Question: Does life start at birth or conception?

Don't you just love semantics? lmao

 

I do know that, but it is an argument that pro-lifers use and so needs to be debunked.

 

going to have to ask you to put this a little bit simpler because what you have written here has confused me.

Fear of death is not the only justification for the use of deadly force in self-defence, currently the states recognize three clear justifications;

1. when one is threatened with death
2. when one is threatened with a serious bodily injury (defined as damage or loss of use of an organ or limb for a protracted period of time, such as six weeks)
3. the invasion of one's liberty, such as in kidnaping, rape, or slavery

your next sentence still alludes to consent to sex = consent to pregnancy and I still disagree that it does, every bit of research I have done only shows that when a woman continues with a pregnancy she is giving implied consent to the fetus to use her body to sustain its life.
I really do urge you to read this contributory negligence I would quote it but it is under copywrite so I cannot legally do so, it really does explain how contributory negligence is not a valid argument in pregnancy and abortion.

Legally when she gives birth .. however, I would agree to a compromise that once mental life is reached it could be said that she has consented to the fetus remaining.

My answer would be it depends, there are many reason why a woman may not be able to get an abortion when she wishes .. though under the scenario you offered then I would say that she has consented to the pregnancy, however this does not legally mean she cannot get an abortion.

In my opinion, none at all.
What needs to be looked at is the actual number of women who would elect to abort after a certain time period, one can quite easily assume that a woman who carries a pregnancy passed 21 weeks in fact wants to be pregnant and give birth, as evidence to support this I turn to Canada where there are no restrictions on abortion at all, and yet we find in comparison to the US that their late term abortion rate is lower, this just does not equate to the pro-life fallacy that if all restriction on abortion were lifted it would result in more elective late term abortions.

Yes, that would fall under self-defence .. an argument I use in favor of abortion

Agreed, that point would be the mental life boundary, and I truly believe that if funding restrictions were removed then there would only be abortions after 12 weeks for life threats and fetal disabilities incompatible with life. .. I cannot prove that of course, but can point to Canada as an example.

 

"Life" is irrelevant. Human life is the standard. Don't kill that spider in your bathtub.

 

As I have posted a reflexive PAIN reaction means nothing without a Consciousness or Sentience to perceive it even if a Fetus or Body does.

A Brain Dead Human Being's body will react to damage to the body in a reflexive action but their is no consciousness to perceive the pain.

Same thing for a Fetus that has not begun Higher Brain Functions and even this is not full sentience and it starts about the second week into the 3rd Trimester.

AboveAlpha

 

"Question: Does life start at birth or conception?"

I thought life started with Adam and Eve?


.

 

Good point!

Looks like somebody's god didn't think "life" starts at conception...he started it fully grown!!!!!

 

Well....we know at an Atomic/Molecular Level that all existing species of Life on Earth evolved from a Single Celled Life Form.

Now exactly HOW do we know this?

We know it because of Viral DNA Encoding existing in all Genomes of all species of Life on Earth.

BEFORE LIFE in the form of a Single Celled Animal existed on Earth there existed VIRUSES.

Now a VIRUS IS NOT ALIVE!!! A Virus does not fit the criteria of what is life as a Virus cannot reproduce on it's own. As well the men who won the Nobel Prize for their work in Virology WON THE NOBEL IN THE CHEMISTRY CATEGORY NOT BIOLOGY.

The reason they won the Nobel for their work in Virology in the Chemistry category is a VIRUS IS NOT ALIVE thus this is why they did not win in the Biology Category.

A Virus SHOWS US....just how close the LIVING is to the NON-LIVING....as a Virus has DNA just like a Living Cell Does but unlike a Living Cell a Virus cannot reproduce on it's own as a Virus tricks a Living Cell into thinking it is Food or Oxygen and the Living Cell allows it inside the cell.

