Drudge Headline

[Downthestretch55]

Baba,
You might have missed my response above, cause you keep asking...
"When does life really begin?"

The best I answer I can say is that it continues.

Can I ask you a question?
Have you ever attended a funeral for a first trimester miscarriage?

Me neither.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

We were all zygotes. We were all embryos. We were all fetuses. We were all infants. We were all toddlers. Etc.

So, how do you know that conception does not define a human being with potential versus merely a potential human being?

That is the point.

Depends what kind of proof you require, how you define life, and whether you reverse engineer your reasoning from a pre-determined conclusion (ie instead of the proper, rational way for approaching a problem) Moreover, the problems is that you are looking solely to science (in its current manifestation) to answer a question that is philosophical in nature. When does life begins can only be approached once you determine what constitutes "life" in the first place.

Also, if I contend that life begins at conception, then it is only natural that I would insist that one human being not end the life of another human being. Should I not insist that you forgo murdering your neighbor? It is the same thing for pro-lifers.

Further, if I contend that I am not exactly sure when life begins, it is natural that I insist that we favor life beginning as early as conception in order to avoid any mistakes. Even in our criminal system, at least ideally, we (try) to err on the side of life, freedom, etc. Should I not insist on this as well?

Why not? When does life really begin?

your points are obviously well thought out while still being the standard pro-life fare. both sides have legitimate arguments for the vailidity of their stance, which is why i much prefer a hands-off approach of everyone taking care to make their own decisions. it is simply not black and white like killing a police officer is. that is a human being. we can all agree on that. we can all agree that doing that is wrong. see. black. and. white. so comparing abortion to murder and using the criminal justice system as an example is inherently flawed logic (which you seem to think i am incapable of grasping thanks to your little 'reverse-engineering' dig above. i enjoyed that one.)

i cannot fathom thinking that way. i cannot fathom that the product of conception is somehow as valuable as a human being as you or i. why? because it is not a human being. it is not a sentient, able human being. it really is that simple.

the abortion discussion/debate is such old hat for me and isn't really interesting -- but this all came out of the SD law that got voted down yesterday. the problem with that is that there is no health exception, no rape exception, no incest exception, and no way to twist the wording of the law to pretend that those exceptions exist in any way. that's simply unenlightened thinking. we're worried about "killing" clusters of multiplying cells, but we're not worried about ruining the life of an ACTUAL, LIVING HUMAN BEING by forcing her to carry her rapist's baby to term?

that's cruel. plain and simple. so basically this bill says some lives are more important than others. and i just cannot figure out how something that could not survive on its own is worth more than a human being? beats me.

let's make crazy examples now. if pro-lifers are so concerned with masses of cells being "human beings" then by all means I don't understand how they shower, brush their teeth or do anything that would otherwise kill bacteria or other microorganisms. life is life is life, right? if we essentially evolved from monkeys, then who are we to assume that the bacteria in your mouth is not the root of the next step in evolution? can you for sure refute that? then you're a killer too so get off your horse. i contend you should stop brushing your teeth and showering because you cannot say for 100% sure that there is no basis to this ridiculous argument i have just made.

sound stupid and illogical to you? that's how "life starts at conception" arguments by and large sound to me.

[Downthestretch55]

Bababoo,
"I was writing whilst you were posting the earlier one. At any rate, I am not sure what you mean by that (especially outside the context of those stored in nitrogen tanks). Please explain"

Explanation:
Human eggs are harvested at fertility clinics. They are ferilized in vitro (in a petri dish) to be implanted. As excess embryos are created for implantation, those that aren't used are stored in liquid nitrogen (-300) until they are no longer viable (alive). There are over 400,000 presently. We don't have that many "serrogate mothers" to receive them.
Would you prefer that they become "medical waste" for disposal or would you rather they be used as a source of "embronic stem cells" to expand existing cell lines and further the research that seeks cures to diseases such as Parkinsons, Alsheimers (sp), some forms of cancer, neurological damage...and many other applications.

[skippy3481]

Brian are you saying as a "very serious" christian that we "basically evolved from monkeys?

