Does life begin at conception?

obtuseobserver · Sep 5, 2010

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

You're denial that your comment was vaguie and overbroad seemed to beg clarification. At least you're now willing to accept that the comment was in fact vague and ovberbroad.

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

No, it demonstrates my low threshold for bullshit.

connermt said:
[/I]Define life form. That's a term you used, not me.

No. You've used it many times in this thread and you've been fairly slippery with it. That is why I am asking you how you define life.

connermt said:
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).

And I asked you why you would use varying definitions for life be it human or other. You've now further splintered that to say life means different things to philosophers than people of science. Why would you make such a distinction?

connermt said:
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.

Ah, at least you're conceding your inability to distinguish between a human and a part of a human. A hair has the DNA of the person it came from. The fertilized egg has its own DNA. They are not the same to scientists nor to philosophers. Your hair will never have consciousness... the fertized egg will if permitted to live.

connermt said:
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.

I'm satisfied that you've made your position very clear.

You have an inconsistent POV that makes no sense. Trying to hold a hair and an unborn baby as philosophically or biologically equivalent is just plain ridiculous.

But, as I said, at least we are clear on where you're coming from.

connermt · Sep 7, 2010

obtuseobserver:
I originally quoted your comments with responses but I then realized it's futile with a person who has nothing better to do than argue for the sake of arguing. I have answered your questions many, many times. I have never used the term LIFE FORM - that was you (which is why I asked you to define it).
Again, I have answered all your questions with my POV. If you don't like it, or don't agree with it, that's fine. It is what is it.

So, for the last and final time, IMO life (meaning human life nto the life of a cat or a plant, since we are talking about people here - just for your own clarification) doesn't begin at conception (egg fertilization as has been defined here).
Now, there is nothing left for you to argue about!

obtuseobserver · Sep 7, 2010

I understand what you're opinion is. My question was why you cling to it when it is internally inconsistent and has casual regard for scientific fact. No need to answer. You've not done so every time I've asked because your opinion requires contortions rarely seen outside the olympics and your facts are variable accordinding to what you require them to be at that moment. Facts are stubborn things but not as stubborn as your denial of them.

White Rabbit · Sep 9, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
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.

I'm in the so-called "pro-abortion crowd", though I'm not very much into the issue.

I do use the term fetus because it appears to be scientifically correct. I have no problem talking about 'unborn babies' instead if you feel that is a necessary concession to pander to your politics.

Or to put it plainly, I do believe it is entirely reasonable and rational for society to deem it entirely legal to kill or murder unborn babies at the convenience of the mother. As far as I'm concerned, society routinely accepts the killing of human beings in all sorts of circumstances. I don't have any substantial reason to object in principle, only in practice.

That being said, I apologize for misunderstanding the core issue of the thread. I'm not concerned about the definition of beginning of life from a religious perspective. I'm far more interested in the politics of abortion policy.

AK_ID · Sep 10, 2010

White Rabbit said:
Or to put it plainly, I do believe it is entirely reasonable and rational for society to deem it entirely legal to kill or murder unborn babies at the convenience of the mother. As far as I'm concerned, society routinely accepts the killing of human beings in all sorts of circumstances. I don't have any substantial reason to object in principle, only in practice.

Some of my people, including family members, learned the hard way that Germany once considered it "entirely reasonable and rational for society to deem it entirely legal to kill or murder" Jews and other inconvenient and undesirable folks, at the convenience of the state. You might need to rethink your position, White Rabbit, if you ever intend to be able to establish a moral foundation from which to argue with authority (no religion is needed for that). Life is valuable, whether you're speaking of an unborn child, or a 6-year-old child from the J?denstra?e, or an aging grandparent in Pasadena.

obtuseobserver · Sep 12, 2010

White Rabbit said:
I'm in the so-called "pro-abortion crowd", though I'm not very much into the issue.

I do use the term fetus because it appears to be scientifically correct.

It certainly is correct. However it is clinically sterile and it has the tendency to dehumanize the baby. Just curious, ever ask a pregnan t lady how her fetus was doing?

White Rabbit said:
I have no problem talking about 'unborn babies' instead if you feel that is a necessary concession to pander to your politics.

Use whatever word you'd like. My objection was the inaccurate use. People saying it is neither alive nor human... it is a fetus. Clearly it is all three.

White Rabbit said:
Or to put it plainly, I do believe it is entirely reasonable and rational for society to deem it entirely legal to kill or murder unborn babies at the convenience of the mother.

This thread is not about abortion or murder. It is about when life begins.

