Notice that if you ask "When does life begin?" you get a definition, not a fact. What does this mean for the debate between pro-choicers and pro-lifers, one side defining life to begin at birth, the other at conception? Doesn't it mean that it's a problem without a solution?

Views: 2897

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Cara, kindly point me to where I criticize Misanthrope as a person and not the position she holds.

If you've not personally attacked, then you're fine. Please continue to refrain. All I'm asking is that everyone remain civil. This thread seems to be volatile.

As for you Misanthrope.  When did I ever say I supported Obama, was a liberal or anything remotely close?  

Put that active imagination toward better use.  Such as solving the worlds problems or something, instead of making up imaginary information about internet debate opponents.

For the record, I do not support Obama, or American politics or many of American values.  You seem like a conspiracy theoriest.

This, is what I can leave you with

"So which one is it?"

Have you been reading me?

It comes down to your personal opinion, to what one likes, dislikes, or prefers. Nothing more and nothing less, and that's because their is no cosmic ethical order.

science does not tell us that life begins at conception...correct. Sperm are alive, eggs are alive, when they come together they are still alive. There was no life created from nothing, it was already living prior to conception.

Well neither side disputes those facts, but they don't answer the question when life begins, because by that standard life began with the first microbe, which isn't a very helpful fact.

Well neither side disputes those facts, but they don't answer the question when life begins, because by that standard life began with the first microbe, which isn't a very helpful fact.

Maybe that's the problem: wondering when life begins is not helpful in the discussion at all. She's right; life was already there. What we're really trying to do is make a value judgement on when life becomes important, or a more weighty consideration.

I have interests because I'm interested in things. A fetus isn't interested in anything. I have interests as a citizen, because I'm interested in things like my liberty, my wealth, and so on. A fetus doesn't have any interests yet.

Conception is the point to which we can trace back the lives of every single person on this planet. It's the beginning of the process of creating human life.

Some people feel this makes it significant enough to identify it as the beginning of life. In some senses, it is . . . human life can't begin without it.

Others say a fertilized egg is not a human yet. It could fail to develop fully. This is certainly true. The fact is, women can get pregnant and have that pregnancy fail without ever realizing it.

If the fetus develops to ex utero viability (approx. 20 weeks), there are still some who would deny it life or personhood. They may claim that since it can't feel pain and suffering until its 24th week, it is not harmful to abort it before then. This adds about a month to the "window of opportunity" for an abortion during which externally viable fetuses could be aborted. If legally allowed, many such externally viable fetuses would be terminated.

Still others don't consider the fetus to be alive until it's born and believe abortions should be allowed at ANY time.

And yet others insist babies don't attain personhood until well after birth and are elligible for termination.

I think that when life begins is a matter of opinion -- up to a point. I can't go along with killing an externally viable fetus. Many vegetarians (not just MikeyMike1) chant a mantra of "causing unnecessary pain or suffering is wrong". But by that standard, abortions of externally viable fetuses (20 to 24 weeks) would be allowed.

The fact is: morality is decided by socio-cultural norms not by any specific standard. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A HUMANLY ATTAINABLE OBJECTIVE MORAL STANDARD. Morality varies between countries and cultures. Jurisprudence and legislation are guided by social norms whatever they may be (though they may grow outdated).

In most Western democracies, the social norm, as represented by the law, assigns life and personhood to externally viable fetuses. Killing them becomes murder (except under certain circumstances). I have no problem with this. Women have the right to abort and plenty of time to decide. In fact, I don't understand why it's such a hot topic any more. We won.'re funny..imo confused..but funny..the fundamental question is when does the life of the "baby" begin not that of the sperm or egg..they are mutually exclusive.

If that's the fundamental question, then the initial question needs to be more specific. The question really isn't "when does life begin?" You can't fault her for being overly technical. If you want her/us to decide at what point the fetus becomes a person, say that

I have to add.. Ok, those separate components are living on a rudimentary level, correct. The question remains when does the form they combine into become life.? At the single cell level before it's attached to the uterine wall? Once it's attached? Or when a face is formed at 12 weeks? Or when the brain begins to function and the nervous system develops? It's all very subjective..

The appendix is a life, shame on all those doctors giving people appendectomies. so what if appendicitis is a life threatening disease, it's still a life! They're all murderers.


© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service