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?
[*] Ash's discussion lead you to this didn't it?
Well I say definitely Definition, and as Carlin said: "it's a matter of term limits."
We first need to know what constitutes life and a person. But since it's just a matter of opinions there will never be an absolute answer, that's why pro-lifers usually need to back up their personal opinions with God because in their screwed up heads God's will is absolute and therefore proves their arguments. They also believe it gives them the right to meddle in other people's wombs.
[moderator: violation of forum rules removed -- personal attacks]
A) You believe that life starts at contraception
I'm pretty sure life does not begin at contraception.
You sure look like you know what you're talking about.
@Mis.... I should point out.. contraception prevents conception. So no, life doesn't start at contraception no matter how you look at it..
Ah, but you're overlooking the failure rate! LOL
Misanthrope, personhood doesn't even begin after birth. The brain has a long way to develop even then. After birth, there are still plenty of animals that have higher levels of consciousness, intelligence and self-awareness to that of the newborn.
As for who is to say right and wrong, the entire universe is composed of orderly structure where everything that exists is connected to everything else. Logic can help sort out what is right and wrong because logic finds the structure.
Cognitive development is fluid, and not static. People don't go through all the same stages of cognitive development at the same time. Infants, for instance, do not know of the awareness of an object once it has been removed from sight. After about three months, they begin to have this capability, but for some it takes much longer.
An adult dog is much smarter than an infant. As is an adult pig. Humans develop from birth into more complex intelligent animals and then into persons. Infants resemble persons, but they are not persons yet.
Sperm cells are also alive. They have the potential to create a human being. Were all those wet dreams in my youth immoral?
Once an egg is fertilized (conception) the woman is not pregnant until the egg implants itself in the uterine wall. Many pregnancies fail before this happens or very soon after.
Are you saying that this fertilized egg deserves as much consideration as a fully grown human or a new born baby?
What about a blastocyst, 5 days after fertilization, which contains significantly fewer cells than the brain of a housefly?
88 percent of abortions occur within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. This is long before it can live on its own.
Do you think abortion should be outlawed? If so what is the punishment for women who have abortions? If not, what's your point? Have you researched what it is like in the few countries who have outlawed abortion?
No one is truly pro-abortion. No one likes the idea of ending a pregnancy. The issue is whether a woman should be told that she has to carry the pregnancy to term, which in my opinion is immoral.
You don't really appear to be "pro-life" yourself. I have read a few of your comments in which you have told people to kill themselves or go and die simply for pointing out flaws in your argument and disagreeing with you.
You claim you love reason and logic yet your recent post was devoid of reason and entirely illogical.
You made statements that were neither true or logical. Such as, "abortions lead to higher instances of breast cancer". This is simply not true. It is pro-life propaganda and is not in any way backed by science.
How about "woman are not warned about the dangers of abortions", this also is simply not true. I have personally accompanied a friend to an abortion clinic. She did not want to bring a baby into the world that she knew she could not support and did not want the baby to grow up in the system. She was thoroughly informed about the procedure. Doctors inform women about abortions just as much as they inform anyone about any medical procedure.
Your posts have been based on emotion. Emotion has no place in the realm of logic. It is actually possible to create a valid and sound argument against abortion but to be blunt, you failed miserably.
Do not respond with the predictable response, based on your previous posts, that I am a troll. Or that I don't think for myself, that I should go kill myself, that I sound like a Christian, or any of the other circumstantial and abusive Ad hominems that you have committed in your other posts.
If you truly love logic as you say, you would not have committed so many logical fallacies. I recommend "A Concise Introduction to Logic" by Patrick Hurley.
They teach logic at U of R don't they? I know they do at V.C.U.
Are sperm cells "alive"? I'm not sure they satisfy the criteria biologists use to define living individuals, to wit:
* While sperm cells have a role in human reproduction, they have no reproductive system or process of their own. Not even mitosis. A sperm can't make a new sperm.
I think this list is only intended for differentiating inanimate objects from living. But not for determining at what point a living thing has produced a second living thing, or if part of a living thing can be considered alive on it's own, etc.
Because if you try to use it that way, this list would tell us that babies & sterile adults are not alive. And that no single man or woman is alive -- because a man can no more create a new man, than a sperm can create a new sperm. If we use the list this way, only a male+female pair can be considered alive.
Okay, well, in what sense is a virus NOT alive then, because biology tells us that viruses are not alive even though they do have a way of replicating themselves.
I'm starting to think that what constitutes life, like the concept of free will, tends to evaporate as you try to define it.
Interesting. Yet we know life exists . . .
You are comparing apples and oranges.
More like apples and rocket science.
I love how you assert your own opinions as fact and common sense.
You're basically saying that we, for some reason, HAVE TO find a common ground? It can't be an individual thing, people shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to have an abortion, but society should come to common grounds? Politics and government should invade your uterus and tell you what to do? Even suggesting that the government has anything to do, or any right to meddle with a woman's own body is pure idiocy.
And just because %61 of people believe something doesn't make it true, we of all should know, as Atheists in a theist world.
Also, if I say that I believe a fetus' life does not deserve legal acknowledgment or protection, and I base this on nothing but my own personal common sense and opinion. How can you prove me wrong, or claim that your own opinion is more true than my opinion? You can't, and that basically boils down to the main question of this discussion. You however like to act like your personal opinions and conclusions are universally true.