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by skippy3481

Brian are you saying as a "very serious" christian that we "basically evolved from monkeys?

Skippy,
I'll let Brian answer your question.
My understanding is that it had a whole lot to do with blue-green algae that existed for over 2 billion years before other life forms evolved.
I have to check the pre-cambrian fossils and get back to you.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

The rest of your post is not worth responding to. I thought we were having a calm, rational discussion. Clearly, I was mistaken.

i'm sorry you feel that way, i thought we were still having one.

i feel that the portion regarding forcing a woman to carry her rapist's baby to term and the psychological trauma that could ensue was compeltely legitimate. it seems to lay a hierarchy to human life if we are to assume that conception equals life in this situation for the sake of argument.

and obviously i was being ridiculous and irrational in my example of bacteria evolving into humans. however, it cuts to the very root of our conversation. you say that since i cannot be SURE that life does not start at conception, that we should err on the side of caution and not have abortions. i say that if we cannot be SURE that bacteria is not the next step in human evolution, then we should err on the side of caution and not kill it.

it seems like perfectly sound logic....don't get tripped up by the ridiculous and impossible hypothetical i used to illustrate that.

[skippy3481]

Dts, as a christian i disagree. I think God created the universe and earth and people. But lets not debate about that. We are going to disagree and neither one of us is going to budge. My problem comes when a self-titled "serious christian" says we basically evolved from monkeys. As a christian you either believe in all the bible or none of it. You can't pick and choose what you want to believe in it. Either its all god inspired and god breathed or its just a nice collection of stories.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by skippy3481

Brian are you saying as a "very serious" christian that we "basically evolved from monkeys?

absolutely. Christianity is not as simple as many want it to be. It is not as black and white as many want it to be.

It does not mean that you have to act ignorantly and pretend that things which are sound science are not true. Being a Christian does not mean that you have to be unrealistic, unintelligent, and unwilling to question things.

You can read whatever you want into my statement that I am a serious Christian. I take my faith and my relationship with God very seriously and I do my best by Him at all times. I may not be your version of a Christian, but I am a Christian all the same. Your reading of my faith is irrelevant.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

The broad question is "When does life begin?" When you say "It continues", you imply that there is a beginning as someting must actually start before it can really continue. Hence, my confusion (I asked for clarification in case you were a buhdist or something).

Let's get past that before we get to the "special cases".

Baba,
If this is "the chicken or the egg" discussion...leave me out.
I went into that one once long ago in a Philosophy 101 class.
No answer was found, though I still shake my head thinking about some of the arguements presented.
If you know the answer to your queston...enlighten me.

[skippy3481]

Brian not judging your faith just clarifying. I just dont agree with it. Gen 1-27 says god created man in his own image. I fail to see how one can draw we evolved from monkeys and you forget that science cannot prove we evolved from monkeys, just like i cannot prove that god created us. Being a chrisitan doesnt mean that you are unintelligent or unquestioning but you do have to have faith. Either god created the world and man or he didnt. Either he died and rose again or he didnt. It's not as gray as you make it seem. I agree there are gray areas in christendom. However, creation and his death aren't one of them. Because the bible basically revolved around those two points.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by skippy3481

Brian not judging your faith just clarifying. I just dont agree with it. Gen 1-27 says god created man in his own image. I fail to see how one can draw we evolved from monkeys and you forget that science cannot prove we evolved from monkeys, just like i cannot prove that god created us. Being a chrisitan doesnt mean that you are unintelligent or unquestioning but you do have to have faith. Either god created the world and man or he didnt. Either he died and rose again or he didnt. It's not as gray as you make it seem. I agree there are gray areas in christendom. However, creation and his death aren't one of them. Because the bible basically revolved around those two points.

true. but there is very sound science that shows evolution in general, that species adapt and become completely different from what they once were.

did God create man? Yes. do I believe that God just laid man down as step one? No. Do I believe in evolution? Absolutely. Do I believe evolution is God's work? Yes.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Fair enough. I thought I pissed you off as your post seemed to veer off into emotional/irrational rant!




It still doesn't seem that you are fully appreciating the pro-life stance, and I could argue the same thing in reverse.



