Every baby deserves a chance to Live !

"Life begins at conception" is not my opinion, it's a scientific fact.

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Of course life exists before conception. Nobody is saying life does not exist before conception. This is a strawman argument.

If you do not believe life begins at conception, when does life begin? Please provide scientific evidence that supports your opinion.

How many people have been born using this method? Is this an ethical thing to do? How many people have been born using an artificial womb?

You said the following:

So in your view, a new born baby is a person, but not a human being because it doesn't have the symbiotic organisms (bacteria, single celled animals, mites ect.) require to live? Is that your understanding? So at what age does a person who is a baby become a human being? Does it take minutes or hours, days or months?

This is a thread about abortion. When someone says, "life begins at conception", they are quite obviously talking about the process by which all individual human beings come into existence. They obviously are not saying, being this is not a thread about the beginning of life on the planet, all life forms begin at conception and there is no life before that. They are not saying that the sperm or the egg is not alive, because if they weren't conception would not be possible. It is basic English usage that sometimes words do not need to be included, but are understood. This is known as implied, or implicit. Because this is a thread about abortion, it goes without saying that "life begins at conception" means that human life begins at conception. It is equally implicit that by "human life" I mean "a human life" though in the case of twins, it could be more than one. This is simply a distraction, a deflection, and a parsing of words intended to hide the fact that you know the that life begins at conception is an indisputable fact.

If you want to argue the ridiculous notion that a human life begins before conception, being as this is a thread about abortion we are obviously talking about a human life, then when before conception does life begin? Is the sperm a human life? Is the egg? Please explain to me how any reasonable person could make the mistake of thinking that life does not begin at conception because there was life before conception in a thread which is debating abortion? Why would someone make such an idiotic claim or argument in a thread about abortion? Can you please explain this to me? I'd really like to know.

Now that we know that is not what you meant...that you did not mean a human being comes into existence before they were conceived, please explain to me again at what point in the development of a pregnancy does someone become a human being? It seemed to me that you were saying that even after a person is born, they are not a human being because they do not possess the required symbiotic organism necessary for life. What if a person were born in a completely sterile environment? How long would it take before that person died without the aforementioned organisms? Once that person died, can we say that it wasn't a human being, so who cares? It had no symbiotic organisms which makes it a human. If I understand you correctly, a baby, outside the womb is not, repeat not a human being because it is not a "MULTICELLULAR BIOMECHANICAL CONSTRUCT"? Perhaps you might want to reconsider your definition of what a human being is.

Such as your silly argument that skin cells are human life? No, human skin cells are not human life, they are human skin cells that may or may not be alive. But it is you that brought them into the argument which begs the question, why? Are you trying to argue that each individual human cell is "a human life"? It sure seemed that way when you claimed that I was killing skin cells by typing on my computer and should hold funeral services for the dead skin cells.

All people have a God given right to life. Roe v Wade was a set back in that it has put a limit on that understanding for prenatal life.

This is your argument, don't backpedal and try to blame me for your fallacious strawman arguments.

What irrational desperation is this you speak of? What facts conflict with my beliefs? The facts are on my side. Life begins at conception. This we know is a scientific fact. It's strange how some minds will go into complete scientific denial mode when confronted with science that runs counter to their beliefs.

Now, if you disagree with that, can you tell me, when does life begin? Let's see if you come up with the same answer as your buddy that you are backslapping about what a great job he did...

 

You seem so conflicted. This is your argument that skin cells are humans and you keep trying to pin that strawman argument on me.

Wait, you were just trying to pin your stupid strawman argument on me and now you are mocking me for not falling for it? You are getting tangled up in your own parsing of words. If skin cells are human life then a skin cell is a human life. Try not to be so pedantic when you are being intentionally obtuse.

Yes I did. I posted this link:

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

You are the one confused about life and human life, as you are once again about to make the point that life began "hundreds of millions of years ago.

Well, they all can't be right, which one is your opinion?

See, you are confused. This is a thread about abortion. We are quite obviously talking about human life. How could you make such an epic blunder?

Well according to you 1 in 5 scientific "perspectives" agree with me. I'll have to go back to your post to see which of the other 4 "perspectives" is the silliest.

Yes, you have to click on the link above or in the previous post, or in the post from way the heck back there, it's the same link.

 

So as long as there are terrible problems in the rest of the impoverished world, we just ignore the issues in our own country?

I dealt with this issue in this thread:
Smoking during pregnancy – it's okay if she's getting an abortion, right?

 

I have never claimed that skin cells are humans.

A straw man is where you attribute a claim to your opponent that your opponent did not make and this is exactly what you have done.

You really should try an learn the meaning of the words you are use.

Do not blame me that you can not figure out the difference between the noun form of the word human and the descriptive adjective form ?

It appears you still are confused over the meaning of the term "human life" despite it being explained to you numerous times?

Since you seem to be having such trouble understanding the term "human life" I will try to keep it simple.

Life is "something that is alive". You admit that a skin cell is "alive" therefore it is life"

If you would like a dictionary definition.

Life (noun)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/life

You see now ? A living human cell is not dead, it is not inanimate. It is Life !

So a living skin cell is "Life"

In the term "human life" the term human is a "descriptive adjective". A descriptive adjective describes a noun. In the term "human life" the word life is the noun and the term human is the descriptive adjective.

