It's Official: Life begins at conception

[Cecilie1200]

And the funny thing is, these are the same people who've been screeching for the longest time about "Science!!! Keep your superstitions and religion out of it!!! Science!!!" The more obvious is becomes that the science doesn't agree with them and never did, the more they want to make it about mysticism.

No matter what argument they make, they'll lose. So the only real choice they have is denial. What gets me about some if not most of the pro-abortion whackos, is how adamantly they defend the taking of an innocent life while opposing capitol punishment.

Likewise it's interesting to see certain pro-lifers screech about how "it's alive and it's human, Science! Biology!" then when it comes to the death penalty "screw life and the blindly obvious fact that these are human beings kill them for the victims."

Sorry, but "not really a person" is only a dodge that cowardly leftists need to use to justify their desire to kill. No one on the right has EVER tried to say capital punishment is acceptable because murderers aren't human. Nor, for that matter, have any of us ever said, "Screw life". Unlike you, we don't have to, because WE can actually make a valid, compelling argument for killing murderers. Please don't think I don't appreciate your difficulty in generating sympathy for killing helpless infants.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If a fetus is considered to have all the legal protections of a human being, then consider the following scenario:
A woman takes a medication that can cause the death or serious birth defects in an unborn child.But she does this out of negligence, and not to terminate the fetus' life. Should she be charged with negligent homicide (if the fetus dies) or with some lesser crime if the child is born impaired because she took some medication to treat her own medical condition?
And then of course there is "Fetal Alcohol Syndrome"
"Drinking during pregnancy can result in a child being born with a range of disorders known as fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD), the most severe of which is fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS)."
What charges should be brought against an alcoholic mother for the resultant birth defects in her child caused by her excessive drinking?

I believe fetal alcohol syndrome is already grounds for taking custody of the child.

More to the point, why is it always all or nothing with people? Why does there always have to be this entire RAFT of shit added onto the desire to JUST NOT KILL BABIES?

Because you can't claim that a fetus is on par with a person and ignore the implications of that.

Who said "ignore"? I just said we don't have to have every single possible permutation and contingency planned for before we can save children's lives. You leftists sure the fuck don't feel the need to plan for ANY of the possible contingencies before you rush right out and remake society in your image in the name of "hope and change" and "someone has to do something". Would that your standards for EVERY law were as stringent as they are for abortion laws.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't know what makes life so special?

Because if it isn't, you and a lot of other people have nothing else to recommend you.

 

[Father Time]

No matter what argument they make, they'll lose. So the only real choice they have is denial. What gets me about some if not most of the pro-abortion whackos, is how adamantly they defend the taking of an innocent life while opposing capitol punishment.

Likewise it's interesting to see certain pro-lifers screech about how "it's alive and it's human, Science! Biology!" then when it comes to the death penalty "screw life and the blindly obvious fact that these are human beings kill them for the victims."

Sorry, but "not really a person" is only a dodge that cowardly leftists need to use to justify their desire to kill.

I never said a fetus wasn't a person but nice straw man.

Nor, for that matter, have any of us ever said, "Screw life".

You got something to back that up that no one's ever said that? But heaven forbid I exaggerate a bit when talking about people who suddenly don't care about life when they want to fry someone.

Unlike you, we don't have to, because WE can actually make a valid, compelling argument for killing murderers.

Yeah you keep telling yourselves that.

Please don't think I don't appreciate your difficulty in generating sympathy for killing helpless infants.

Please point out where on this thread I've advocated abortion or killing infants.

 

[Father Time]

so a stupid law, that wasted tax's payers money, just to be overturned by the supreme court...

Not a chance...but I'd pay good money to see someone try to argue against it.

Would you pay me if I played devil's advocate?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Likewise it's interesting to see certain pro-lifers screech about how "it's alive and it's human, Science! Biology!" then when it comes to the death penalty "screw life and the blindly obvious fact that these are human beings kill them for the victims."

Sorry, but "not really a person" is only a dodge that cowardly leftists need to use to justify their desire to kill.

I never said a fetus wasn't a person but nice straw man.

