Does life begin at conception?

connermt · Aug 30, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
Something that has no business in this discussion

Then stop bringing it up for cryin' out loud, silly boy!

I suppose it does. However that's not relevent. I can get people who'll tell me that left is right but that doesn't make it so.

You are approaching a dangerous distinction between truth and belief. 1+1=2 is true, but I could choose to believe that 1+1=orange flying elephant if I want. And, I can eventually believe it to be true. Thus, you need to know who you are talking to in these types of discussion (and for the record I know 1+1 doesn't = orange flying elephant. Everyone knows that it equals blue ping pong playing monkeys)

The fact is that conception creates a new life.

Again, it depends on how you define life vs human (conscious) life (beyond biology).

It doesn't vary person to person except for people who do not know what it means.

You're lucky that you don't know any people who fall outside of this concept. Unfortunately, I have had many interactions with people who refer to more religious definitions other than biological definitions. I find it's best to determine whom I'm speaking with in that regard.

Again, conception has a definition. When egg and sperm unite and create a new life - that is conception.

And for the last time, I didn't dispute that. I wanted to know how a specific person defines it for themselves. Nothing more.

No, there isn't[a difference in human life vs. life].

I disagree as stated previously. You don't agree with me, that's fine.

Consciousness does not define life.

Not life, but conscious human life. Big difference.

I suppose not when you change you position on the topic willy nilly.

Sorry I'm going too fast for ya. I'll try to slow down in the future.

obtuseobserver · Aug 30, 2010

once you get yourself untied from that bunch of knots maybe see a chiropractor

AK_ID · Aug 30, 2010

ASalemGhost said:
and if they lose the child before birth, they grieve. No one grieves for a piece of tissue.

Exactly. And in some states, killing a pregnant mother and her unborn child, regardless of how far along the pregnancy, earns a fellow a double murder charge (as it should be). Try to get a clear explanation of that from the pro-abortion folks.

obtuseobserver · Aug 31, 2010

AK_ID said:
Exactly. And in some states, killing a pregnant mother and her unborn child, regardless of how far along the pregnancy, earns a fellow a double murder charge (as it should be). Try to get a clear explanation of that from the pro-abortion folks.

one of the first murder trials I worked had those facts

dead mom.... killer was probably not aware she was pregnant (but that doesn't matter)

AK_ID · Aug 31, 2010

Because there were two dead humans involved?

obtuseobserver · Aug 31, 2010

Actually the mom was human.,... it is as yet unknown to science (or rather is subject to widely varying opinion) what that strange ball of cells in her uterus was. Crazy people of faith hold a wideswpread opinion that it is an unborn baby but as they are religious and therefore insane that opinion must be rejected as pure nonsense.

A question for the ages AK_ID. Perhaps we will never know.

connermt · Aug 31, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
once you get yourself untied from that bunch of knots maybe see a chiropractor

Being clever doesn't seem to be a gift that their god gave his believers. Now the ability to think they are clever...that he gave in spades

j/k

obtuseobserver · Aug 31, 2010

why is the definition of life variable according to what life form you are looking at?

why is "consciousness" the definining moment?

when does this occur?

Because comatose and persistently vegatative people fail your definition how do you square that?

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor? It says, in essence, the more exceptions you need to carve out for your theory (or definition) to make sense the more likely it is wrong.

Life is not a matter of opinion. Life is or it isn't. The fertilized egg meets the scientific definition of life. Why would you abandon objective scientific proof and rely on nothing more than your opinion on such an important issue?

connermt · Sep 1, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
why is the definition of life variable according to what life form you are looking at?

why is "consciousness" the definining moment?

when does this occur?

Because comatose and persistently vegatative people fail your definition how do you square that?

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor? It says, in essence, the more exceptions you need to carve out for your theory (or definition) to make sense the more likely it is wrong.

Life is not a matter of opinion. Life is or it isn't. The fertilized egg meets the scientific definition of life. Why would you abandon objective scientific proof and rely on nothing more than your opinion on such an important issue?

