "person fairy" drops by.

That was it. The anti-abortionist argument that science/DNA proves a human being is created or comes into existence at the moment the sperm and egg join is a lie. Science shows us that is clearly not the case.

That's it. That was the argument and it has been concluded in my favor.
Click to expand...
That was not your argument. I asked you when a person became a "person" you stated that at no time in the womb was it a "person" because it was never "alive". You then listed numerous different natural causes of death and said that because the progeny could die in the womb it had never lived. You were wrong, the foundation of your argument no longer exists and you openly talk about the zygote being alive. This is a positive outcome for me, I got you to actually understand that something that you previously thought to never have lived was actually alive.

Now that we have you finally admitting it is a human life created at conception (agreeable to the definition we have been using that notes that conception begins when it begins to grow) we can progress the conversation or not, but not until we got you actually understanding that it was alive could it progress past this minutia.

If one wants to talk about "life" or "humans" coming into existence when cells divide or whether fetuses are human beings, that's fine. We can all get philosophical and have a grand old time. The point is one can no longer start or base their argument on the falsehood a person is created the moment a sperm and egg combine.

As far as I'm concerned that is an important point/argument and it has been settled.

On that note it's cat nap time. :)
Click to expand...

So, basically your answer is "No, Damocles, I cannot restate your argument cogently."

Thanks.
 
Damocles said:
I asked you when a person became a "person" you stated that at no time in the womb was it a "person" because it was never "alive".
Click to expand...

That wasn't the argument. I know this may be an ego cruncher but try to deal with the fact I know what my argument was.

For starters, the meaning of alive was interpreted in different ways. I have always maintained that sperm, eggs and the combination of them may be alive but that are not human beings or human lives anymore than a piece of skin is a human being or a human life. When discussing when that mass of tissue became a human being or human life some folks opined the conversation was moot because as soon as the sperm and egg united it was a human being. In other words, to them, it was pointless to discuss "when" as they believed there was a human being from the get-go.

Again, some folks believed the joining of the sperm and egg created a human being the instant that happened and if that "thing" was alive, regardless of the amount of time, it was a human being. That was what the anti-abortionist argument was based on and while the anti-abortionists kept insisting science/DNA proved them correct the opposite is true. It has to divide and that's the whole point. Until the cell divides it doesn't matter what interpretation one wishes to put on "alive", it is not a human being or a human life. Science has shown the anti-abortionist argument has no merit whatsoever.

Whether you believe you scored points really doesn't matter to me. As far as I'm concerned having shown the anti-abortionist argument, the core point all their arguments are based on, the very essence from which all their arguments spring to be fallacious my "points basket" is overflowing. :)



/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Damocles said:
I took exception to your idea that an embryo wasn't alive, and we found out that the zygote, even pre-embryo, is indeed alive, let alone the embryo.

Again, that is not what I "took exception to", apparently, you actually cannot cogently explain what I have been saying. I can explain what you said, you cannot explain what I said. This is because you are deliberately obtuse and have largely been throughout our conversation, which began when I pointed out your extreme and ridiculous view that a thinking person minutes before birth is not a "person" because it had never, in your words only, "carried on the processes of life." It's a preposterous and untenable position that made me being to question your intelligence.

That was not your argument. I asked you when a person became a "person" you stated that at no time in the womb was it a "person" because it was never "alive". You then listed numerous different natural causes of death and said that because the progeny could die in the womb it had never lived. You were wrong, the foundation of your argument no longer exists and you openly talk about the zygote being alive. This is a positive outcome for me, I got you to actually understand that something that you previously thought to never have lived was actually alive.

Now that we have you finally admitting it is a human life created at conception (agreeable to the definition we have been using that notes that conception begins when it begins to grow) we can progress the conversation or not, but not until we got you actually understanding that it was alive could it progress past this minutia.

So, basically your answer is "No, Damocles, I cannot restate your argument cogently."

Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
apple0154 said:
Again, some folks believed the joining of the sperm and egg created a human being the instant that happened and if that "thing" was alive, regardless of the amount of time, it was a human being. That was what the anti-abortionist argument was based on and while the anti-abortionists kept insisting science/DNA proved them correct the opposite is true. It has to divide and that's the whole point. Until the cell divides it doesn't matter what interpretation one wishes to put on "alive", it is not a human being or a human life. Science has shown the anti-abortionist argument has no merit whatsoever.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Click to expand...

So lets take it slow and step by step....
YOUR WORDS:

"Until the cell divides it doesn't matter what interpretation one wishes to put on "alive"

Question 1...
(After a female egg is fertilized, it becomes known as a zygote.)
If the cell divides, is it proof the zygote is alive.....?

Question 2...

1 micro second before the fertilized cell divides, is the zygote alive ?

YOUR WORDS:
Until the cell divides it doesn't matter what interpretation one wishes to put on "alive",
"it is not a human being or a human life".

Question 3...

What is it, if not human and alive ? (human life)

Question 4...

What is the magical moment that it becomes a human life?


answering these questions should not require a long boring essay, or links to any far left web sites....just tell us simply in your own words...
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
So lets take it slow and step by step....
YOUR WORDS:

"Until the cell divides it doesn't matter what interpretation one wishes to put on "alive"

Question 1...
(After a female egg is fertilized, it becomes known as a zygote.)
If the cell divides, is it proof the zygote is alive.....?

Question 2...

1 micro second before the fertilized cell divides, is the zygote alive ?

YOUR WORDS:
Until the cell divides it doesn't matter what interpretation one wishes to put on "alive",
"it is not a human being or a human life".

Question 3...

What is it, if not human and alive ? (human life)

Question 4...

What is the magical moment that it becomes a human life?


answering these questions should not require a long boring essay, or links to any far left web sites....just tell us simply in your own words...
Click to expand...

bravo said:
So lets take it slow and step by step....
YOUR WORDS:

"Until the cell divides it doesn't matter what interpretation one wishes to put on "alive"

Question 1...
(After a female egg is fertilized, it becomes known as a zygote.)
If the cell divides, is it proof the zygote is alive.....?

Question 2...

1 micro second before the fertilized cell divides, is the zygote alive ?

YOUR WORDS:
Until the cell divides it doesn't matter what interpretation one wishes to put on "alive",
"it is not a human being or a human life".

Question 3...

What is it, if not human and alive ? (human life)

Question 4...

What is the magical moment that it becomes a human life?


answering these questions should not require a long boring essay, or links to any far left web sites....just tell us simply in your own words...
Click to expand...

You posted the web site. The answers to your questions are on the site you posted. Do you usually post and then quote from far left web sites?

It explained (better than I did, I might add) what is considered human life. Your link, not mine. Not a far left web site either.

You disappoint me, Bravo. When I first read the link I thought what a decent, intelligent guy you were. The link clearly stated the position of science.

We live in a world governed by time. As someone so elegantly put it the purpose of time is to avoid everything from happening all at once. :)

Just as the process of fertilization takes up to 24 hours the process of something becoming a human life takes time. It has been determined by science a human life does not pop into existence at the moment a sperm and egg join because it is a process.That has been determined. It is not open for discussion or speculation.

What can be discussed/speculated on is whether one considers the splitting of the cells constitute a human being but the idea a human being or human life comes into existence at the moment a sperm and cell unite just isn't the case. It's a process and before the process is complete, usually one day, there is nothing formed to call a human life. It is a sperm and an egg working together to form something one may call a human life assuming they are working together, of course.

I know you didn't want an essay but it's obvious you just aren't grasping what I and the article have been saying. Until the sperm and the egg produce something there is no human life or human being. That is not open for debate. It has been settled scientifically.

It is a process and the process has to finish and it takes between 22 and 24 hours after the sperm and egg unite.