Speaking of straw men, that whole "I didn't do it, so what you said about the left is totally invalidated by my one personal experience" thing is one of the biggest. And that's assuming I even believe that you've never supported that argument, or that I care whether you personally do or not.

Look at my post, doofus. I said "cowardly leftists", not you. If you want to identify with the phrase "cowardly leftist", that's YOUR issue, not mine.

You got something to back that up that no one's ever said that? But heaven forbid I exaggerate a bit when talking about people who suddenly don't care about life when they want to fry someone.

Ah, the ever-popular leftist "all or nothing" argument. If ONE lunatic somewhere in Light-My-Fart, Arkansas, has ever said something, that makes it the official position of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. The opposite tactic to "You can't accuse the left of it because I PERSONALLY haven't done it" argument, and just as meaningless.

Unlike you, we don't have to, because WE can actually make a valid, compelling argument for killing murderers.

Yeah you keep telling yourselves that.

Like I needed permission and moral validation from YOU to believe that taking the life of someone like Ted Bundy is acceptable. You can disagree with it all you like, but only a navel-gazing me-monkey could believe that there ISN'T a valid argument for it simply because HE has decided it's not right.

Please don't think I don't appreciate your difficulty in generating sympathy for killing helpless infants.

Please point out where on this thread I've advocated abortion or killing infants.

Oh, okay. NOW I'm confined to having the same five-minute memory span you do in my arguments, and you think you can force me to ONLY remember what you've said in THIS thread? Fuck you, Jack. If you want to pretend you're a staunch defender of unborn babies for the purposes of this debate, the burden of proof is on YOU, not me. Show me, don't tell me, where you've been an opponent of abortion in the past, because I know better.

And don't EVER try to set my debate criteria for me again.

 

[Father Time]

Ah, the ever-popular leftist "all or nothing" argument. If ONE lunatic somewhere in Light-My-Fart, Arkansas, has ever said something, that makes it the official position of the conservative movement and the Republican Party.

Ooh goody more straw men. You said "Nor, for that matter, have any of us ever said, "Screw life". " all I asked for is proof that none of you ever said it.

Like I needed permission and moral validation from YOU to believe that taking the life of someone like Ted Bundy is acceptable. You can disagree with it all you like, but only a navel-gazing me-monkey could believe that there ISN'T a valid argument for it simply because HE has decided it's not right.

You honestly thought that simply repeating your position and stating "you're an idiot if you don't believe it" is an argument?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ah, the ever-popular leftist "all or nothing" argument. If ONE lunatic somewhere in Light-My-Fart, Arkansas, has ever said something, that makes it the official position of the conservative movement and the Republican Party.

Ooh goody more straw men. You said "Nor, for that matter, have any of us ever said, "Screw life". " all I asked for is proof that none of you ever said it.

Like I needed permission and moral validation from YOU to believe that taking the life of someone like Ted Bundy is acceptable. You can disagree with it all you like, but only a navel-gazing me-monkey could believe that there ISN'T a valid argument for it simply because HE has decided it's not right.

You honestly thought that simply repeating your position and stating "you're an idiot if you don't believe it" is an argument?

You didn't ask me to state the argument, dimwit. You just "graciously" gave me permission to believe I had a valid argument, and I was commenting on your hubristic belief that I NEED your permission. Try to keep your arguments straight.

Tell you what. Why don't you just go whine and snivel on my user page about how mean I am some more? You seem to be able to manage THAT coherently. But don't ever wonder again WHY I do it. If you have to whimper and cry about not getting respect, you don't deserve it.

 

[Father Time]

Tell you what. Why don't you just go whine and snivel on my user page about how mean I am some more? You seem to be able to manage THAT coherently. But don't ever wonder again WHY I do it. If you have to whimper and cry about not getting respect, you don't deserve it.

Notice the time stamps, I asked that question before you responded to me and I'd still like to know exactly why you're rude to everyone else.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

It's a good thing for me that the overwhelmingly large majority of highly educated medical professionals believe life correlates more with viability. But I'm sure all that knowledge doesn't mean much if a bunch of undereducated rednecks with old holy books say otherwise.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's a good thing for me that the overwhelmingly large majority of highly educated medical professionals believe life correlates more with viability. But I'm sure all that knowledge doesn't mean much if a bunch of undereducated rednecks with old holy books say otherwise.

