The beginnings of life, embyro = cancer?

[Benvolio]

As far as we know, life does not begin. The question as Clinton said, the definition of "is". Is and "begin" are in the present tense, and as far as we know life is not currently beginning. It began 4 billion or so years ago in, perhaps a single cell, which through countless cell divisions, has resulted in all life today. More specifically, both the egg and sperm are living cells, as is the resulting fertilized egg. So, life does not begin at conception, much less at birth.
The abortion question cannot be answered by just changing the words we use. It is not a matter of words. We all, I assume, agree that at some point between egg and adulthood the individual is entitled to protection. At one time in the US there was nearly universal agreement that abortion was seriously wrong. Conservatives in general continue in that opinion.
Liberals, following Roe vWeb, have preferred to ignore all but the choice of the mother and have elevated the choice to sacred cow, even to seeing nothing wrong with the killing of viable babies with scissors and suction. The have no problem criticising a woman for choosing smoking, drugs, alcohol, prostitution, etc, but choosing to kill is e reproach.

 

[kallipolis]

^Killing human life is a serious matter when we consider how easy it is for each, and everyone of us to lose our life by an act of violence perpetrated by those who have no respect for human life.

Your bizarre philosophical musings are also duly noted.

 

[FirmaFan]

Human life is process of development physically, and mentally.

The person I was at my conception is not the person I became at my birth, or became during my teens, or have become during my middle age.

A fertilised egg is human life and you are an outcome of that fact of life.

At the beginning of your life's journey you also were a newly fertilised egg.

Isn't it just so easy to argue that a fertilized egg is a human life when your first sentence arbitrarily defines "human life" to be inclusive of a fertilized egg.

 

[kallipolis]

Isn't it just so easy to argue that a fertilized egg is a human life when your first sentence arbitrarily defines "human life" to be inclusive of a fertilized egg.

I can hardly exclude the fact that the fertilised egg is human life when stating that the fertilised egg is inclusive of human life - at human life's most primitive stage of development.

 

[FirmaFan]

I can hardly exclude the fact that the fertilised egg is human life when stating that the fertilised egg is inclusive of human life - at human life's most primitive stage of development.

In doing so, it amounts to an argument on the level of "because I say so."

 

[kallipolis]

In doing so, it amounts to an argument on the level of "because I say so."

Biological facts of life state so. Logic states so when asking what the growing life in the mother's womb was before the vertebrae appears.

Most “pro-choice” advocates argue that although the unborn child is human (belonging to the species Homo sapiens), it is not a person and hence not fully human.

This argument is the foundation for the pro choice lobby.

I have clearly stated that human life is a journey of development and that the person we were at conception, birth, teens, middle age into old age evidences the various stages in the developing life of the human person.

 

[Stardreamer]

The issue here is whether this potential life is an argument enough to deny a woman the right over her own body.

As the Supreme Court framed it in Roe vs Wade, a developing fetus is a human life. As it develops it grows closer to what we consider to be a Human Being. As it draws closer to that state, the state (the law) has an increasing interest to consider the value and interests of that new life in balance with the value and interests of the mother. Early on in the process when the fetus is not developed and wholly dependent on its mother, the interests of the mother far outweigh the interests of the 'very' potential human life. Thus it is inappropriate of the state to intercede on the potential Human's behalf and overrule the mother's right over her own body. As the fetus develops and becomes potentially sentient and more able to survive without the mother the state has more valid justification to intercede on that life's behalf. What the court left unclear was where is the tipping point and has in later rulings worked around an unfortunately fluid concept of 'viability'.

 

[FirmaFan]

Biological facts of life state so. Logic states so when asking what the growing life in the mother's womb was before the vertebrae appears.

I happen to understand a little bit about biology. What biological facts are you referring to? Oh, and the growing "life" in the mother's womb first is a zygote, then a blastocyst, and then an embryo. Biological facts.

Most “pro-choice” advocates argue that although the unborn child is human (belonging to the species Homo sapiens), it is not a person and hence not fully human.

This argument is the foundation for the pro choice lobby.

