In lieu of La Rubia's post on an over the counter medication that would inhibit conception after sex, I ask the question, when does life start?

Editted to add lin to La Rubia's post

What is your view on that, regarding you answer here?

I like the third fourth option, its kinda funny, but it will get there someday. Something along these lines:

"During it's early life, the infant is still going through devolpment stages. These stages are similiar tad-pole becoming a frog. Becuase you know we all have frogs somewhere in our ancestory. The only diffrence is that dynamic changes in the infant are internal --mostly in the brain -- while the tadpoles are physical. Once they past this stage, infants will experiece the phenonmea known as "Infantile Amnesia" around age 3. Leading biologists believes that this ocurs as a side effect of fully devloped, normally fuctioning, human body. It is here and only here that we can consider the infant a full human being.

Therefore, we at the American Antrhropolgists institute believe it perfectly acceptagble when the Auca Indians of South America bury, and then stomp on live infants if the parents feel that they cry to much. Such helplessness of child generally shows that they are still in the "parasite" stage of life anyway.

There is only one scientific answer, as I've posted before. It's so hypocritical that in some circles, there is no doubt when it comes to other species, e.g. a bald eagle, but when it comes to human beings, it's suddenly a case of "nobody knows". Isn't it strange that the IRS has no problem determining that the lives of animals begin at conception and that they are "alive" before they are born or hatched, but with human beings there is suddenly a blind spot?

It is also insufficient to claim "We don't know when life begins." If a civil engineer does not KNOW whether a condemned building has occupants, he would be criminally negligent if he blew it up before finding out. If an undertaker does not KNOW whether a person is alive or dead, he would never bury him. So even if we don't know whether the unborn child is alive, the responsible thing is NOT to kill her.

It is also insufficient to claim "We don't know when life begins." If a civil engineer does not KNOW whether a condemned building has occupants, he would be criminally negligent if he blew it up before finding out. If an undertaker does not KNOW whether a person is alive or dead, he would never bury him. So even if we don't know whether the unborn child is alive, the responsible thing is NOT to kill her.

What a great point!

Life begins at conception. A unique and separate human being is created at that time. This is to me quite obvious. My second answer would be around 11am.

Today @ 04:04 PM post located here
Socrates:

It is also insufficient to claim "We don't know when life begins." If a civil engineer does not KNOW whether a condemned building has occupants, he would be criminally negligent if he blew it up before finding out. If an undertaker does not KNOW whether a person is alive or dead, he would never bury him. So even if we don't know whether the unborn child is alive, the responsible thing is NOT to kill her.

Good point, and I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, that wasn't the question. And your objection notwithstanding, it isn't a foregone scientific conclusion that life begins at conception. The scientific "jury" is still quite out on that one.

Today @ 10:23 PM post located here
Dee Dee Warren:

Life begins at conception. A unique and separate human being is created at that time. This is to me quite obvious. My second answer would be around 11am.

So "life" begins at conception??? What do you mean by that, EXACTLY?

Actually the egg and sperm are "alive", as is every functioning cell in the body of the woman in whom a conception may occur. All cells are BIOLOGICALLY alive in that they meet the 7 criteria biologists associate with life:

1. presence of carbon-All living things contain carbon. With few exceptions, carbon is found exclusively in association with living things.
2. organization & complexity-All living things exhibit remarkable organization in their body plans and when compared to non-living things are extremely complex.
3. metabolism-All living things absorb, convert, store, use and release energy in a variety of complex chemical reactions.
4. homeostasis-Living organisms regulate metabolic processes to maintain a "steady state".
5. response to stimuli-Living things respond to a variety of stimuli (Ex. temperature, moisture, concentration of chemicals, llight, scent, etc.)
6. growth-An organism continues to increase in size (even bacteria do this) til maturity is reached.
7. reproduction-Living organisms produce generations of like organisms.

This is what scientists mean when they say something is "alive", so

• Is a fertilized egg "alive"?===>Yes
• Is a zygote(3-10 day old pre-implantation) "alive"?===>Yes
• Is an embryo (before 8 wks., post-implantation) "alive"?===>Yes
• Is a fetus[older than 8 wks] "alive"?===>Yes

The real question is not is a conception/zygote/embryo/fetus "alive" and "human'", but when is it a human being. or a "person".

