Drudge Headline

[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.

[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

[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,

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Are you saying that there are human beings walking this planet that never went through the zygote stage of development?

Also, answer me this (yes or no): would you say that life may start at conception, we just can't be sure?

obviously, the process of conception puts in motion the potential for a human being -- so i'm not sure what you're getting at with the first part up there. that's science, i understand how the pregnancy process works (and while it is tangential in your point of view, i was unclear on the fetus thing -- i'm not trying to purport that a fetus as 9 months could not feel pain, but i don't believe that abortions should happen at 9 months anyway. my point was your fetus doesn't suffer early in the pregnancy).

i say life does not start at conception and could not see how it does. therefore, no, i do not think it 'may' start at conception, because what happens at conception is not life. i still contend that if you believe that life starts at conception, then by all means treat your conception as such - but do not insist that others MUST do the same when there is no proof for it.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.