I think there's a little more too it than that. Your dramatic oversimplification of the pro-choice arguments tell me that you either do not understand the position or are deliberately misrepresenting to further your own anti-choice position.

I have clearly stated that human life is a journey of development and that the person we were at conception, birth, teens, middle age into old age evidences the various stages in the developing life of the human person.

We could extend that train of thought to demonstrate that human life is a journey of development that the person we were at star destruction forming the higher elements (carbon, nitrogen, etc), through planetary formation, to abiogenesis, to self-replication with variation, to evolution by natural selection to conception, birth, teens, middle age into old age evidences the various stages in the developing life of the human person. Define "life" as you see fit, you can include the entire universe if you were so inclined.

 

[Stardreamer]

I cannot agree with that stance, bankside. Until the baby is born, or at least at the first stages of development of the embryo, it is much more a part of the mother than a separate being.

Breaking this into two parts for clarity.

Scientifically speaking this is not correct. The egg ceased to be part of its mother from the moment it is fertilized. If it were simply an outgrowth of her body we wouldn't need the whole womb/placenta incubation system that allows the body to support what is essentially another life without the body's defenses attacking it as the alien being it is.

And I firmly believe at that stage it should be up to the woman to decide what she wants and what her conscience dictates. If a baby will completely ruin her life, who are we to say she HAS to carry it? Or even worse - what happens when the pregnancy is the result of rape? Are you seriously saying she should be forced to devote a year of her life carrying it? And then what? This is mental abuse. The psychological damage many women go through because of rape isn't something one needs to be reminded of by having the result of it grow inside you.

To answer the questions in order: no, then the pregnancy is the result of rape, no, that is up to her, agreed.

 

[kallipolis]

I happen to understand a little bit about biology. What biological facts are you referring to? Oh, and the growing "life" in the mother's womb first is a zygote, then a blastocyst, and then an embryo. Biological facts.



I think there's a little more too it than that. Your dramatic oversimplification of the pro-choice arguments tell me that you either do not understand the position or are deliberately misrepresenting to further your own anti-choice position.



We could extend that train of thought to demonstrate that human life is a journey of development that the person we were at star destruction forming the higher elements (carbon, nitrogen, etc), through planetary formation, to abiogenesis, to self-replication with variation, to evolution by natural selection to conception, birth, teens, middle age into old age evidences the various stages in the developing life of the human person. Define "life" as you see fit, you can include the entire universe if you were so inclined.

I have professional experience of many years in biology.

Apart from a lot of verbiage I note nothing that I can chew on.

Apart from introducing personal innuendo into this thread is there something pertinent to this topic that you wish to raise?

 

[Stardreamer]

We could extend that train of thought to demonstrate that human life is a journey of development that the person we were at star destruction forming the higher elements (carbon, nitrogen, etc), through planetary formation, to abiogenesis, to self-replication with variation, to evolution by natural selection to conception, birth, teens, middle age into old age evidences the various stages in the developing life of the human person. Define "life" as you see fit, you can include the entire universe if you were so inclined.

There is a point where something becomes distinct and cannot be subdivided further without losing that distinctness. In science I can point to an atom and say that is an oxygen atom, because the atom is the smallest distinct construction of an element. I cannot point to an electron and say that is an oxygen electron. A fertilized egg cell is the smallest point of distinction in a life form at which you can say that is a unique Homo Sapien. But just as one atom does not make an atmosphere, one cell does not make a sentient being.

 

[FirmaFan]

I have professional experience of many years in biology.

As do I.

Apart from a lot of verbiage I note nothing that I can chew on.

So why then did you claim that biological facts support your opinion?

Apart from introducing personal innuendo into this thread is there something pertinent to this topic that you wish to raise?

I am pretty sure I disagree with your opinion on this subject, however, since you have not given much reason as to why you hold the position you do, apart from providing your definition for what "human life" is (which is simply more opinion), you give one little else to actually respond to.

 

[kallipolis]

As do I.



So why then did you claim that biological facts support your opinion?