The Virus then reprograms the Living Cells Genome by the Virus Encoding it's own DNA into the Genome of the Living Cell. This causes the Living Cell to use it's own selves raw material to produce many, many Virus to the point so many exist within the Cell the Cell Membrane ruptures and explodes throwing the Virus inside it all over in a manner that helps the Virus spread to other Living Cells.

Anyways....we have mapped THOUSANDS of Life Forms Genomes including our Own as the Human Genome Mapping Project finished mapping the Human Genome Years ago.....and when we compare all existing fully mapped Species Genomes we find one single thing in COMMON.

Now every species Genome has a multitude of Viral DNA encoding within them and Humans have Millions of such Viral DNA Encoding but what we found is ALL SPECIES HAVE ONE SPECIFIC VIRAL DNA ENCODING EXISTING WITH THEM.

So...the ONLY way that all species Genomes could have one identical Viral DNA Encoding within ALL of them is if all Species EVOLVED from a Single Celled Organism which had been infected by a Virus and when it reproduced by Mitosis at least one half survived and this now Single Celled Organism which had it's Genome Encoded with Viral DNA passed this Viral Encoding down to ALL SPECIES OF LIFE AS LIFE EVOLVED FROM IT!!!

There is no other way this could have happened.

And just for good measure....due to the size of the Universe it is literally a MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY for Earth to be the only Planet with Life....so Life could have begun somewhere else in the Universe a LONG TIME AGO...in a Galaxy Far...Far...AWAY!!!

AboveAlpha

 

The only study I know of that alludes to fetal pain perception as early as 20 weeks is one conducted by Dr. Kanwaljeet Annad, which has been roundly disputed by the majority of subject specialist. In order to get a sound basis of this issue one has to first and foremost have an understand of what pain is, The most commonly accepted definition is - "An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage or described in terms of
such damage. ... Activity induced in the nociceptor and nociceptive pathways by a noxious stimulus is not pain, which is always a psychological state, even though we may well appreciate that pain most often has a proximate
physical cause.

The Institute of Medicine Committee on Pain, Disability, and Chronic Illness Behavior reported “the experience of pain is more than a simple sensory process. It is a complex perception involving higher levels of the central nervous system, emotional states, and higher order mental processes.”

Much of the above simply does not exist in a fetus prior to 24 weeks ... pain is foremost a psychological response, for example, if I were to ask you what it feels like to be strangled, unless you have experienced strangulation, then it is virtually impossible for you to tell me what it feels like. Pain is very much a learned process. What our bodies do when they encounter something that 'hurts' us is nerve pulses cause muscles to contract and react and as such drawing the body part away from the thing that is causing damage to tissue etc. ie it is a natural reaction.

Ah, right, I see .. though the points I added I feel are related to the points you were making.

There is not a simply yes or no answer to the question offered, there are many factors you simply have overlooked, which I tried to bring into your question. ... but your question begs the question of would a woman actually do all the things your have mentioned.

I think that any woman who carries a pregnancy to that point is not a woman who would arbitrarily seek an abortion .. this just add weight to my point of creating a scenario that is almost never to happen. As far as what Roe does then that to me is the state enforcing it's decisions onto another person and in no way equates to her consenting to the ongoing pregnancy.

The book is called "Breaking the Abortion Deadlock : From Choice to Consent" By Eileen McDonagh, perhaps you can find another online version of it .. I would advocate it's reading, even if you don't agree with it's conclusions.

It is the courts that have implied intent on the part of the fetus, the restrictions they place imply that given a say the fetus would 'vote' to remain attached to the female regardless of the injuries caused, and in the end a pregnancy does only serve the interests of the fetus.

I don't dispute that at all, what I do dispute is that a person is expected to suffer injury due to a risk taken and intrusion upon their autonomy without consent, and while the decision of the man and woman may have lead to the fertilization of the ova that does not imply that consent to the separate action of uterine implantation has been given.

I will respond to the rest of your post later, as I really need to sleep now.

