Does human life begin at conception?

Werbung:
There are several definitions of what is human life:
From a law maker.
From a religion.
From a biologist.
From a man.
From the mother.
All may have a different perspective of human life.
I would leave it up to the mother to make her own definition
 
I am very anti-abortion and would love to see it limited with some exceptions for rape, life of mother etc.

I believe personally that life begins at conception and that baby should receive the rights afforded to all people. In terms of the law - I think it is a good start the recent action some states are taking that ban abortion after 20 weeks and require abortion facilities to meet the same safety standards of ambulatory surgical centers - but any law that cuts down on the number of abortions would probably be pretty good in my book.
 
The spark of life begins when the fertilized egg implants itself into the lining of the uterus and starts cell division. About three days after conception.
 
Abortion is the issue of my lifetime..

Cakes for gay people, that’s the issue of the day. The widespread legalization of child murder? Well, why would anyone be upset about that?

You might think these two things are unrelated, and to liberals they are, and that’s the point.

The liberal philosophy of human rights is utterly random and disjointed, which is why their opinion can’t be believed or listened to or treated with respect. It’s an insane, rambling, mess of jumbled, moronic nonsense, where each right is severed and disconnected from the other with nothing tying it all together.

Just think about this for a minute.

In their minds, there exists the fundamental human right to a wedding cake, but not to life itself.
You need to understand how astonishingly incomprehensible progressivism is. In their minds, there exists the fundamental human right to a wedding cake, but not to life itself. If a man is refused a pastry, a crime against humanity has occurred. But if, in the womb, his spinal cord is severed, his body dismembered, and his lifeless carcass thrown in a dumpster, nobody can be accused of infringing on his liberty.

So whatever supernatural force bestows us with our right to commodities, this omnipotent being did not, it turns out, also give us the right to exist to begin with. You have the right to have, but not to be, which seems like a logistical complication considering the minor difficulty of having something when you aren’t something. Might abortion be opposed, then, on the grounds that murdering a child will impede his right to eventually have his gay wedding catered by the business of his choosing?

I suppose that’s a path pro-lifers haven’t explored.

Sorry. Look at me wasting my breath trying to convince you that people are people are people. This isn’t exactly some unattainable revelation that must be passed down to us by a higher intelligence. That fact that people are people is arguably the most self-evident reality in the universe.

Look, this is elementary logic. Like, well below first grade level. So elementary that children (or “half-people,” using liberal terminology) understand it on an instinctual level. They might have to learn what a horse or a pig is, but once they’re taught, they’ll likely never ask whether a horse can be a horse but not a horse at the same time. No, it’ll take at least 12 years of public school and four years at college for them to get that dumb.

(However, destroying unborn bald eagles is still a federal crime, carrying a sentence of two years imprisonment. Apparently, an eagle is an eagle from the moment of conception.)

In all 50 states, unborn children are offered fewer legal protections than pit bulls, polar bears, and spotted owls. Consequentially, about 60 million have been exterminated in this country since 1973, and not a single murder charge was handed down. Sixty million. Think of the Holocaust repeated every decade for one hundred years. That’s the body count we’re dealing with. Only, many of the German Nazis were eventually tried and executed for their crimes, while the American Nazis are treated to banquets with the president.
 
If human life ends when the brain ceases to function, doesn't it follow that it begins when the brain begins to function?
 
It might had they not chosen to make a seperate term "brain dead" to define it.
A person who is "brain dead" is determined to be dead even if the heart is still beating. So, it is brain function that determines if a person is alive, not the beating heart and certainly not the possession of a unique genome. If having a unique DNA is the determinant, then the Neanderthal from whom the DNA of that species was sequenced was still alive.
 
A person who is "brain dead" is determined to be dead even if the heart is still beating. So, it is brain function that determines if a person is alive, not the beating heart and certainly not the possession of a unique genome. If having a unique DNA is the determinant, then the Neanderthal from whom the DNA of that species was sequenced was still alive.
Techmically speaking brain dead was coined as a legal distinction not a medical or scienyific one.
The dna example doesnt work as caveman's portiion is only a portion. When sperm and egg merge a new complete and unique is created.
 
Techmically speaking brain dead was coined as a legal distinction not a medical or scienyific one.
The dna example doesnt work as caveman's portiion is only a portion. When sperm and egg merge a new complete and unique is created.
True, but that complete and unique DNA still exists long after the individual ceases to breathe or have brain function.
 
Werbung:
If human life ends when the brain ceases to function, doesn't it follow that it begins when the brain begins to function?

No, it doesn't. 'Life' is one thing, human life another, and human life, everywhere and always, has been held to begin at birth.
 
Back
Top