Life begins at conception.

[LilOlLady]

LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION.

If a clumps of cells is life, life begins before conception. The sole purpose of a human egg is reproductions. But an egg, a fertilized egg or a clump of cells in not a life but a potential life and terminating that life cannot be murder because it is not yet a life. One cannot murder a cell or clump of cells. A clump of living cells is not a human being. And the definition of murder has to be death of a human. Then an egg is a human being and any form of birth control, the morning after pill, is murder because it prevents life? Abortion is preventing life and not destroying a “life.”

How would an anti-abortion law be enforce and what would be the criteria.

We should not be forcing women to give birth to children they do not want. That would be far more immoral and devastating than an abortion.

A fertilized chicken egg is not a chicken. It is a fertilized egg. A potential chicken but not yet a chicken.

I would be interesting to know the DNA of eggs. If each is different? Can you take the DNA of an egg and identify it’s owner?

What did GOD mean when he said "I saw the embryo of you?"

 

[hortysir]

Define "Life"

 

[lizzie]

LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION.

If a clumps of cells is life, life begins before conception. The sole purpose of a human egg is reproductions. But an egg, a fertilized egg or a clump of cells in not a life but a potential life and terminating that life cannot be murder because it is not yet a life. One cannot murder a cell or clump of cells. A clump of living cells is not a human being. And the definition of murder has to be death of a human. Then an egg is a human being and any form of birth control, the morning after pill, is murder because it prevents life? Abortion is preventing life and not destroying a “life.”

An egg is not a life. A sperm is not a life. The result of a union of egg and sperm is a life with distinct dna coding for a separate individual human being.

LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION.
How would an anti-abortion law be enforce and what would be the criteria.

We should not be forcing women to give birth to children they do not want. That would be far more immoral and devastating than an abortion.

I don't support an anti-abortion law, so the criteria are a moot point to me. The incident of immorality does not occur when someone is "forced" to give birth to a child, but when the woman puts herself in the position of becoming pregnant with a child she does not want. The former would be a legal issue, the latter borders more on a moral one. We are all forced, to one degree or another, to do things we don't agree with, so the question would be is one form of government enforcement any more immoral than another?

LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION.
A fertilized chicken egg is not a chicken. It is a fertilized egg. A potential chicken but not yet a chicken.

I would be interesting to know the DNA of eggs. If each is different? Can you take the DNA of an egg and identify it’s owner?

What did GOD mean when he said "I saw the embryo of you?"

To the bolded: I'm not 100% certain, but would willingly bet that is correct.

 

[konradv]

Define "Life"

Anything that can reproduce itself.

 

[Avatar4321]

Life began before the world was, now is just the next step in it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Define "Life"

Anything that can reproduce itself.

So an infertile man or woman is not alive?

 

[Dragon]

An egg is not a life. A sperm is not a life.

In biological terms, there is no such thing as "a life." Life is a mass-noun, not a count-noun.

The only contexts in which "a life" has meaning are personal ("the course of my life," etc.) or religious ("your next life," etc.).

Biologically, life has no beginning, except the point when life first emerged on this planet. Since then, life has been a continuum, without separate beginnings, and so far without end.

 

[lizzie]

An egg is not a life. A sperm is not a life.

In biological terms, there is no such thing as "a life." Life is a mass-noun, not a count-noun.

The only contexts in which "a life" has meaning are personal ("the course of my life," etc.) or religious ("your next life," etc.).

Biologically, life has no beginning, except the point when life first emerged on this planet. Since then, life has been a continuum, without separate beginnings, and so far without end.

Technically, you are correct, but since the issue revolves around abortion, and whether or not abortion is the taking of a life, the distinction matters.

 

[Brucethethinker]

No doubt a fertilized egg is the first stage of the life of a person. Abortion is murder, however I don't think it's any of my business if you want to murder your own children. I think you should be able to murder your own children any time up until they move out of the house and earn their own living.

 

[uscitizen]

Voters in MIssippi clearly disagreed with the OP.

 

[Dragon]

Technically, you are correct, but since the issue revolves around abortion, and whether or not abortion is the taking of a life, the distinction matters.

(Emphasis added.) That is NOT what the issue revolves around. There is no dispute over whether an embryo at conception is alive. The dispute is over whether it is a PERSON. That is NOT the same thing.

"Destroying human life" is trivial. When a man cuts himself shaving, he destroys human life. When two guys get into a fistfight in a bar, and one gives the other a bloody knows, he's destroyed human life. Every non-pregnant woman of child-bearing years flushes human life down the toilet once a month.

What matters is whether a PERSON has been killed, not whether "human life" has been destroyed.

An embryo at conception is a bit of living human tissue without a brain. Since it does not have a brain, it also has no feelings, thoughts, or personality. It is not a person.

 

[PredFan]

The cells in my skin are alive, my cat is a life, so is the cockroach that crawls accross the floor.

No one living today will ever see abortions become illegal again in the US. Give it up already.

 

[lizzie]

Technically, you are correct, but since the issue revolves around abortion, and whether or not abortion is the taking of a life, the distinction matters.

(Emphasis added.) That is NOT what the issue revolves around. There is no dispute over whether an embryo at conception is alive. The dispute is over whether it is a PERSON. That is NOT the same thing.