Really? Please prove that "the overwhelmingly large majority" of medical professionals believe life and viability are one and the same. While you may be able to point to a majority who think LEGAL ABORTION should correlate to viability outside the womb (because, of course, that's not the same thing as simple viability), that's a very different thing from "not alive".

I shall be breathlessly awaiting your no doubt fascinating response.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's a good thing for me that the overwhelmingly large majority of highly educated medical professionals believe life correlates more with viability. But I'm sure all that knowledge doesn't mean much if a bunch of undereducated rednecks with old holy books say otherwise.

Really? Please prove that "the overwhelmingly large majority" of medical professionals believe life and viability are one and the same. While you may be able to point to a majority who think LEGAL ABORTION should correlate to viability outside the womb (because, of course, that's not the same thing as simple viability), that's a very different thing from "not alive".

I shall be breathlessly awaiting your no doubt fascinating response.

What is viability anyway?

Is it a perfectly joined human egg and sperm with all the potential to be a fully formed, functioning, healthy, happy human being?

Is it the fetus that has just barely reached that point that it survives the miscarriage or necessary C-section and with intensive medical care and incubation for months can live?

Is it the fully formed infant a day or two before delivery just gaining weight and waiting for the biological trigger that starts labor?

It is noted that in many places, abortion is legal at ANY of the above stages. In some it is legal to allow the fully formed baby to emerge completely from the womb except for the crown of its head at which time the doctor kills it and completes the delivery calling that an abortion. At least in Illinois it is legal for the doctor to withhold medical care, hydration, and nutrition from an infant that survives abortion and thus cause it to die.​

But moving right along on the question of viability:

Is it the newborn who is completely helpless and must rely on others for all its needs?

Is it the six month old that can communicate at a very primitive level but is still totally dependent on others for all hydration, nutrition, and other needs?

Is it the one year old unable to survive unless food and water is within his/her reach and that must be supplied by others?

Is it the six year old who can scrounge his own food and water, but is mostly unable to provide for himself without help?

That is the dilemma for the pro lifer who cannot see any one of these stages as being any more or less important in a human life.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's a good thing for me that the overwhelmingly large majority of highly educated medical professionals believe life correlates more with viability. But I'm sure all that knowledge doesn't mean much if a bunch of undereducated rednecks with old holy books say otherwise.

Really? Please prove that "the overwhelmingly large majority" of medical professionals believe life and viability are one and the same. While you may be able to point to a majority who think LEGAL ABORTION should correlate to viability outside the womb (because, of course, that's not the same thing as simple viability), that's a very different thing from "not alive".

I shall be breathlessly awaiting your no doubt fascinating response.

What is viability anyway?

Is it a perfectly joined human egg and sperm with all the potential to be a fully formed, functioning, healthy, happy human being?

Is it the fetus that has just barely reached that point that it survives the miscarriage or necessary C-section and with intensive medical care and incubation for months can live?

Is it the fully formed infant a day or two before delivery just gaining weight and waiting for the biological trigger that starts labor?

It is noted that in many places, abortion is legal at ANY of the above stages. In some it is legal to allow the fully formed baby to emerge completely from the womb except for the crown of its head at which time the doctor kills it and completes the delivery calling that an abortion. At least in Illinois it is legal for the doctor to withhold medical care, hydration, and nutrition from an infant that survives abortion and thus cause it to die.​

But moving right along on the question of viability:

Is it the newborn who is completely helpless and must rely on others for all its needs?

Is it the six month old that can communicate at a very primitive level but is still totally dependent on others for all hydration, nutrition, and other needs?

Is it the one year old unable to survive unless food and water is within his/her reach and that must be supplied by others?

Is it the six year old who can scrounge his own food and water, but is mostly unable to provide for himself without help?

That is the dilemma for the pro lifer who cannot see any one of these stages as being any more or less important in a human life.