Let's try an analogy. I want to make an explosion. Say, a pipe bomb. (They tend to be popular among certain folks.) So I gather my pipe and powder and a fuse or other detonator and get to work. I fill the pipe, close the ends and attach the fuse. While I've worked towards making an explosion I haven't made an explosion. When I light the fuse and it's half burnt I still haven't made an explosion. The instant the bomb goes off I have made an explosion.

It was a process which involved hours or days obtaining the material, building the pipe bomb, then planting it. After lighting the fuse and a micro-second before the explosion was there an explosion?

Are you going to argue the micro-second between the time a portion of the powder ignited and the rest ignited, resulting in the pipe bursting, was an explosion?

I hope this has helped.
 
It has been determined by science a human life does not pop into existence at the moment a sperm and egg join because it is a process.That has been determined. It is not open for discussion or speculation.
Click to expand...

Where was this EVER determined, and by WHO?

The moment a sperm and egg join, conception happens, and human life begins. You have shown nothing to contradict that fact of science and biology. You continue to arrogantly post like you have settled this previously, and you have not!

Show evidence to support your contention that life doesn't begin at conception, or shut your lying pie hole! Anyone out there who reads Apples commentary, and thinks he has established something factual, please seek immediate mental evaluation, because you are insane, and need help desperately!
 
Dixie said:
Where was this EVER determined, and by WHO?

The moment a sperm and egg join, conception happens, and human life begins. You have shown nothing to contradict that fact of science and biology. You continue to arrogantly post like you have settled this previously, and you have not!

Show evidence to support your contention that life doesn't begin at conception, or shut your lying pie hole! Anyone out there who reads Apples commentary, and thinks he has established something factual, please seek immediate mental evaluation, because you are insane, and need help desperately!
Click to expand...

Agreed. People can argue all kinds of shit, like when life is valuable or when it is viable, but at conception, you have a living human at its earliest state. It all semantics otherwise.

Its silly to say shit like "ITS NOT ALIVE BECUZZ IT CANT BREATHE ON ITS OWN!!!", or "IT DOESNT HAVE ALL ITS ORGANS SO ITS NOT ALIVE, ITS LIKE A NAIL OR A ROCK!!!".

Its an early form of humanhood. I find it surprising that people try to circumvent this in their pursuit of defending abortion. If you want to defend abortion, do so on merits that make sense. Don't try to make significant events arbitrary.

Everyone who is on this earth had all the programming and potential once their dad fertilized their mom.

And don't give me that "is a tomato see a tomato?" crap, because that's false. Is a germinated tomato seed a tomato plant? Or is it a dead nail?

Argue your abortion shit without changing simple fundamental realities to suit your argument.

The real argument is that since it can't feel at the very earliest stages, and that it has no cognitive abilities for a while, and that it takes up little space in the nother, and that you wouldn't recognize it smiling at you in the first trimester or however long you abortion advocates think, that its not that bad. .

Fine, stick with that, but the thing is a human, once it has its own unique dna structure.
 
Dixie said:
Where was this EVER determined, and by WHO?

The moment a sperm and egg join, conception happens, and human life begins. You have shown nothing to contradict that fact of science and biology. You continue to arrogantly post like you have settled this previously, and you have not!

Show evidence to support your contention that life doesn't begin at conception, or shut your lying pie hole! Anyone out there who reads Apples commentary, and thinks he has established something factual, please seek immediate mental evaluation, because you are insane, and need help desperately!
Click to expand...

(Excerpt)"This position is supported by recent research that has revealed that fertilization itself is not even an instantaneous event, but rather a process that takes 20-22 hours between the time the sperm penetrates the outermost layers of the egg and the formation of a diploid cell." (End)
http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162
That link was posted by Bravo in msg 942

That's a long "moment", 22 - 24 hours long.

I really wish you'd do a little research. Just a little. I bet if you try you'll like it. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top