A Conception's Right To Life

[Dawkinsrocks]

Ahhh, are you really that hahrd of understanding

I said the eggs were fertislied.

What does it matter where they were bought?

Now try again and make some scrambled chickens

 

[Lagboltz]

But clearly, the opening post most certainly did demonstrate that from an unconjecturably state-of-the-art accurate scientific perspective at least one unique individual human being absolutely does begin to live at the moment of conception.

The scientific fact of this matter is so obvious a reality ... I'm left to wonder what it is that's blinding you into your unjustified attack on the opening post's accurate scientific presentation.

You copied and pasted a source and refused to give the source of the citation. The criteria you cited were given in wikipedia, but you said that was not your source. Until you give the source so we can judge the context of the source, you have no scientific argument.

Ah, and there it is, the reason that's bothering you to the degree you deny the obvious scientific reality of the opening post: you're troubled by the implications.

Indeed, though abortion on demand may personally trouble you, like most, you're apprehensive about the thought of being incarcerated -- or worse -- for murdering a newly conceived person ... so troubled by that thought that you are thereby blinded by cognitive dissonance to the degree that you can't see that the opening post most clearly beyond rational conjecture presented the scientific reality that at least one unique individual human being, at least one person, begins to live at the moment of conception.

I'm sorry but you have no credibility. You are now trying to read motivation in me that does not exist and making an argument against that --- very poor science.

And, obviously, your argument is based, not on rational reason, but on your own personal fear of what the opening post reality will mean to society ... and maybe even to you, personally.

Again, you are making incorrect assumptions and arguing that. You are way out of the league of science and the type of thinking that is needed to make rational arguments.

Your implication that the opening post contained legal and not scientific criteria is, of course, false.
Your implication that the opening post contained religious criteria is also, of course, false.
Your implication that the opening post contained anything other than accurately presented unconjecturably state-of-the-art scientific criteria is again, of course, false.

I was answering a post by Dr. Who. It had nothing to do with the OP.

what you were truly addressing was your fear of what the reality of personhood at conception will ultimately mean ...

The type of arguments you are making are cheap. You invent some ridiculous thoughts, pretend I am thinking those ridiculous thoughts, and then argue against it. You are carrying on the pretense of a scientific argument, and conspicuously stray from that. Shame on you for your childish post.

 

[Chip]

The term [parasite] is not applied in error unless it is ONLY your definition that is acceptable--something with which I disagree, as do many other people.

Parasite is often applied, as you are doing here, as rationale to kill that to which the term is applied.

You can debate within yourself all you like as to whether the word parasite applies to the scientifically determined newly conceived person.

But if you use that specious application to justify murdering that scientifically determined person, you will still be murdering a person, and, you will know it.

Your heart won't let you live in peace without convicting you of your sophistry.

If someone lives off of your substance then they can be considered a parasite. There is more than one definition of the word "parasite". You wish to confine the definition to the narrowest one so as to support your position, when in fact the word is used far more widely and correctly according to Merriam Webster:
2 a : an organism living in or on another living organism, obtaining from it part or all of its organic nutriment, and commonly exhibiting some degree of adaptive structural modification
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

Next thing you know you'll idiosyncratically apply the word "parasite" to the new-born child suckling on her mother's breast.

The parasite defense was long-ago defeated postnatally as unjustified reason for murder.

It is just as inapplicable prenatally.

Once a human being exists, no matter where that human being exists, attempts to apply sophistries such as the parasite defense in no way degrades the reality of the existence of the newly conceived person, and thus in no way justifies murdering that person.

The parasite defense simply holds no water among intelligent, rational people who respect the truth and reality more than utilitarian coping excuses.

I think that the "support withou making a useful or adequate return" would apply to the situation where a woman doesn't wish to carry the child.

And, of course, fails as rational grounds for murdering that child.

You may not like the unique reality of women with regard to gestation.

But you can't go advocating murder simply because you don't like it.