Well, let's go to the Merriam-Webster dictionary and find out:

Viable - : capable of living; especially : having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb <a viable fetus>
2: capable of growing or developing <viable seeds> <viable eggs>
3a : capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately <viable alternatives> b : capable of existence and development as an independent unit <the colony is now a viable state>

You will note that, aside from the part I italicized, when it is used specifically to refer to a baby's survival chances outside the womb, location is never a factor. This is why I differentiate between "viable" and "viable outside the womb": because a fetus is no more intended to live outside the womb before birth than a fish is intended to live outside the river or ocean he's native to. In his natural environment - the uterus - a fetus is just as viable in the sense of "capable of living, growing, functioning, and developing" as any other creature.

 

[Foxfyre]

Really? Please prove that "the overwhelmingly large majority" of medical professionals believe life and viability are one and the same. While you may be able to point to a majority who think LEGAL ABORTION should correlate to viability outside the womb (because, of course, that's not the same thing as simple viability), that's a very different thing from "not alive".

I shall be breathlessly awaiting your no doubt fascinating response.

What is viability anyway?

Is it a perfectly joined human egg and sperm with all the potential to be a fully formed, functioning, healthy, happy human being?

Is it the fetus that has just barely reached that point that it survives the miscarriage or necessary C-section and with intensive medical care and incubation for months can live?

Is it the fully formed infant a day or two before delivery just gaining weight and waiting for the biological trigger that starts labor?

It is noted that in many places, abortion is legal at ANY of the above stages. In some it is legal to allow the fully formed baby to emerge completely from the womb except for the crown of its head at which time the doctor kills it and completes the delivery calling that an abortion. At least in Illinois it is legal for the doctor to withhold medical care, hydration, and nutrition from an infant that survives abortion and thus cause it to die.​

But moving right along on the question of viability:

Is it the newborn who is completely helpless and must rely on others for all its needs?

Is it the six month old that can communicate at a very primitive level but is still totally dependent on others for all hydration, nutrition, and other needs?

Is it the one year old unable to survive unless food and water is within his/her reach and that must be supplied by others?

Is it the six year old who can scrounge his own food and water, but is mostly unable to provide for himself without help?

That is the dilemma for the pro lifer who cannot see any one of these stages as being any more or less important in a human life.

Well, let's go to the Merriam-Webster dictionary and find out:

Viable - : capable of living; especially : having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb <a viable fetus>
2: capable of growing or developing <viable seeds> <viable eggs>
3a : capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately <viable alternatives> b : capable of existence and development as an independent unit <the colony is now a viable state>

You will note that, aside from the part I italicized, when it is used specifically to refer to a baby's survival chances outside the womb, location is never a factor. This is why I differentiate between "viable" and "viable outside the womb": because a fetus is no more intended to live outside the womb before birth than a fish is intended to live outside the river or ocean he's native to. In his natural environment - the uterus - a fetus is just as viable in the sense of "capable of living, growing, functioning, and developing" as any other creature.

And even 'capable of surviving outside the mother's womb' is problematic when the born human is incapable of providing essential basic needs for himself/herself for months or years outside the womb.

So for me the issue is twofold.

1. What obligation do the people who conceived the child have toward that child?

2. What right does a woman have to determine what is best for her re her own body?

The pro lifer sees two separate issues - two separate human beings.

I think many pro choicers see only one issue until the child is born.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Really? Please prove that "the overwhelmingly large majority" of medical professionals believe life and viability are one and the same. While you may be able to point to a majority who think LEGAL ABORTION should correlate to viability outside the womb (because, of course, that's not the same thing as simple viability), that's a very different thing from "not alive".

I shall be breathlessly awaiting your no doubt fascinating response.

I think it's particularly funny because in a subsequent post you paste the definition of viability with #1 being "capable of living". Interesting that a layman dictionary would equate viability with the capacity for life. This should be specifically distinguished from living tissue, which can be anything from a chicken egg to cancer.

So to be clear, the capacity for life outside the womb is around the 24th week of pregnancy. You can draw a number of arbitrary lines regarding the capacity to become a viable fetus all you like, from proper implantation, to nutrient supply, to conception, back to the creation of sperm and egg. All of these steps REQUIRE external factors that allow for the chance to become viable outside the womb, but NONE of them alone can do it. People without much education, such as yourself, tend to ignore these other necessary aspects, as if they don't exist or somehow don't count.

