When Does Life End?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

This really is about person-hood and not life. I am pro-choice and I KNOW that mechanistic human life begins at the point of conception. The question is, when does that mechanistic life become an individual worthy of protection from abortion.

We know these truths to be self-evident. We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them... LIFE!

The individual has an unalienable right to life, it is a self-evident truth. It is NOT dependent upon your determination of worthiness, that is precisely what "unalienable" means.

 

[apple0154]

It seems to me, the debate is being centered around "brain activity" and not the human condition. The reason we oppose abortion is not because a brain is destroyed, it is because human life is destroyed. I think it is dangerous for society to start using "brain activity" as a criteria for what is and isn't human life, because there is a slippery slope. What's next? If someone doesn't possess the pre-required level of IQ,we can have them exterminated? ...Hell, most of the lefties on this forum would be TOAST!

Why can't we be intellectually honest enough to admit what human life is, and stop trying to create all of these false criteria to re-factor what is human? Is there a fundamental reason we need to set aside common sense and what biology tells us, other than an agenda-driven liberal concept that needs to be met?

The problem is over 50% of conceptions spontaneously abort. Whether it's nature's way or God's way what ever or who ever is responsible doesn't hold much value for a human life if conceptions are human beings.

Is that the standard we want to apply to human life, to human beings?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And it is also illogical to imbue that living thing with person-hood on par with you or I.

Well it's illogical to imbue YOU with personhood on par with ME! I am a much better person than you! Smarter, stronger, wittier, better looking.... across the board, I trump your ass. So does that mean we can exterminate you?

 

[Timshel]

and zygote meets every scientifically accepted "definition" of life.

It does not. Definitions of life are absent from many biology dictionaries and there is plenty of discussion on why defining it should be avoided.

Your argument is bordering on dixie saying "evolution is just a theory"

Nope.

We have found life present where we once thought it was impossible. We once thought life ended when the heart stopped, but medical advancements have shown that the heart can be easily be restarted so long as the brain does not die.

The definitions of life and death are in a continual state of change. Again, all science can do is tell us whether something meets the definition. It may inform our definition but it can not define life by itself.

That is what you fail to understand and why you are a retard just like Dixie. Notice who's on your side?

 

[Socrtease]

We know these truths to be self-evident. We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them... LIFE!

The individual has an unalienable right to life, it is a self-evident truth. It is NOT dependent upon your determination of worthiness, that is precisely what "unalienable" means.

The document you quote is not binding on a single person or state in this country. It was a divorce document. In the 18th century most people still believed in the idea of quickening, the 40 days after the conception that the soul enters the body. I have never seen ANYTHING from the time of our founding that indicates they thought all fetuses were individuals on par with en vivo human beings.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The problem is over 50% of conceptions spontaneously abort. Whether it's nature's way or God's way what ever or who ever is responsible doesn't hold much value for a human life if conceptions are human beings.

Is that the standard we want to apply to human life, to human beings?

Doesn't matter... if it aborted, it WAS living! If it WAS living, it had to be some form of living organism. If it was the result of a male human sperm and female human egg, it was a living human organism. If it existed in the state of being as such, it was a "human being." What happened to it after that, doesn't matter.

 

[Socrtease]

Well it's illogical to imbue YOU with personhood on par with ME! I am a much better person than you! Smarter, stronger, wittier, better looking.... across the board, I trump your ass. So does that mean we can exterminate you?

This is a strawman, but I believe sometimes that you have the logical capacity to see them as the same. It's a stupid comparison and you know it, but now you will go on and argue it as if this condition exists now. Go ahead dumb ass, get on with it.

 

[DamnYankee]

This really is about person-hood and not life. I am pro-choice and I KNOW that mechanistic human life begins at the point of conception. The question is, when does that mechanistic life become an individual worthy of protection from abortion. The western world is for the most part Cartesian, Je pense, donc je suis. Most pro-lifers want a world that says "I will someday think, therefore I am now." Some pro-choices believe that until feet out, the mother can do with their child, and at some point a child is what it is, she can do what she wants. The truth is, the lionshare of abortions in this country are performed before 9 weeks. All but 1% are performed within 20 weeks of conception. That does not make good press for the Pro-life crowd so they try like hell to equate the aborted fetus with a three year old child, on an emotional level. In contrast, the pro-choice crowd tries to make it seem like all that is happening is the elimination of a few cells. That's not true either, because I have heard my childrens heart beats at the first doctors appointment all three times. Abortion should be the last worst choice a woman has to make. It should not be done lightly, and I personally think that if a woman has more than 2 abortions in her life for anything other than real medical reasons, they should cut her tubes while they are there. Abortion is NOT birth control. The truth is, countries, including ours, have made abortion illegal. The cost has been great. Romania had a HUGE number of orphans which were in the custody of the state. The orphanages were shit holes, and the children were mistreated. This country dealt with the cost of poor women getting back alley abortions and then having to get medical care on the state's dime for complications arising from it. I also KNOW that if abortion were illegal now, and the government could somehow enforce the law, as soon as the states had to start taking care of children given up at birth by the bio-mom, there would be an outcry at the expense of that. Not all those 1.3 million children which would ultimately be born would be adopted. Couple that with the increase in child abuse, neglect, and crime committed by kids that would not have otherwise been with us, the unintended consequences would be costly. Both sides of this issue have unrealistic attitudes about it. Neither side really sees the full cost of their beliefs. The system is not perfect now, but until we are a society that is willing to care for unwanted children in much larger numbers than we do now, there is no other solution.

So why don't you libtards support the original Roe decision that limited abortions after the first 12 weeks?