No one's mere "change of mind" outside of a legitimate life-or-death battle is ever moral justification for such killing.

I fail to see how it is irrelevant, if you get out of your element, then you will die, no one is required by law to save you at their own risk. When you get laws passed that require everyone to risk themselves to save others, then you can talk to me about this. You are putting forward a double standard by which women are to be required to risk for others by law. Science, my ass.

Your statement was that it is okay to, in scientific effect, murder someone who cannot live outside of their natural element.

I merely pointed out to you that you can't live outside of your natural element either, as the hospitable surface of Earth is your natural element, and if you suddenly found yourself in outer space, you couldn't breath and you'd die, but the fact of it is not grounds for murdering you.

Neither is the fact that the newly conceived person cannot live outside of that person's natural element, the womb, grounds for murdering that person.

Thus the fact that the newly conceived person cannot live outside of that person's natural element is irrelevant with regard to your sophistry of rationalizing that it is therefore okay to murder that person.

It really is that simple, Mare.

This too [definitive propriety] was argued before and shown to be nonsense.

Your statement is erroneous.

Definitive propriety was shown to be foundational.

If you don't believe so, then in violation of definitive propriety you are free to drink some hemlock and call it coffee if you wish ... but I certainly would advise against it.

Definitive propriety means that things mean what people want them to mean.

Maybe to your utilitarian moral relativistic perspective, but not to those who value the truth of reality.

Definitive propriety means that terms apply appropriately with respect to accurate definition.

You can call a woman a "dog" if you wish ... but despite your inablilty to find her attractive, if you attempt to violate accurate application of definitive propriety and attach a leash to her for some walkies, you may quickly find out that definitive propriety most certainly does not mean whatever people want it to mean.

Intelligent rational people accurately apply definitive propriety congruent with the reality of the situation at hand.

If you want to work and play well with others, you need to respect definitive propriety.

This paragraph isn't science either. Science doesn't make statements like, "will likely come from realizing the truth that a newly conceived individual human being is a person rightly endowed with the foundational overriding right to life".

Again, you are in error in two ways.

First, that the statement needs to be part of the scientific method to be justified in context (it doesn't).

And second in that scientists in association with their profession don't make these statements (social scientists, sociologists, most certainly do).

I realize you are troubled by the accurate presentation of science in the opening post, troubled by the future implications of the scientific reality that a person begins to live at conception, but attempting to demean air-tight scientific reality is futile.

Better is to face the truth of what it means and make changes in behavior accordingly ... at least if one wishes to appear moral, intelligent, and rational.

This is irrelevant speculation about research based on a religious "right to life" for which you have not given a single scientific source.

Erroneous ... in that there's nothing religious about the opening post.

Immaterial ... in that there is no rational conjecture about the high school science textbook level material presented in the opening post that is an obvious reality.

Mare, simply face it -- you are feeling controlled by the understandable implications of the accurate scientific presentation of the opening post, and you don't like feeling controlled.

That's your entire motivation for your post.

 

[Chip]

You copied and pasted a source and refused to give the source of the citation. The criteria you cited were given in wikipedia, but you said that was not your source. Until you give the source so we can judge the context of the source, you have no scientific argument.

I'm sorry but you have no credibility. You are now trying to read motivation in me that does not exist and making an argument against that --- very poor science.

Again, you are making incorrect assumptions and arguing that. You are way out of the league of science and the type of thinking that is needed to make rational arguments.

I was answering a post by Dr. Who. It had nothing to do with the OP.

The type of arguments you are making are cheap. You invent some ridiculous thoughts, pretend I am thinking those ridiculous thoughts, and then argue against it. You are carrying on the pretense of a scientific argument, and conspicuously stray from that. Shame on you for your childish post.

Translation: "I'm very concerned about what the air-tight scientific reality that at least one unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception means with respect to law as it pertains to murder."

Give it up, Lagboltz.

You've been exposed previously by your own words ... and no amount of your inaccuracies, irrelevancies or ad hominems will change that.