But if you want to claim that a human life starts at conception, please realize that as many as 40% of "human lives" are lost to miscarriage.

 

[Father Time]

But if you want to claim that a human life starts at conception, please realize that as many as 40% of "human lives" are lost to miscarriage.

Why would that matter?

 

[Foxfyre]

But if you want to claim that a human life starts at conception, please realize that as many as 40% of "human lives" are lost to miscarriage.

Yes, and a certain percentage of babies don't survive their first months of life outside the womb. And a certain percentage of children don't survive childhood for various reasons. A huge number of adults die from different causes long before they reach old age. And in old age a high percentage of folks accept an increasingly shorter lifespan remaining.

But you know what? Every single one of those folks are a human life just the same.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

The point was that these so-called "human lives" you deem so at conception biologically have a large chance of never making it to forming anything otuside a few cells. People who tend to take the "but it's nature" approach don't quite seem to understand that "nature" is very skewed here.

But let's simplify this example a bit. Is this a tree:

I'm not asking if it can become a tree, or if it belongs to the same species as a tree. I'm asking if it's a tree right now in its current state.

 

[Foxfyre]

The point was that these so-called "human lives" you deem so at conception biologically have a large chance of never making it to forming anything otuside a few cells. People who tend to take the "but it's nature" approach don't quite seem to understand that "nature" is very skewed here.

But let's simplify this example a bit. Is this a tree:

I'm not asking if it can become a tree, or if it belongs to the same species as a tree. I'm asking if it's a tree right now in its current state.

It is the most primitive stage of a fully formed oak tree. It has no chance to be anything beyond that stage without exposure to just the right combination of soil, water, sunlight, and air, It may sprout and become an imperfect tree when those combinations are less than adequate in which case it probably won't survive or, if it does, it will be stunted, misshappen, or otherwise imperfect. Use that acorn as squirrel food or decorations or otherwise appropriate for use other than to allow it its full potential and there will simply be one less oak tree in the world.

Do you see an acorn as no different than a human embryo?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Really? Please prove that "the overwhelmingly large majority" of medical professionals believe life and viability are one and the same. While you may be able to point to a majority who think LEGAL ABORTION should correlate to viability outside the womb (because, of course, that's not the same thing as simple viability), that's a very different thing from "not alive".

I shall be breathlessly awaiting your no doubt fascinating response.

I think it's particularly funny because in a subsequent post you paste the definition of viability with #1 being "capable of living". Interesting that a layman dictionary would equate viability with the capacity for life. This should be specifically distinguished from living tissue, which can be anything from a chicken egg to cancer.

No, it shouldn't, because "viable" is a word used for a lot more than just talking about organisms in general and fetuses in specific, however much the left has tried to hijack the word. If you want to do an organ transplant, you can't just use any old organ. You need to use a viable one, one that has the capacity for life inside the patient (just as an example).

So to be clear, the capacity for life outside the womb is around the 24th week of pregnancy. You can draw a number of arbitrary lines regarding the capacity to become a viable fetus all you like, from proper implantation, to nutrient supply, to conception, back to the creation of sperm and egg. All of these steps REQUIRE external factors that allow for the chance to become viable outside the womb, but NONE of them alone can do it. People without much education, such as yourself, tend to ignore these other necessary aspects, as if they don't exist or somehow don't count.

People without much brains, such as yourself, go to great lengths to try to define the debate, including poking their fingers in their ears and humming any time someone makes it clear to them that THEIR POINT IS IRRELEVANT.

I don't give a good goddamn when viability outside the womb occurs, because no matter how many times you run off at the mouth about it in order to pretend that that's the issue, or even important to the debate, that doesn't make it so. In short, they DON'T count.

But if you want to claim that a human life starts at conception, please realize that as many as 40% of "human lives" are lost to miscarriage.

100% of human lives are lost to some sort of misfortune eventually. So what? Are you seriously suggesting that I shouldn't consider ANYONE alive if they're going to die at some point?