When pro-lifers say that the conceptus is "alive, virtually of them mean that the conceptus is endowed by God with a "soul" (another thing for which there is absolutely NO evidence, just as there is no evidence for any kind of supernatural entity aka "god"). This is something quite apart from the definition of life as defined by scientists. If you claim that God endows the conceptus with a soul, then you have to prove that:

• such a thing as a soul exists
• demonstrate that a soul is indeed transferred to a conceptus
• when is the soul conferred upon the conceptus
• identical twins/triplets/quadruplets pose a special problem in that this condition is not established at the time of conception but occurs later. Is the initial soul divided between the new individuals?
• what property or properties does the conferral of a soul have about it that make humans "special"
• is unique to humans (why can't animals have souls?...some religions say yes, most Christians would say no, who is right and on what basis?)

Also a reminder here..... The vast majority of conceptions (~65%) DO NOT result in a successful pregnancy. (NOTE: A pregnancy is defined as the successful implantation of a zygote in the endometrium or uterine lining---it takes 3 to 7 days after fertilization for the dividing egg to reach the uterus). They are simply washed out as part of the endometrial detritus when a woman has her period (many women have conceived, but the zygote never manages to establish itself in the endometrium).

If the zygote manages to establish itself, the lucky resident (the embryo) is still not out of the woods because 30-40% of these 1st trimester pregnancies are spontaneously ABORTED (70% show gross chromosomal abnormalities incompatible with life). The bottom-line is that +65% of all conceptions fail (a conception does not a successful pregnancy make!)

pro-lifers often quote Psalm 139:"Truly you have formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother's womb. Remember that conception takes place in the Fallopian tube and the zygote takes up to 7days to reach the uterus. There is NO justification for claiming that ensoulment occurs at conception (where does it say so?). There is also no reason to ban birth control devices that interfere with ovulation AND implantation of the zygote (trophoblastic stage). This is especially true when one considers that God seems to considers 65% of these 7 day old "humans" to be expendable at some point before the end of the first trimester (either don't implant in the lining or are spontaneously aborted)

If God really endows each and every conception (fertilized egg) with a soul (what theists REALLY mean when they say the conceptus is "alive" and a "person", not merely biologically alive), that makes GOD AN ABORTIONIST, and the biggest mass murderer of all time. (If one believes that personhood begins at fertilization)

Please don't both trying to exculpate your God from the murder charge with the usual "black is white" apologetic double-speak. By this I mean the usual tap-dance that Christians like to engage in where they try to claim that because God is all-powerful, then He can do what He wants, and as the alleged Giver of Life, He has carte-blanche to be the Snuffer of Life, i. e., He "snuffs" for some "unknown purpose" ad lib and minus the "murder" label that you'd get! In other words, it's not "murder" if God "does it" (the "black", murder, now "laundered" to the "white" of the "unknown purpose")

PULLEEZZZE! All the excuse-making (all apologetics truly is anyway) really says to me is that "might makes right"...if you're the "Chap with the Zap", you get to do any damn thing and get away with it, your frightened minions will "overlook"/excuse it! A murderer is a murderer. Your God is an abortionist and is a murderer (according to your definition===>destruction of the conceptus)


References:
1) Facts verifiable from any up-to-date textbook on medical physiology or mammalian embryology.

2) New Republic: Abortion and the Brain

The scientific "jury" is still quite out on that one.

A common phrase repeated ad nauseum by pro-choicers, but it is far from true. Science has proven that life - human life, nitpickers - unquestionably starts at conception.

Today @ 11:23 PM post located here
Jinx72:
A common phrase repeated ad nauseum by pro-choicers, but it is far from true. Science has proven that life - human life, nitpickers - unquestionably starts at conception.

Again, define what you mean by "life begins at conception", Jinx. I don't think that you mean just biochemical life, because the egg and sperm that made that conception were also "alive".

This question is NOT a "nitpick" because you and I both know that you don't just mean "biochemically alive". I challenge you to define what you mean by alive and why this kind of "alive" makes a conceptus "special" (can't be killed like any other body cell).

Hello gladiatrix. I'd just like to make a few comments.

"When anti-choicers say that the conceptus is "alive, virtually of them mean that the conceptus is endowed by God with a "soul"

Although I believe this, that is really not relevant to my anti-abortion arguments. Fact is, conception is the best place to recognize the human being. All other proposed criteria lead to morally detestable conclusions, and all are very confusing and ad-hoc.

"another thing for which there is absolutely NO evidence, just as there is no evidence for any kind of supernatural entity aka "god"

I posted some good reasons to believe in God, and you never answered. You know where to find them.

Your next claim is the usual "God is an abortionist", but you fail to realize that God did not create death originally, death entered as a result of sin. So your "argument by outrage" of God "murdering" the embryo are all hogwash. This is nothing but the argument from evil, where you claim that God should just make us all happy. Well, He tried that and it didn't work out. Death is the result.