Better would be to simply expound on what you admitted earlier about your concern, and stop your projected "childish" attempt to demean the opening post's accurate scientifice presentation.

 

[Lagboltz]

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw), 43

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote is a unicellular human being... Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss), 5, 55. EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY

These are just a few exerpts from medical school textbooks and medial journals used to teach the subjects of embryology, fetology, human developmental biology, and OB/Gyn. I would be interested in seeing some credible materials that state that the zygote is not alive.

You are doing what Chip refused to do. Namely, site three sources that are clearly relevant. Your sources have more scientific merit than what Chip was attempting. I realize that there are many sides to the issue, scientific, moral, legal, and personal. I think abortion is a very bad way of birth control, but I am a male, and I am not going to try to pass my judgment on women. My posts here were mainly to challenge poor science that seems to pervade the whole subject.

As I say, I don't pass judgement on others, but my personal feelings goes along the lines of the written opinion of the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Chickens over easy anyone?

Or sunny side up?

 

[Chip]

I realize that there are many sides to the issue, scientific, moral, legal, and personal.

Pure sophistry.

The scientific reality is singularly foundationally germane: a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.

That "side" overrides, period.

There is no moral "side" that says it's okay to murder that person.

There is no ethical legal justification "side" for that murder, no matter what atrocities may still be in the books.

And one's personal idiosyncratic coping devices "side" are also irrelevant as justification for murder.

Feigning rationalism as a cover for a truly heinous attitude remains immaterial.

I think abortion is a very bad way of birth control,

Yes, speaking from a scientific foundation, murder is indeed a bad thing.

Or do you really mean that abortion is a very bad way of birth control because the procedure is tough on the woman?

I'm waiting for a clear and concise statement from you on the matter, Mr. Science.

but I am a male, and I'm not going to try to pass my judgment on women.

So ... because you aren't a drug-dealer who murders people, you can't pass judgment on drug-dealers who murder people???

It's not about the person who commited the atrocity that makes the behavior atrocious.

It's about what happened to the victim.

And therefore it doesn't matter who you are, you have every right to speak out against the atrocity perpetrated on the victim no matter who perpetrated that atrocity.

In this case, it's obvious why men keep silent about abortion.

It's not because they "respect" women as they claim in sophistry.

It's because they are partners in the atrocity of abortion, active accomplices to circumstances that may qualify as the sociological behavior called murder, and they simply don't want to be associated in any way with the horror of it ... so they pretend in self-deception that "it's all about the woman's decision".

Sadly, so many men do indeed want to blame the woman entirely without accepting responsibility and accountability for their complicity or subtle/obvious encouragement for her to commit abortion.

No wonder there's such a male-female schism in this matter.

My posts here were mainly to challenge poor science that seems to pervade the whole subject.

Pure sophistry.

You've previously revealed your motivation by praising with obviously feigned damnation.

And in your next paragraph here you make it even clearer that you are a pro-abortionist, hiding in erroneous assertion behind the cover of "science" to further your agenda.

As I say, I don't pass judgement on others,

And why should such men "pass judgement on others" ... as then they to will be implicated as willing accomplices in the sociological behavior of murder by abortion.

but my personal feelings goes along the lines of the written opinion of the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade.

But before in post 19 of this thread you stated that "I think the more than 50 million abortions that occurred since Roe vs. Wade is tragic and the most unfortunate form of birth control."!

Why is that tragic to you, Lagboltz?

Is it as you implied in context in that post, because newly conceived people die?

Or is it as you might now state that it's because so many women had to endure abortion?

If it's the former, you can't have it both ways -- either you find Roe v. Wade's repercussions tragic and you oppose it, or you don't and you support it. There is rationally no fence here for you to straddle.

Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if it's the latter.

All along your posting motivations were obvious; in the name of "science", indeed -- ha!

 

[Lagboltz]

Chip, you are getting too emotional. The OP was scientific in nature, and that's was my original objection -- poorly supported science.