I am pretty sure I disagree with your opinion on this subject, however, since you have not given much reason as to why you hold the position you do, apart from providing your definition for what "human life" is (which is simply more opinion), you give one little else to actually respond to.

Do you need me to tell you what human life is?

There is no dispute between the pro choice, and pro life lobbies that a zygote is human life. Stardreamer confirms that the courts also recognise a zygote as human life.

As I have already stated the dispute is over the term human person, for the pro choice lobby argue that despite recognising the zygote is human life, it is not a human person by reason of its primitive development.

Here lies the chasm between the two competing groups.

 

[Semirhage666]

As I have already stated the dispute is over the term human person, for the pro choice lobby argue that despite recognising the zygote is human life, it is not a human person by reason of its primitive development.

Which is a position I would have assumed would be shared by anyone with at least the level of understanding of embryonic development imparted to me by my 2nd year Bio class at my University, which makes your assertion that you have years of biology experience puzzling.

 

[kallipolis]

Which is a position I would have assumed would be shared by anyone with at least the level of understanding of embryonic development imparted to me by my 2nd year Bio class at my University, which makes your assertion that you have years of biology experience puzzling.

That I use plain language to inform rather than clinical language to impress when recognising that the majority contributing to this topic are not cognoscenti?

Personal innuendo hardly contributes to your argumentation.

 

[Rolyo85]

Breaking this into two parts for clarity.

Scientifically speaking this is not correct. The egg ceased to be part of its mother from the moment it is fertilized. If it were simply an outgrowth of her body we wouldn't need the whole womb/placenta incubation system that allows the body to support what is essentially another life without the body's defenses attacking it as the alien being it is.



To answer the questions in order: no, then the pregnancy is the result of rape, no, that is up to her, agreed.

1. I'm sorry, I should have clarified I was speaking in terms of morality, not science. A baby is not dependent on its mother, it just requires help. Anyone can provide that help. An embryo however is exclusively dependent on the mother, and would instantly die if removed. It is not a separate unit until the final stages of pregnancy.

2. If you say "yeah, it's ok if it was rape", then the issue becomes non-absolute. You admit there are circumstances where abortion is justified. Once you've done that, you either give people the right to know their circumstances better than you, or you say you are the ultimate moral judge on when abortion is ok and when it isn't.


Btw, I'm not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice, and I think there is a fundamental difference. I hate abortions, and I despise women who use them as easy contraception. However, of I were a woman, I'd spit in the face of anyone who claimed to tell me what I'm allowed to do with my body and what I'm not. And however you define the embryo, it feeds off the mother and she has to carry it. That is VERY MUCH the province of her own body.

 

[Semirhage666]

Btw, I'm not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice, and I think there is a fundamental difference. I hate abortions, and I despise women who use them as easy contraception.

Why?

This article has some good things to say on that point:

I Love Abortion: Implying Otherwise Accomplishes Nothing for Women's Rights

 

[Kulindahr]

Legal declarations on person hood do not rest on science rather are attempts to address the arguments of the two competing camps.

To believe otherwise would be to imagine that an unconscious adult person is not human life as a result of its complete dependence upon other human persons to survive.

Of course it must rest on science -- would you rather use voodoo?

And your comparison is barely relevant: a system being idle isn't at all comparable to not having been turned on. You'd have a parallel if instead of "unconscious" you said "with a dead brain".

 

[Rolyo85]

I am the result of my grandmother refusing to have an abortion and instead having my mother as a third child in a poor family.

If a woman makes a mistake and isn't ready to be a mother, she should not be restrained. In countries and places where fanatic religious idiots aren't that dominant as they are here however, there are women who just get sloppy and take unnecessary risks because they can always flush it out after. That's gross and cynical and I don't like it. Abortion is an yuhly thing you should only do of necessity, not as an alternative to being careful.

 

[Kulindahr]

Were you in a state of unconsciousness (a coma) you would still remain a human person despite being dependent on other human beings to survive. Dependency on other human beings does not diminish your human life.

You're introducing a false issue: dependence isn't relevant.