You have made your point many, many, many times in this thread. We get it.
Life is not a matter of opinion....? It depends on how one defines it. You like to stick with the scientific/biological reason. That's fine. Not everyone believes that way. Saying you don't agree that this is right doesn't negate the fact that not everyone agrees with you. Get over it.

David · Sep 1, 2010

connermt said:
You have made your point many, many, many times in this thread. We get it.
Life is not a matter of opinion....? It depends on how one defines it. You like to stick with the scientific/biological reason. That's fine. Not everyone believes that way. Saying you don't agree that this is right doesn't negate the fact that not everyone agrees with you. Get over it.

And just because people chose to override science with opinion to fit their political agenda doesn't make them right. Science is science, even if it's inconvenient.

obtuseobserver · Sep 1, 2010

@ connermt

It does depend on how one defines life if you wish to call that life something that it isn't.

When you trip all over yourself coming up with a definition that requires many explanations and exceptions in order to meet your needs it is a pretty good indicator that your definition is not a very good one.

You refuse to answer my questions because they sink your battleship and force you to concede that your opinion is a poor reflection of the reality in front of you.

connermt · Sep 2, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
@ connermt

It does depend on how one defines life if you wish to call that life something that it isn't.

I agree. I never once said I agreed with those many definitions of life, just pointing out what you don't seem to want to understand: when it comes to this arena, not everyone agrees when human life begins.

You refuse to answer my questions...

The only question I saw was 'do you think life begins at conception'. Which I answered pages ago. If you had a different question, it was hidden in your rant and I missed it. Feel free to re-post it. If you don't, then stop complaining about me not answering it.

connermt · Sep 2, 2010

David said:
And just because people chose to override science with opinion to fit their political agenda doesn't make them right. Science is science, even if it's inconvenient.

I agree. That happens a lot in religious circles. Luckily I removed myself from that group years ago when 'just because' didn't answer any of my questions.

obtuseobserver · Sep 2, 2010

one last effort

why is the definition of life variable according to what life form you are looking at?

why is "consciousness" the definining moment?

when does this occur?

Because comatose and persistently vegatative people fail your definition how do you square that?

Life is not a matter of opinion. Life is or it isn't. The fertilized egg meets the scientific definition of life. Why would you abandon objective scientific proof and rely on nothing more than your opinion on such an important issue?

White Rabbit · Sep 3, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
one last effort

why is the definition of life variable according to what life form you are looking at?

why is "consciousness" the definining moment?

when does this occur?

Because comatose and persistently vegatative people fail your definition how do you square that?

Life is not a matter of opinion. Life is or it isn't. The fertilized egg meets the scientific definition of life. Why would you abandon objective scientific proof and rely on nothing more than your opinion on such an important issue?

I see no problem with admitting that 'life' begins with conception - and legally permitting abortion. The two concepts are entirely different - one is a scientific determination, the other is a political one. There is no reason the two need or ought to be identical.

Indeed, I've always considered the "life begins at conception" position of the anti-abortion set to be a null argument. Abortion isn't legal because we are pretending that a fetus isn't alive. That's absurd.

connermt · Sep 3, 2010

White Rabbit said:
I see no problem with admitting that 'life' begins with conception - and legally permitting abortion. The two concepts are entirely different - one is a scientific determination, the other is a political one. There is no reason the two need or ought to be identical.

Agreed.
I find it interesting how many religious people (meant in general, not directed to you WR) swarm to science when it tends to uplift their cause, then have nothing good to say about science when it contradicts their religion and religious views.
Seems hypocritical in a sense.

obtuseobserver · Sep 3, 2010

White Rabbit said:
I see no problem with admitting that 'life' begins with conception - and legally permitting abortion. The two concepts are entirely different - one is a scientific determination, the other is a political one. There is no reason the two need or ought to be identical.

Indeed, I've always considered the "life begins at conception" position of the anti-abortion set to be a null argument. Abortion isn't legal because we are pretending that a fetus isn't alive. That's absurd.

I noted earlier in the thread that I was limiting my comments to the question of life and was not inviting a discussion on the legality of abortion. So yes, agreed. They are very different discussions.

