Political Crossfire Forums

[Snake]

Where do you believe life begins?

Not meaning to start any fights or debates, as the topic of abortion usually does, just curious to see your individual opinions.

[ChuckBerry]

Conception, which in my opinion is the only logical way to view the question. As a Catholic, I believe that human life has a right to exist from the moment that sperm joins to egg, and no one has a right to dispense with that God-given life.

In a non-religious vein, it seems that you have to jump through too many hoops to justify that an embryo/fetus is not a human being at any point prior to birth. Medical technology has pushed the point at which fetus' can survive and grow up healthy so far back that it is too murky to try to guess the point between conception and medical viability where a fetus cannot survive.

[Green]

CCD wrote: As a Catholic, I believe that human life has a right to exist from the moment that sperm joins to egg, and no one has a right to dispense with that God-given life. Nobody believes that it is ok to kill people, not any religion or even atheists. The debate here is whether somthing is a person or not. The Bible doesn't say whether a stem cell is a person or not.

Kamel wrote: Where do you believe life begins?

Not meaning to start any fights or debates, as the topic of abortion usually does, just curious to see your individual opinions. sry, but I am going to debate.

This is not a person, it is just a cell. There is nothing diffrent about it than a period and ejaculate fluid mixed together. If these were not used for things such as stem cell resarch, then they would be thrown away.


This is a person. It has a head, you can get brain waves from it, it can move, and the only difrence between this and a baby(that liberals agree that cannot be killed) is that it is in a diffrent location. All people have a right to life liberty, and property, and the government must support this baby's right to life.

[LostSoul3412]

When the umbilical cord is cut and the (then) child is forced into sentience, and individuality.

Life is not a choice, nor a right; life is an ultimatum.

Live, or die.

Until an individual is forced to address that ultimatum, they are not a human being.

[ChuckBerry]

Green wrote: The debate here is whether somthing is a person or not.
The OP said that he did not want to start a debate, and his original question was "Where do you believe life begins?", not "Do you believe a fertilized embryo is a person?"
Green wrote: The Bible doesn't say whether a stem cell is a person or not.
You are correct, the Bible does not have a statement on stem cells, nor does it question "personhood". However, this statement is germaine to the issue at hand:

James 2:26 "The body without the spirit is dead." From a Catholic perspective, it is the spirit which animates the body, which means that if the body exists and is alive (which is apparent from the fact that a fetus grows) then there is human life, which cannot be taken without incurring a gravely evil sin

[Corona]

@ Birth.
Humans apply rational thought and reasoning to choices, inside the womb there are no choices to be made, therefore it is not human until it applies itself to life.

[Korimyr the Rat]

In my experience, it's usually in the backseat of a Camaro.

Oh, wait. You meant when.

I draw the line when the mother signs the birth certificate.

[Varyag]

It's not a question - nor from the scientific standpoint is it a debate - its when the genetically unique (from mother and father) group of human materials begins the preeminent condition for all life, cell division.

Anything else, like day limits or trimesters is pseudoscience and has no place in a debate that should be rationalized from the perspective of the hard sciences of medicine (biology and genetics).

[Lumina]

[quote="Green"] CCD wrote: This is not a person, it is just a cell. There is nothing diffrent about it than a period and ejaculate fluid mixed together.

(((Sigh)))

[cap'n queasy]

Corona wrote: @ Birth.
Humans apply rational thought and reasoning to choices, inside the womb there are no choices to be made, therefore it is not human until it applies itself to life.

Newborn infants do not think rationally, nor do they make choices. That is not a valid delineation.

Some people go their whole lives without using rational thought.

It is patently obvious that human life begins at conception, because fertilization is the cause of new life. The age at which choices can be made has absolutely nothing to do with the beginning of a new life.

[cap'n queasy]

[quote="Lumina"] Green wrote: CCD wrote: This is not a person, it is just a cell. There is nothing diffrent about it than a period and ejaculate fluid mixed together.

(((Sigh)))

That's a misquote. CCD did not say that.

[Obilisk18]

Kamel wrote: Where do you believe life begins?

Not meaning to start any fights or debates, as the topic of abortion usually does, just curious to see your individual opinions.

I posted this awhile ago on a different forum. It doesn't reflect my exact current views on the subject, but due to the length of the explication involved, I'd rather not put forward a more sophisticated argument just now. So take it with a grain of salt I guess.

Life does not begin at conception because of some religious notion, but because no other point can be, as far as I'm concerned, adequately defended. Simplistic pro-choice arguments often suggest that lacking a brain, fetuses fail to qualify as persons. While an intuitively appealing argument, it fails to withstand even minor scrutiny. Dogs have brains. Mules have brains. Brains are not unique to the human species, and thus clearly fail to endow personhood. At this point, a pro-choicer may wish to clarify their argument. It is a “mind” they say, not the brain, that grants personhood and endows life with worth. While a somewhat clearer distinction, it still leaves much to be desired. The notion that one needs a mind to achieve personhood is a peculiar one, because it's extraodinarily vague and ill-defined. A mind, such as it is, especially when separated from the concept of a soul, is simply a device that allows for a broad bundle of processes. That is to say, a mind can be used to move one's arm, solve a mathematical equation, form opinions, etc. A mind does not, in and of itself, possess independent value. It is significant for what it does, not what it is.