White Rabbit said:
As far as I'm concerned, society routinely accepts the killing of human beings in all sorts of circumstances. I don't have any substantial reason to object in principle, only in practice.

That's true but there are good reasons in most of those cases. I don't think inconvenience would suffice as a rational basis for killing a person whether born or waiting to be born.

White Rabbit said:
That being said, I apologize for misunderstanding the core issue of the thread. I'm not concerned about the definition of beginning of life from a religious perspective. I'm far more interested in the politics of abortion policy.

well then gho to that thread doofus - geeesh

obtuseobserver · Sep 12, 2010

AK_ID said:
Some of my people, including family members, learned the hard way that Germany once considered it "entirely reasonable and rational for society to deem it entirely legal to kill or murder" Jews and other inconvenient and undesirable folks, at the convenience of the state. You might need to rethink your position, White Rabbit, if you ever intend to be able to establish a moral foundation from which to argue with authority (no religion is needed for that). Life is valuable, whether you're speaking of an unborn child, or a 6-year-old child from the J?denstra?e, or an aging grandparent in Pasadena.

Quite rather, they abandoned natural law. They adopted the principle that morality is a human construct there to serve human needs. The Germans needed Jews, who they regarded as sub-human, to be deasd for the betterment of their society. The killing of Jews was then a civic virtue for the benefit of society at large and NOT MURDER.

AK_ID · Sep 12, 2010

You're right, of course. It wasn't considered murder, but rather a sterile function of the state, something like street sweeping or maintaining bridges. Nevertheless, my point regarding White Rabbit's statement stands uncorrected, and uncorrectable.

obtuseobserver · Sep 12, 2010

Indeed as to both points; you are certainly correct. And that is precisely the danger of sacrificing natural law to the notion that morality is not a gift of nature and nature's god but a fiction invented by man.***

There is an incident I read once in a source book that had collected diary accounts etc regarding the experiences of Wehrmact soldiers. One was an entry of horrified repentence for what he had done during the war.

And here it gets really ugly so if you have sensitive feelings with regard to killing of innocents you'll want to stop right now. I mean it.

The soldier describes carting off bodies of women who had been gassed. Miraculously a newborn had survied and was clutching to his cold naked and dead mother's breast. The soldier walked up to the baby, grabbed it by the heels and smashed its head against the steel bumper of the truck that was taking to bodies away for disposal and threw it it on top of the pile of corposes.

What human can do this with casual disregard?

*** which begs the question, why would man invent a morality that often compells self sacrifice for the benefit of others not even known by the one who gives him or herself up? Why would those early and fundamental principles of morality linger and last for 4000 years? Maybe natural law is a pretty goddamn good thing even if one rejects God?

connermt · Sep 13, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
. My question was why you cling to it when it is internally inconsistent and has casual regard for scientific fact.

As I have said on more than one occasion, there is a difference between what science says is life and what is considered human life. Because of that, there are two differing answers. Not everyone adheres to the same definition.
You don't have to agree with it, but it is what it is.

obtuseobserver · Sep 13, 2010

connermt said:
As I have said on more than one occasion, there is a difference between what science says is life and what is considered human life.

And as I have pointed out you're the only one adopting this view. You aren't even consistent with yourself. Now you've managed to paint yourself into a corner so tightly that I am actually quite amazed.

connermt said:
Because of that, there are two differing answers. Not everyone adheres to the same definition.
You don't have to agree with it, but it is what it is.

I not only don't agree with it but you don't agree with it and it doesn't agree with itself or make any sense.

That's what it is.

What you have tried to do is redefine a term in order to make it fit your arguments (that and you've tried to offer a variety of contradioctory arguments as well) and all that does is make you look silly. Now please stop.

David · Sep 14, 2010

connermt said:
As I have said on more than one occasion, there is a difference between what science says is life and what is considered human life. Because of that, there are two differing answers. Not everyone adheres to the same definition.
You don't have to agree with it, but it is what it is.

Human life is any genetic human that's alive...

connermt · Sep 16, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
And as I have pointed out you're the only one adopting this view. You aren't even consistent with yourself. Now you've managed to paint yourself into a corner so tightly that I am actually quite amazed.

Between you and I, this is true. But you don't speak for everyone. I know many people who battle with this type of concept daily. Just because you don't accept it as reality doesn't mean it isn't reality.
There is no corner - you just don't want to accept what I believe. That's fine.

but you don't agree with it...

Speaking for me makes you crazy. You are so funny!

... it doesn't agree with itself or make any sense.

You have pointed out many times you don't accept/agree/understand it. That's fine. You don't have to.

connermt · Sep 16, 2010

David said:
Human life is any genetic human that's alive...