However, I do believe many in the pro-abortion crowd do employ terms like fetus, zygote etc because it makes it easier to stomach their support of abortion. It is easier to kill a fetus than a baby.

connermt said:
Agreed.
I find it interesting how many religious people (meant in general, not directed to you WR) swarm to science when it tends to uplift their cause, then have nothing good to say about science when it contradicts their religion and religious views.
Seems hypocritical in a sense.

Vague and overbroad.

Science and religion have different purposes that operate independently of each other.

Just for fun, where does science contradict religion and religious views?

FTR, I am not a literalist nor are most Christians.

Care to answer the questions in post #54 or are you concerned that your faith will be contradicted by scientific fact?

connermt · Sep 4, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
Vague and overbroad.

HAHA - no not at all.
Religious people like science (or whatever) when it helps their cause, but when it goes against their cause, they are quick to change their tune.

Care to answer the questions in post #54

You didn't use the QUOTE BUTTON, so I wasn't sure to whom it was directed. If it's directed to me, the question makes no sense as that's nothing I claimed. Please clarify (and make sure you choose your words wisely).

obtuseobserver · Sep 4, 2010

connermt said:
HAHA - no not at all.
Religious people like science (or whatever) when it helps their cause, but when it goes against their cause, they are quick to change their tune.

Interestingly enough "religious people" do not have a homogenous opinion on everything. Saying, "religious people" is inherently vague and overbroad.

connermt said:
You didn't use the QUOTE BUTTON, so I wasn't sure to whom it was directed. If it's directed to me, the question makes no sense as that's nothing I claimed. Please clarify (and make sure you choose your words wisely).

The conversation has developed from the start to encompas other ideas. You appeared to have claimed that life started at consciousness. As such I asked you a series of questions... I'll ask them yet again.... (as for the choose your words wisely... that was David's comment to you with regard to the questions below which have been addressed to you several times)

why is the definition of life variable according to what life form you are looking at? (you kept distinguishing between life and human life. You said...

connermt said:
Again, it depends on how you define life vs human (conscious) life (beyond biology).

"life" has an objective scientific definition. The distinction you are trying to draw doesn't make any sense.

why is "consciousness" the definining moment?

when does this occur?

Because comatose and persistently vegatative people fail your definition how do you square that?

Life is not a matter of opinion. Life is or it isn't. The fertilized egg meets the scientific definition of life. Why would you abandon objective scientific proof and rely on nothing more than your opinion on such an important issue?

connermt · Sep 5, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
Interestingly enough "religious people" do not have a homogenous opinion on everything.

I think that deserves a "No duh?!?" Thank you for stating the obvious

The fact that you feel the need to state that shows your incessant need to say anything.

why is the definition of life variable according to what life form you are looking at?

Define life form. That's a term you used, not me.

The distinction you are trying to draw doesn't make any sense.

Again, "No duh?!?" You are looking at it specifically from a scientific stand point. Which is fine. And is why you are confused. There's a distinct difference between the scientific definition (biological life) and the philosophical definition (human life). Which is what was meant originally.
One cell fertilizing another is life in biological terms (as is on skin cell, or one muscle cell), but isn't yet human life (in the philosophical sense).
Thus, IMO, 'human life' doesn't start at contraception (fertilization or the act of sex).
Now then, you can continue to spout all your "well, according to science it's life" internet research all you want. That's not in dispute to me. But, to me, that's not what the issue is about.
Meaning (so that you are clear) a fertilized cell is no more human life than the hair I just had cut and swept up 35 minutes ago.

why is "consciousness" the definining moment?

Explained above.

when does this occur?

A question I don't have an exact answer to. For me, it would be most likely when the organism develops a nervous system, and not before.

Because comatose and persistently vegatative people fail your definition how do you square that?

No they don't.

Now then, if you don't share these ideas/concepts, that's fine. The thread was "does life begin at conception?", not "obtuseobserver says life starts at conception, and it will tell you why it's right and you're wrong if you disagree with it".
Satisfied or not, that's my answer to your questions.

Does life begin at conception?

Similar threads