Sincerely,

Kyle.

The real question is not is a conception/zygote/embryo/fetus "alive" and "human'", but when is it a human being. or a "person".

I tend to agree with you here. Wether it's "alive" seems like a non-issue. Everyone pretty much agrees that it is, the question is wether or not we're justified in killing it. I would say no, of course, because it is a disctint human being innocent of wrongdoing that didn't choose to become dependent on a woman's body.

At conception!

Your next claim is the usual "God is an abortionist", but you fail to realize that God did not create death originally, death entered as a result of sin. So your "argument by outrage" of God "murdering" the embryo are all hogwash.

I don't even think it's worth adressing unless someone on this thread is actually using the argument. There are plenty of 'secular' reasons for opposing abortion, which is why so many Atheists believe that abortion is immoral.

The "soul" thing was kind of a red herring.

Today @ 12:48 AM post located here
Kyle:

Hello gladiatrix. I'd just like to make a few comments.

"When anti-choicers say that the conceptus is "alive, virtually of them mean that the conceptus is endowed by God with a "soul"

Although I believe this, that is really not relevant to my anti-abortion arguments.

I don't believe that it IS irrelevant to your argument, but is in FACT the foundation of it. What else do you mean when you claim that a conceptus is "alive"? A PRECISE definition would be most useful. However, I don't think you have one...

Fact is, conception is the best place to recognize the human being.

And your scientific data for declaring a conception to be the equivalent of a human being is????

All other proposed criteria lead to morally detestable conclusions, and all are very confusing and ad-hoc.

That is just your OPINION. You have yet to demonstrate that any such thing is true.

I posted some good reasons to believe in God, and you never answered. You know where to find them.

I didn't bother for the simple reason you mentioned it in a thread on abortion, not the existence of god. Start a separate thread on the subject and I will be more than happy to answer your "arguments".

Your next claim is the usual "God is an abortionist", but you fail to realize that God did not create death originally, death entered as a result of sin.

And your scientific proof that the above is true is???? What is your evidence that such a thing is true? Your BELIEF that it is so, does not make it SO.

So your "argument by outrage" of God "murdering" the embryo are all hogwash.

Ah yes!! the second favorite on the apologetics program entitled Exculpating God from His Crimes Against Humanity==>blame the victim (It's humanities "fault'" because of an ALLEGED "fruit tree dispute") And what was this "sin"==>"disobedience". What was the punishment==>death, not only visited upon the alleged "perps", but also visited on their children who had no chance or choice (and that is your idea of "justice", this "corruption of the blood", how awful and how very unjust of your God! Thank the IPU that there is no evidence that such a spiteful creature exists!)

BTW, and your evidence for any of this is????

This is nothing but the argument from evil, where you claim that God should just make us all happy.

Actually I have NEVER made such an argument. I have no belief in god(s?) and don't see any necessity for such a thing(s?). I think that humans are responsible for their own happiness and survival, no deity need apply.

Well, He tried that and it didn't work out. Death is the result.

So your supposedly omnipotent, omniscient God "failed"???? You mean He (and if you want to claim that egomanical, jealous, angry, vengeful Bronze Age tribal war-god of the Bible was a male, then you are more than welcome to "Him") was thwarted by His own creations? Wow, just one more reason why such an entity couldn't possibly have existed and what is more, absolutely NOT deserving of worship!!!

Moderator's Note - Gladiatrix, you have come in rudely and like gangbusters on multiple threads now that were not started for a bloodbath and obviously you want to rant. I am giving you your wish... this thread is not going to be hijacked into unnecessary hostily and your rhetoric was blatantly untrue and inflammatory and slanderous. So, here you go, rant all you want about abortion and get it out of your system. You are not going to hijack multiple abortion threads with your over the top rhetoric. Cool your jets for you obviously are knowledgeable and have information to impart.

Please go here for you rant .

The whole "it's a human being but it's not a person" argument is spurrious at best, because it is simply an attempt to blur what is an obvious scientific fact in order to preserve the "right" to kill the unborn.

The fact is that the attempt to make a human being an "unperson" is riddled with a dubious history, from the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court, which legitimized (for that time) slavery, to Stalin in the Soviet Union, who delcared people to be unpersons, so they could be persecuted or killed. (There are plenty of other examples.)

The fact is that the fertilized egg meets the requirements to be a unique being, and the DNA of that unique being identifies it as human. You don't need much more evidence than that.

Michael