 

The point being, as pointed out in book, that it is the states presumption, which leads them to impose restrictions, that the fetus 's intentions would be to to force the woman to maintain the pregnancy . .those restrictions form a precedence in law that the fetus would 'choose' to maintain the pregnancy. It is like the presumption that a child under a certain age cannot consent to sexual relations (I must add I don't condone sexual relations for children), even if the child insists they consented.

You must understand that it is very rare to debate with someone who actually agrees, for the most, with the items I (& others) put forward, the usual responses are just outright denial. and hence garners a reaction in the same vein.

and that is the main purpose of pro-choice groups, of course there are those who would insist that abortion should be unrestricted at any time for any reason, and they do have a point when you compare countries with restrictions to those without and you find, on the whole, that their abortions rates are either lower or comparative to the USA. This says to me that restrictions are not the way to reduce abortion.

We know that abortion is already a three tier system. First trimester the decision rests solely with the woman. Second trimester the decision requires a doctors agreement. Third trimester is only for life threats to the woman and/or fetal disability incompatible with life, this I believe fits very well into your mental life idea, and as such the battle should now be focused in reducing the reasons for unintended pregnancies and the wealth of evidence shows that this can be achieved through comprehensive sex education and freely available contraception .. yet .. it is the same core of pro-lifers who fight so hard against the very measures that would, to a point, give them what they want, a reduction in abortions. I argue the way I do purely to fight fire with fire. I cannot and will not stand idly by and allow pro-lifers to impose the, mostly religious, views onto others.

 

don't we all lol

Difference is you actually offer relevant arguments to what you deny .. the "I don't believe that is correct, because ...", where as most of the pro-lifers I have encountered here, and other forums, don't give a single reason.

 

As I stated even a CARROT when damaged will on a cellular level sent what is the equivalent as a pain response but without a brain or in the case we are discussing without higher brain function it means nothing.

AboveAlpha

 

It is one of those unsolved questions.

 

This is how uninformed the Anti-Abortion Lobby is as far as this question.

Life exists prior to conception.

The Sperm and Egg Cells are complete independent life forms and so is a carrot, cabbage, piece of celery..etc.

A Fertilized Egg is alive but it is NOT a Human Being.

A Human Being is classified as a Multi-Cellular Bio-mechanical Construct that is MULTI-SPECIES in it's nature.

A Human Being has both Human Cells and a large number of Cells of other Life Forms that without would not allow a Human Being to live.

The Human Digestive System, Skin and Excretory Systems are LOADED with the cells of a large number of non-human species and they must exist as without these non-human cells a human being could not live.

AboveAlpha

 

Contrary to the religious doctrine that every new person comes into existence by being "conceived" in the mind of God, no person have ever been "conceived" into existence.

 

Until somebody comes down from a mountain top with a tablet that tells me when life begins, I'll probably just go with my old "life begins with consciousness" paradigm. And until the pro-lifers come to the realization that high explosives and injectable cocktails erase consciousness, I'll probably continue to be their opponent.

 

A homo sapien is a multi-organisms super colony creature, yes.

- - - Updated - - -

If pushed on the subject in a logical sense (not really possible), most prolifers agree with you that consciousness is a necessary element to being a human being. Most prolifers will say that a person who is "brain dead" is no longer a person and that artificial life support can be terminated.

 

No...they have not.

In fact a Fertilized Egg Cell is not even a POTENTIAL Human Being until it implants itself in the Uterine Wall.

This is why it is so important for us to educate kids BEFORE they are old enough to either get pregnant or get someone pregnant to the reality that the use of Plan B and Morning After Drugs asap after unprotected intercourse will not allow a Fertilize Egg to implant itself in the Uterine wall.

No implantation....no pregnancy....thus no possibility of an Abortion.

The Ultra-Religious Groups have no problem with a couple who goes to a Fertility Clinic to get pregnant as the clinic doctors will only use a few Fertilized Egg Cells for use of implantation and the rest of the fertilized egg cells are discarded and die.....but for some idiotic reason they have a problem of the use of Plan B and Morning After Drugs.


This is the HEIGHT OF HYPOCRISY!!!.

AboveAlpha