Yet, individual minds are capable of very different things. Some can perform complex processes quickly, while some lack that capacity entirely. Some are capable of free, independent, and creative thought, others can do little more then absorb and parrot the ideas of others. These are distinctions which cannot be taken lightly when considering life's genesis. If a mind is what it does rather then what it is, and if the usefulness of the mind endows personhood, then some individuals are necessarily more persons than others. This is an extraordinarily dangerous and untenable position.

Furthermore, even were personhood granted once a certain threshold of attributes were achieved, on what basis would we determine such attributes? Any qualities would be arbitrarily derived and possess no independent weight in assessing the beginning of life. On another note, it is rather difficult to argue that a newborn is capable of much more mentally then a fetus. Those who have studied cognitive or developmental psychology are aware that the vast majority of infant behavior is purely instinctual (infant intellectual capacity surpasses that of animals only past a year on average). Certainly the possession of instinct and reflexes shouldn't be taken to grant personhood. Animals possess these qualities in abundance as do brain-dead or near-brain dead patients (argued by many of the pro-choice crowd to have lost personhood). Indeed, as many have noted previously, fetuses achieve noticeable instincts and reflexes relatively early in development.
Infants though, despite lacking anything that can be fairly characterized as thought, clearly have the potential to become fully functioning, reasoning individuals. They simply have not progressed far enough along the developmental train. Neither have fetuses. The simple fact is, humans develop and progress in certain and predictable ways. There are stops and starts, fits and heaves, minor variations within a narrow range, but for the most part we progress rather evenly and linearly. The first appearance of a brain is certainly an important step, but much development is needed later to grant meaningful thought. To contend then that the mere existence of a functioning (and I use functioning quite loosely and in the barest possible sense) brain grants personhood is absurd and intellectually dishonest.

Consider for instance, the expansion of the cranium in early fetal development. This is a extraordinarily necessary occurrence, paving the way for the development of the brain, which in turn paves the way for development of thought. In short, there is no demarcation in human development that can be reasonably said to grant personhood. It follows that personhood must either be granted individually and arbitrarily, thus leaving our lives forfeit to those who would lay claim to them, or be granted upon the acquisition of unique human DNA, an event which is in fact unique and specific to all humans. The human species is a species which can use higher order mental processes. This is not a fluke or an aberration, something which could be true or fail to be. We are endowed with sentience by the very processes that propel our development, processes unique to the human species. That is enough.

[Snake]

Personally, I feel life begins when the respiratory, circulatory, digestive, and nervous systems are developed.

[Corona]

cap'n queasy wrote: Corona wrote: @ Birth.
Humans apply rational thought and reasoning to choices, inside the womb there are no choices to be made, therefore it is not human until it applies itself to life.

Newborn infants do not think rationally, nor do they make choices. That is not a valid delineation.

Some people go their whole lives without using rational thought.

It is patently obvious that human life begins at conception, because fertilization is the cause of new life. The age at which choices can be made has absolutely nothing to do with the beginning of a new life.


Great rebuttal. I guess some people never live then do they?
As for the life thing, since you proved me wrong, how about 18 or whatever days, when they have blood? A logical separating point.

[Green]

Kamel wrote: Personally, I feel life begins when the respiratory, circulatory, digestive, and nervous systems are developed.
And abortion means killing babies that follow the listed criteria.

[Lumina]

[quote="cap'n queasy"] Lumina wrote: Green wrote: CCD wrote: This is not a person, it is just a cell. There is nothing diffrent about it than a period and ejaculate fluid mixed together.

(((Sigh)))

That's a misquote. CCD did not say that.

This misquote is entirely my fault. Not sure what I did wrong, but apologies to all. "Green" is the one who posted that periods and ejaculate fluids make a cell.

My bad, CCD. I know that you wouldn't have posted such bio-bizarreness, LOL.

[Green]

[quote="Lumina"] cap'n queasy wrote: Lumina wrote: Green wrote: CCD wrote: This is not a person, it is just a cell. There is nothing diffrent about it than a period and ejaculate fluid mixed together.

(((Sigh)))

That's a misquote. CCD did not say that.

This misquote is entirely my fault. Not sure what I did wrong, but apologies to all. "Green" is the one who posted that periods and ejaculate fluids make a cell.

My bad, CCD. I know that you wouldn't have posted such bio-bizarreness, LOL. Its ok

[Lumina]

[quote="Green"] Lumina wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Lumina wrote: Green wrote: CCD wrote: This is not a person, it is just a cell. There is nothing diffrent about it than a period and ejaculate fluid mixed together.

(((Sigh)))

That's a misquote. CCD did not say that.

This misquote is entirely my fault. Not sure what I did wrong, but apologies to all. "Green" is the one who posted that periods and ejaculate fluids make a cell.

My bad, CCD. I know that you wouldn't have posted such bio-bizarreness, LOL. Its ok

You're right: It's okay. What, in fact, is NOT okay is the statement that periods + ejaculate fluids make a cell.

[ChuckBerry]

[quote="cap'n queasy"] Lumina wrote: Green wrote: CCD wrote: This is not a person, it is just a cell. There is nothing diffrent about it than a period and ejaculate fluid mixed together.

(((Sigh)))

That's a misquote. CCD did not say that.

NO HE MOST CERTAINLY DID NOT

I take it as what it was, an inaccurate editing job. Happens all the time.

[Snake]

Green wrote:
And abortion means killing babies that follow the listed criteria. Not nessacarily