 

[Lagboltz]

Chickens over easy anyone?

Or sunny side up?

I could go for some Colonel Sanders Kentucky Fried Eggs.

 

[Chip]

Chip, you are getting too emotional.

Erroneous.

You, are too emotionally detached with regard to murderous abortion.

Typical "scientist" -- too emotionally detached.

The OP was scientific in nature,

Indeed it was.

Finally ... you admit it.

and that's was my original objection

That it was scientific in nature???

-- poorly supported science.

Back and forth you go!!!

***

All kidding aside ...

... Now that Palerider has given you the appeal to "A"uthority you "scientifically" crave, an appeal that presents the same information and conclusion of the opening post ...

... How do you feel about the fact that science has presented beyond rational conjecture that at least one person, at least one unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception?

 

[top gun]

A Conceptions Right To Life is a false premis because it doesn't take all facts into consideration.

First: There are a lot of things that are "alive" and growing to reach some final potential. Being alive in the case of conception has that life having the potential to become a full person if it continues to evolve. A person is more than a few cells growing. A person has feelings and many other things that come along with development.

Let's try and remember that if one takes this fertilized cell idea as a full blow person than every woman on today's safe and effective Birth Control Pill is committing mass murder because the Pill contaminates the womb so that the ALREADY FERTILIZED EGG cannot implant and hence aborts.

I can't think of many people that really, seriously belive this is murder.

Secondly: You have a fully developed living breathing person with rights to consider here... the woman. No where in law can one person be legally forced to give up their personal body so something or someone else can get the benifit of it or even live for that matter.

In Example: If my brother needed a bone marrow transplant and I was the only person on earth that could save him... I'm not (and shouldn't be) legally bound to do anything against my will as far as giving up my body for use.

So we end up in a situation where someone that can live on their own and make an informed decision has that final decision of events over something that cannot.

So we can say that those first two cells are a person or anything else only because if everything went well, no disease, no severe birth defect, no miscarriage, not still born, not aborted etc. they would eventually be born and having personhood.

But until it is viable (reasonably able to live on it's own outside the womb) it doesn't have the same standing as a person with personhood. It's basically a legal difference... person isn't personhood.

 

[Dr.Who]

Let's try and remember that if one takes this fertilized cell idea as a full blow person than every woman on today's safe and effective Birth Control Pill is committing mass murder because the Pill contaminates the womb so that the ALREADY FERTILIZED EGG cannot implant and hence aborts.

You have said this a few times now but just as the data presented to the court in R V W was not correct and misleading this needs to be corrected too before people are mislead.

The pill mimics the effect of being pregnant and since pregnant women don't ovulate they don't get pregnant again. Most of the time ovulation is stopped and so there is no egg to be fertilized.

Second, the birth control pill makes the environment of the womb hostile to sperm. In almost all cases first the sperm is dead and so no fertilization could take place if there were an egg to be fertilized.

Yes there are cases in which fertilization takes place then, then the environment of the womb is hostile to the fertilized egg. But it is not entirely hostile as sometimes the fertilization results in a pregnancy and sometimes in a birth.

 

[palerider]

You are doing what Chip refused to do. Namely, site three sources that are clearly relevant. Your sources have more scientific merit than what Chip was attempting. I realize that there are many sides to the issue, scientific, moral, legal, and personal. I think abortion is a very bad way of birth control, but I am a male, and I am not going to try to pass my judgment on women. My posts here were mainly to challenge poor science that seems to pervade the whole subject.

Those are only 3. Practically every medical textbook on earth used to teach the subjects of embryology, fetology, developmental biology, and OB/Gyn freely acknowledge that we are human beings from the time we are concieved. What else could we be. The fact that we are immature does not make us something else.