The term human describes what kind of life it is. Is a "human skin cell" human ? Of course it is. Otherwise it would be called something other than a "human skin cell"

Is that skin cell "life" Yes. Is this skin cell "human life". YES YES YES.

Hopefully this was clear enough so that we never have to have this conversation again. Let me know if there is something that needs further explanation.

 

Oh please no. I don't ever want to see someone ever go through so much trouble trying to backpedal again.

 

did you not pass biology in school?
a skin cell isn't an individual of a species distinguishable from any other individual of that species the unborn are there for as an individual human they deserves every basic human right as any other individual human does

 

And with those rights would come the same restrictions as any other "person".

 

I know where you are going with that statement and it doesn't apply
she gave permission for that fetus to live within her when she gave consent for sex this has been established over and over again as fact when you give consent to an action you also give consent to the consequences of that action if you are informed of those consequences
a women killing her unborn would be the same as a landlord killing his tenant and claiming he was just shooting an intruder

 

That is not the issue, the issue being that the poster Giftedone replied to keeps making the same mistake of confusing the human noun with the human adjective, and proclaiming that life starts at conception, which is a complete load of crap, and when it is pointed out to them they try to claim we are the ones making strawman arguments.

 

so you are a science denier
a fertilized egg is an individual human
it meets all scientific criteria to be classified as an alive individual member of that species

 

Care to give those scientific criteria?
Brainwave?
Heatbeat?

 

since we are using scientific criteria lets use the scientific definition of a living thing

Living thing
Definition
Any organism or a living form that possesses or shows the characteristics of life or being alive
Supplement
Living things are those that display the following characteristics
•an organized structure, being made up of a cell or cells
•requires energy to survive or sustain existence
•ability to reproduce
•ability to grow
•ability to metabolize
•ability to respond to stimuli
•ability to adapt to the environment
•ability to move
•ability to respire
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Living_thing

don't see brain waves or heart beat part of the scientific criteria do you?

 

So then nothing living can ever be killed? Is killing a hair follicle wrong in your mind?
A cell can respire? In the womb? At 1 millisecond old?

 

There are a number I would like to do away with.

Not because I enjoy killing people.

It's because I hate those who kill in the name of GOD.

By the way if a GOD exists and this is it's PLAN......WE NEED TO FIRE THIS GOD'S A$$!!!

AboveAlpha

 

That's why education is so important and at an early age so we don't have to read or listen to such idiocy.

AboveAlpha

 

It is HOPELESS trying to explain such things to you because you don't have the education necessary to understand the Biology.

You want to discuss ETHICS....that is another thing.

Do I believe all BABIES have a RIGHT to live?

No...no I don't.

If you are born without a heart or brain....you don't have a RIGHT to live.

AboveAlpha

 

No I am actually scientifically correct, life does not start at conception, life started millions of years ago and life cannot start at conception because life can only come from life ergo what ever there is prior to conception also has to be alive, it is people like you who wrongfully claim "life begins at conception" that are the science deniers.

Nope

So you are trying to tell me that a single cell fertilized ovum meets the criteria of a human being as follows -

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Primates
Suborder: Anthropoidea
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: sapiens

Let me know if you are struggling with any of those words up there I can provide you with definitions.

 

What you mean is, I provided scientific proof that life begins at conception and you don't have the education necessary to dispute the science.

 

completely and utterly wrong as usual, informed consent is only valid to the point that the person, by word or action, explicitly says "no", and even if the consequences have already occurred there is nothing to stop a person returning their property or themselves to the state they were prior to the consequences.

You, of course, will say that if a woman consents to sexual intercourse with a man, then she has consented to the condition of pregnancy that may be subsequent to sexual intercourse if or when a sperm joins with an ovum and the fertilized ovum then attaches itself to the woman's uterus, thereby triggering the condition of pregnancy in a woman's body. However, the law does not require that people who consent to an action must necessarily consent to conditions that are subsequent to that action. For example, people who consent to sexual intercourse and subsequently contract HIV are not deemed to have consented to contracting HIV. To the contrary, they are free to eradicate HIV from their bodies. Similarly, people who consent to smoke and then find that they have lung cancer in their bodies are not required to consent to lung cancer in their bodies. Much to the contrary, they are free to eradicate the lung cancer.

Of course, the state does not have an interest in protecting the AIDS virus or cancer cells. However, the fact that the fetus is a state-protected entity, or even legally declared to be an unborn human being with the same rights as a born human being, does not give the fetus a right to transform radically a woman's body and liberty, since no born person has such a right. To the contrary, a woman has a right to eradicate the pregnant condition in her body even if she consented to an action--sexual intercourse--that was an action upon which acquiring the condition depended.

Again more rubbish, a woman getting an abortion would be the same as a landlord killing his tenant for attacking and injuring him .. strange how you always try to gloss over the fact that ALL pregnancies cause injuries.

 

Do I really need to explain to you that Life exists BEFORE CONCEPTION?

A CARROT is alive.

AboveAlpha....p.s...Life is not that big of a deal.

 

Except of course for the fact that even you own link does not support your false claim that life begins at conception, as has been pointed out to you before . .try actually reading what you link to.

 

Do I have to explain to you that everyone knows that life exists before conception?

 

Obviously they don't or else they would not be arguing that Life begins at Conception!!!

LOL!!!

AboveAlpha