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

That is what you fail to understand and why you are a retard just like Dixie. Notice who's on your side?

Dixie is not on my side, you are on my side. I am agreeing with your principles, I do not think you are going about arguing this in the right way.

This really is about person-hood and not life. I am pro-choice and I KNOW that mechanistic human life begins at the point of conception. The question is, when does that mechanistic life become an individual worthy of protection from abortion.

thank you.

 

[Timshel]

Taking in oxygen and nutrients, converting them to ATP and cell matter, and excreting waste products. *shrug*

Fail!

The zygote takes in oxygen and nutrients from its mother much like someone on life support.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The document you quote is not binding on a single person or state in this country. It was a divorce document. In the 18th century most people still believed in the idea of quickening, the 40 days after the conception that the soul enters the body. I have never seen ANYTHING from the time of our founding that indicates they thought all fetuses were individuals on par with en vivo human beings.

Human beings are human beings, the stage of development doesn't alter what something is. As for the document I quoted, it's nice to know you reject the founding principle on which this nation stands... that explains a hell of a lot about your politics!

 

[DamnYankee]

Fail!

The zygote takes in oxygen and nutrients from its mother much like someone on life support.

Fail? How ironic. You just admitted that the zygote is living.

 

[Timshel]

Dixie is not on my side, you are on my side. I am agreeing with your principles, I do not think you are going about arguing this in the right way.

No, much like Dixie you are splitting hairs and acting like a retard.

This really is about person-hood and not life. I am pro-choice and I KNOW that mechanistic human life begins at the point of conception. The question is, when does that mechanistic life become an individual worthy of protection from abortion.

In other words, philosophically (which informs politics and ethics), life does not begin at conception.

The ironic thing, is that any scientific definition must be based on philosophy as well.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, much like Dixie you are splitting hairs and acting like a retard.

In other words, philosophically (which informs politics and ethics), life does not begin at conception.

The ironic thing, is that any scientific definition must be based on philosophy as well.

No one is splitting hairs! When conception takes place, a human life begins! That is simple biological fact, and nothing you can ever say will nullify that fact. Philosophize all you like, it still doesn't change the biological facts. That is not me splitting hairs, that is you denying what biology says. Are you a science denier?

 

[Timshel]

The zygote takes in oxygen and nutrients from its mother much like someone on life support.

Fail? How ironic. You just admitted that the zygote is living.

Nope. Someone who is on life support and brain dead, is dead.

 

[Timshel]

No one is splitting hairs! When conception takes place, a human life begins! That is simple biological fact, and nothing you can ever say will nullify that fact. Philosophize all you like, it still doesn't change the biological facts. That is not me splitting hairs, that is you denying what biology says. Are you a science denier?

It's not a fact. At conception it meets your definition of life. That's all you have. Your definition is just something you fabricated. It is not a fact at all. The only facts can be whether your definition works. I am pointing out that it does not work in application to the brain dead, unless you wish to argue that they are alive and should be treated that way.

 

[DamnYankee]

Point of order, Roe decision:

(a) [Abortions should not be unreasonably restricted in the first trimester] For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) [Abortions may be restricted in the second trimester.] For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) [Abortions may be banned in the third trimester except where medically necessary.] For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/410/113/case.html#164

 

[DamnYankee]

Nope. Someone who is on life support and brain dead, is dead.

Then why would they be on life support?

 

[apple0154]

In absence of human intervention or a medical anomaly, the unborn will develop into a human being.

One of a couple libertarian arguments is that we do not have the right to deprive this person of their right to life, even though they may at one instance lack all that we later come to ascribe to personhood.

They are a lifeform that will be a person, why then would they not have the right to be born?

How is this different than eliminating anyone else based on their age?

The majority of time a fertilized cell will not develop into a human being so we're back to the question of when is it reasonable to conclude an unborn will develop into a born human being. If we say a human being comes into existence the moment a cell is fertilized then we also have to say the majority of human beings do not progress to the birth stage.

That's what I find cheapens the designation of human being. Something that comes into existence for an hour or a day is equal to something that has been born?

Also, many pro-life advocates believe if a pregnancy will result in severe damage to the woman she should have the right to abort. That flies in the face of one of the core principals our society is built on and that's equality.

The vast majority of "problem" pregnancies are due to the woman having a faulty body; uncontrolled diabetes and high blood pressure. If the woman is likely to lose a kidney to high blood pressure or suffer damage to her eyes due to diabetes does that give her the right to murder another human being if we assume the unborn are human beings?

Furthermore, if a precedent is set where a woman can kill her offspring if her life is in danger then how would the following scenario unfold: A woman and her 10-year old son are standing on a balcony of a burning building waiting for the fire truck to rescue them. The balcony is old and starting to come away for the building wall. As the fire progresses the wall will weaken further and the balcony will collapse? Is she permitted to throw her son off the balcony to certain death thereby reducing the weight on the balcony in the hopes of saving her own life?

Classifying the unborn as human beings can only be accomplished by undoing all the things we, as a society, worked so hard to correct, exceptions and two classes of human beings. How could anyone condone a person with the faulty body having the right to kill an innocent human being? Either we must insist the woman risk injury and possible death or we start down that infamous road of one person being a little more human than the other and we have sufficient history books to tell us that is not where we want to go.

 

[Timshel]

Then why would they be on life support?

Because, that is what we call those machines. Once again, you guys revert to splitting hairs over stupid trivial bullshit.

If you are arguing that the brain dead are still alive, then fine. But, then why do they not deserve the protection you demand for a zygote? Or should they be protected in the same way?