Your post seemed to be challenging something other than poor science. The references that I provided didn't provide any revalations that Chip's didn't provide at the beginning. What you were doing was engaging in a logical fallacy known as a circumstantial ad hominem. You were attacking sources rather than the information itself. Information is what it is without regard to where it comes from. It is either right or wrong. You were doomed to fail in any effort to prove that the information was wrong so you irrationally attacked the source and the one who posted it.

As I say, I don't pass judgement on others, but my personal feelings goes along the lines of the written opinion of the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade.

Then again, you are in the wrong. There are reasons that the roe v wade decision is correctly called one of the worst supreme court decisions ever made. The majority in the court had an agenda and fabricated whatever they needed to fabricate in order to justify their decision. Much as you, and most pro choicers must do as the facts simply don't support your position.

One must wonder whether you have ever actually read the opinion of the court that your feelings agree with. Science states that it (the unborn) is a human being. The court never said that women have the right to kill a human being for reasons other than self defense, because they never would have been able to justify their decision constitutionally. In order to justify their decision, they had to assume that unborns are neither alive, nor human beings.

From the roe decision:

Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life.



"Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term." Pp. 147-164.

For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone.

The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life.

Those striking down state laws have generally scrutinized the State's interests in protecting health and potential life, and have concluded that neither interest justified broad limitations on the reasons for which a physician and his pregnant patient might decide that she should have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy

As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved.

We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability.

The fact is that whenever the child was mentioned by the court, it was called a potential human life. In order to justify their decision, they had to assume that it was not a human being because they knew perfectly well that to admit that the child was alive and human was to admit that it was a living human being and in the eyes of the law, all living human beings are persons and all persons in this country are entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment.

The court based its "claim" that unborns are not, in reality, human beings on the fact that there exists some disagreements among scientists, theologians, and philosophers on the topic of when a living human comes into being. They admit that they simply do not know.

From the roe decision:

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

The statement in red leads one to wonder: when a new species is found in the rain forest, or when a body is lying on a hospital bed, are theologians or philosophers called in to determine what species a thing is, or whether or not it is alive or dead? Of course not, because only science is qualified to determine what a thing is and whether or not it is alive or dead. The argument that because there exist no agreement between science, theology, and philosophy that the facts are unknowable is at its foundations specious.

They (the majority) freely admit that they are making a decision in a state of uncertainty and are thereby flagrantly violating both their ethical and judicial responsibility to never make a decision when in a state of uncertainty when the decision may result in great harm. I would call 40 million human beings killed without the benefit of judicial review great harm, how about you.

Finally, in the majority decision, justice Blackmun acknowledges that should the question of personhood of the unborn ever be legally answered, that roe would be finished.

From the roe decision:

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Perhaps at the time of roe, no body of legal precedent could be cited that supports the argument that the unborn is a person within the meaning of the 14th amendment. Now, however, there is a fairly large, and growing body of legal precedent for the personhood of the unborn at any stage of development.

There are people in prison today having been charged separately and specifically for the death of unborns. In this country, you can't even be charged for criminaly homicide, much less tried, convicted and sentenced for any form of criminal homicide unless you have, in fact, killed a person.

The judge states clearly that if legal precedent exists establishing the personhood of the unborn that roe would fail because the right of the unborn to live would trump any right or claim that a woman may make.

If your feelings follow the court, in the light that legal precedent now exists establishing the personhood of the unborn, if you were being intellectually honest when you said it, it stands to reason that you should now be anti abortion on demand.

 

[palerider]

Ahhh, are you really that hahrd of understanding

I said the eggs were fertislied.

What does it matter where they were bought?

Now try again and make some scrambled chickens

We have been through that as well. The fact that your intellectual limitations only allow you to recognize a chicken as a two legged bird with exceptionally ugly feet does not change the fact that an immature chicken is also a chicken. Your personal intellectual failings and limitations do not alter the facts.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The fact that your intellectual limitations only allow you to recognize a chicken as a two legged bird with exceptionally ugly feet does not change the fact that an immature chicken is also a chicken.

No...it's still a pre-omelet.​