"Destroying human life" is trivial. When a man cuts himself shaving, he destroys human life. When two guys get into a fistfight in a bar, and one gives the other a bloody knows, he's destroyed human life. Every non-pregnant woman of child-bearing years flushes human life down the toilet once a month.

What matters is whether a PERSON has been killed, not whether "human life" has been destroyed.

An embryo at conception is a bit of living human tissue without a brain. Since it does not have a brain, it also has no feelings, thoughts, or personality. It is not a person.

To the bolded: would you say the same about a human adult which has severe enough brain damage to meet those same criteria?

The issue revolves around "a life" as opposed to "life". Every human cell is alive, every cell is not a human life in the context of the abortion issue.

 

[lizzie]

The cells in my skin are alive, my cat is a life, so is the cockroach that crawls accross the floor.

No one living today will ever see abortions become illegal again in the US. Give it up already.

I don't support abortion becoming illegal.

 

[Dragon]

To the bolded: would you say the same about a human adult which has severe enough brain damage to meet those same criteria?

Yes. If there was a way to repair that damage I might hesitate, but I know there isn't. A brain damaged human body that no longer has a functioning cortex is no longer a person. I would definitely approve of euthanasia under those conditions.

The issue revolves around "a life" as opposed to "life". Every human cell is alive, every cell is not a human life in the context of the abortion issue.

We now come full circle. In terms of biology, there is no such thing as "a human life." Life is a continuum. Personhood is not biology; it is an emergent function of biology, a product of the activity of the brain. Until there is a functioning cerebral cortex, there is no person. Until there is a person, there is no one to live or die.

 

[Cecilie1200]

An egg is not a life. A sperm is not a life.

In biological terms, there is no such thing as "a life." Life is a mass-noun, not a count-noun.

The only contexts in which "a life" has meaning are personal ("the course of my life," etc.) or religious ("your next life," etc.).

Biologically, life has no beginning, except the point when life first emerged on this planet. Since then, life has been a continuum, without separate beginnings, and so far without end.

In biological terms, oh ignorant word-parser, there is such a thing as "a living organism". There is a specific, measurable beginning to that living organism's existence. But nice try at deflection. It almost sounded as if you knew more than my 3-year-old about biology.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Technically, you are correct, but since the issue revolves around abortion, and whether or not abortion is the taking of a life, the distinction matters.

(Emphasis added.) That is NOT what the issue revolves around. There is no dispute over whether an embryo at conception is alive. The dispute is over whether it is a PERSON. That is NOT the same thing.

"Destroying human life" is trivial. When a man cuts himself shaving, he destroys human life. When two guys get into a fistfight in a bar, and one gives the other a bloody knows, he's destroyed human life. Every non-pregnant woman of child-bearing years flushes human life down the toilet once a month.

What matters is whether a PERSON has been killed, not whether "human life" has been destroyed.

An embryo at conception is a bit of living human tissue without a brain. Since it does not have a brain, it also has no feelings, thoughts, or personality. It is not a person.

No, the issue is over whether an embryo is a living human being. The problem is, you and your fellow scientific imbeciles lost that argument, and now you're trying to bully everyone into ignoring that and changing the argument to some fuzzy-wuzzy metaphysical mess that, by definition, can never be proved or disproved - especially since, like all good leftists, you reserve the right to change the definitions of words at will.

Unfortunately for you, your belief that you and you alone get to define the debate is as wrong as the left's earlier insistence that embryos are not living human beings. By all means, continue to tell us how there's no argument, because embryos don't live up to some bullshit arbitrary standard you've decided to impose. We'll go right on saying, "You're a heartless sicko for killing innocent human beings in job lots" and opposing you, because in case you didn't notice, no one's giving credibility to someone so scientifically uneducated that she can't tell the difference between an ovum and an embryo.

 

[Cecilie1200]

To the bolded: would you say the same about a human adult which has severe enough brain damage to meet those same criteria?

Yes. If there was a way to repair that damage I might hesitate, but I know there isn't. A brain damaged human body that no longer has a functioning cortex is no longer a person. I would definitely approve of euthanasia under those conditions.

The issue revolves around "a life" as opposed to "life". Every human cell is alive, every cell is not a human life in the context of the abortion issue.

We now come full circle. In terms of biology, there is no such thing as "a human life." Life is a continuum. Personhood is not biology; it is an emergent function of biology, a product of the activity of the brain. Until there is a functioning cerebral cortex, there is no person. Until there is a person, there is no one to live or die.

It's so cute when leftist dimwits try to pretend they know something about science and get all lecture-y about it. Tell us again how there's no difference between ova, sperm, and embryos. That one always cracks me up, and SOOO makes me want to listen to you on your high horse, telling people about "in terms of biology", as if you would know.

 

[The Infidel]

Define "Life"

Anything that can reproduce itself.

So if by your logic, if I go kill my kid right now.... she hasnt been able to reproduce life yet, so therefore she is not a life as of yet?

Wow... how silly!

I will jut tell the authorities it was a late term abortion, not murder.

 

[The Infidel]

Voters in MIssippi clearly disagreed with the OP.

Good thing your mom didnt see it that way huh?