If that works for you, then great! After all, each one of us have our own opinion of things, right?

obtuseobserver · Sep 16, 2010

connermt said:
Between you and I, this is true. But you don't speak for everyone. I know many people who battle with this type of concept daily. Just because you don't accept it as reality doesn't mean it isn't reality.

No, it means you are battling reality by offering absurd reasons to deny a fact thast you don't like.

connermt said:
There is no corner - you just don't want to accept what I believe. That's fine.

That is because your belief flies in the face of reason.

connermt said:
Speaking for me makes you crazy. You are so funny!

What was saying is that your own arguments cannot be reconciled with each other... or rather most of the arguments. You've made many that often conflict.

connermt said:
If that works for you, then great! After all, each one of us have our own opinion of things, right?

Yup. But some opinions are not worth the time it takes to hear about them.

sargonsin · Nov 4, 2010

Zygote

obtuseobserver said:
life begins at conception.. that's a matter of scientific fact without regard to abortion and with regard to abortion.

unless of course you're asking, "when crafting a legal fiction of when life begins such that abortion may be legal.... what is that point in the unborn baby's life where he is alive and the law protects him as before that point he wasn't 'legally' alive?"

The other parameters fall into your argument and make it silly... I think it odd to use a definition for life that changes according to your preferences

Of course "life" begins at conception .. the zygote is alive .. as much as any other cell ..

The zygote is also "a human cell" so you can claim that it is a "human life" in a manner of speaking .. an alive human cell .. but no more.

The claim that I have trouble with is that the zygote is "a human" .. as clearly it is not.

The zygote is no more "a human" than any other human cells .. (please feel free to offer evidence to the contrary)

As a matter of fact .. the zygote after mitosis (cell division creating two clones of itself) .. these cells continue to divide until the trophoblast is created 100-200 cells

Just the nucleus from any one of these initial cells can be implanted to "create a human" none of these however cells "is a human" and it is funny that no one seems to even want to make this claim even though they claim the zygote is "a human"

Further .. none of the cells in the trophoblast will be part of the born human being created .. the "differentiated cells" (liver spine, heart and so on) created inside the trophoblast known as the embryoblast is what will become the Fetus.

The trophoblast goes on to become the placenta which is discarded "after birth"

So as you can see .. the not only is the initial zygote not "a human" the zygote will never "become" a human either.

David · Nov 4, 2010

sargonsin said:
Of course "life" begins at conception .. the zygote is alive .. as much as any other cell ..

The zygote is also "a human cell" so you can claim that it is a "human life" in a manner of speaking .. an alive human cell .. but no more.

The claim that I have trouble with is that the zygote is "a human" .. as clearly it is not.

The zygote is no more "a human" than any other human cells .. (please feel free to offer evidence to the contrary)

As a matter of fact .. the zygote after mitosis (cell division creating two clones of itself) .. these cells continue to divide until the trophoblast is created 100-200 cells

Just the nucleus from any one of these initial cells can be implanted to "create a human" none of these however cells "is a human" and it is funny that no one seems to even want to make this claim even though they claim the zygote is "a human"

Further .. none of the cells in the trophoblast will be part of the born human being created .. the "differentiated cells" (liver spine, heart and so on) created inside the trophoblast known as the embryoblast is what will become the Fetus.

The trophoblast goes on to become the placenta which is discarded "after birth"

So as you can see .. the not only is the initial zygote not "a human" the zygote will never "become" a human either.

By that logic you're not human ether, being a mere collection of 'human cells', few of which date back to your birth. So I guess anyone that tires of you (or anyone else) can do an abortion then. It's not murder because you're not human!

obtuseobserver · Nov 4, 2010

sargonsin said:
Of course "life" begins at conception .. the zygote is alive .. as much as any other cell ..

That's not in dispute by sane people.

sargonsin said:
The zygote is also "a human cell" so you can claim that it is a "human life" in a manner of speaking .. an alive human cell .. but no more.

An alive human cell is alive and human. Not much of a reach there either.

sargonsin said:
The claim that I have trouble with is that the zygote is "a human" .. as clearly it is not.

Ah. OK. What is it?

oh, that evidence.. a zygote left unmolested and excepting trajedy will continue to grow until it it born. A skin cell, or frankly any other cell or group thereof will not. That makes the zygote uniquely human whereas the cells are merely part of that human.

none of the cells that develop and become the fetus do so without the zygote. the zygote is human and alive. arguments that try to avade this fact are usually efforts to deny the reality of what happens when some one kills that zygote, fetus, baby etc.

Does life begin at conception?

Similar threads