It may seem to be perfectly sound logic, but it isn't. Either I am not conveying myself well or you are not trying to grasp it... I've laid out the general science and basic argument above. Basically, bacteria != a zygote (with all the attributes listed above).

i think i have a fine grasp of it, but i may be wrong, and i'm very willing to try to figure it out.

the thing you confused me on there is the very end, the bacteria = zygote. if that is true in the examples we are using, then why the uproar about the zygote while lowly bacteria gets killed with no forethought?

if i'm missing something you're getting at, i'm sorry we're not clicking in the words we're using. i DO understand the general pro-life stance and most of what you've been saying, but have not understood where we're misfiring back and forth

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by skippy3481

Dts, as a christian i disagree. I think God created the universe and earth and people. But lets not debate about that. We are going to disagree and neither one of us is going to budge. My problem comes when a self-titled "serious christian" says we basically evolved from monkeys. As a christian you either believe in all the bible or none of it. You can't pick and choose what you want to believe in it. Either its all god inspired and god breathed or its just a nice collection of stories.

Skippy,
I am a Christian as well.
I see no inconsitancy with your belief that "God created the universe and earth and people". He also created us in His image. How He arrived at the creation we now experience is open to interpretation, both yours and mine.
If you want me to cite examples of what "time" represents to Him, I will gladly.
Monkeys have nothing to do with this...He created them as well.

[skippy3481]

Dts do you have aim or yahoo or the like i would like to discuss this

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

I used ":=" which is geek-speak for "does not equal". You're a musician and not a geek, so that is my bad. lol

oh ok! then THAT is what i am not understanding at all. potential is potential is potential.

alive is alive.

so how do we insist on saving one and not the other when we cannot gaurantee that the other is not potential for human life?

maybe you've explained that a dozen times already and i just havent understood where you've explained that,

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by skippy3481

Dts do you have aim or yahoo or the like i would like to discuss this

Skippy,
PM me with your aol messenger buddy name. I'll get back to you...I have to do something now but would be happy to chat with you later.
DTS

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Well, since we're honestly trying to communicate, let me explain what I meant by "I could argue the same thing in reverse" wrt the above.

But, let me make sure I am understanding the above properly. Are you saying:

Assuming for the sake of argument that life begins at conception, a law forcing a woman to carry her rapist's baby to term makes some lives more important than others (ie a hierarchy to human life).

i understand that part. i understand that my logic in that section was flawed, because by aborting the baby in order to spare her the trauma, it's still 1 for 1. either way, one person is going to be screwed. i get that, and understood your ability to argue that one.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

A thread that has politics, abortion and evolution discussions...three topics I vowed to never argue online again. Well, at least I am just arguing one (and not gonna get into the others...I swear! ).

so so true. they are fruitless, but never cease to be interesting to see how everyone else approaches all three of those things.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Well, I am arguing that a zygote is a human life with potential. IOW, it is a human at a specific stage of normal human development. Just as, for example, a toddler is a human at a specific stage of development and has the potential to develop into the next stage (eg an adolecent-->teen-->adult-->senior citizen) under certain (and generally "normal") circumstances. This is manifestly different than a "potential life". IOW, a zygote is a human being (with potential to develop into the next stage) and bacteria is bacteria (not a human at all).

ok, i understand that argument perfectly now. this, however, illustrates that from the get-go we are not even approaching this from the same place -- so the discussion was at a standstill from the very first post.

i don't believe that a zygote is a human at a specific stage, and i don't think that the comparison to toddler-stage humans really works. though i DO see how this argument can be made and why it is compelling.

i just don't believe that to be true. it's the age old question of when it becomes a human being. i can't give you an exact answer, but i tend to gravitate towards when it can survive outside of the mother's womb.

glad it took me over an hour to understand you, killed some great time at work

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Would advances in technology change the start of life? IOW, medical science is advancing at such a rapid pace that preemies are able to survive outside the womb earlier and earlier. Just curious or something to think about.

it very well might change my mind on it a bit. i know (or think i know) that no preemie at 8 weeks could survive. but we'll cross the bridge when technology forces us to cross it