Originally Posted by BR
You appear to be OK with killing in many circumstances. If I recall correctly, you are for the death penalty. You have been in favor of wars (which kill innocents--collateral damage is the nice term that obfuscates the true harm). What is it about a mass of cells sucking nutrients out of a woman that elevates it to a higher status?
We're not talking about status, or when abortion should be legal. We're talking about when life begins, and that is all.
Originally Posted by tonton
You say this like it's a fact. It's an opinion. In fact, it's not even an opinion that is shared by the majority of the scientific community. In fact, the majority of the scientific community now defines conception
as implantation, not fertilization. Yes, this definition has changed, perhaps by political motivations, perhaps even by moral motivations. But where the fuck do you think your definition of human life and conception come from? Thin air? Personal observation? Laughable.
The problem between these two schools of opinion is that one of them ignores the third factor, the woman.
MJ responds to this better than I could. See below.
Originally Posted by MJ1970
As is the statement that life does not
begin at conception. And yet those who believe it doesn't
begin at conception quite frequently assert their opinion as if it were fact.
Besides the fact that we don't determine facts by polling the opinion of some specific group of individuals (there's a name for that fallacy
), the scientific community is not the only source of knowledge in the world.
More importantly though, scientific facts related to the humanness of an embryo (e.g., DNA, future growth, etc.) actually support
the belief that human life begins at conception
and that this is simply an early stage of development and maturity of a human-being. Arguably the "safer" position to hold (in terms of protecting human lives) would be to assume it is
a human life until proven
, conclusively that it is not
But where the fuck do you think your
definition of human life and conception come from? Thin air? Personal observation? Laughable.
Actually that is irrelevant to the question of when life begins. It only becomes relevant when the question of what can or cannot (or should or should not) be allowed to be done with these two lives (the baby and the woman) comes into play.
Agree with you 100%. In fact, this discussion is proof positive of my statement that the left refuses to acknowledge ANY argument that does not work to the benefit of their ultimate goal (in this case, unlimited abortion). As I wrote previously, we can discuss when abortion should be legal/illegal. That's another argument. But tonton, BR and jimmac cannot do that. They won't acknowledge that life begins at conception because that means abortion is taking a life...and they are not having any of that.
Originally Posted by jimmac
Tell me why you would believe that.
you? Upon fertilization, the egg starts dividing (reproducing) almost immediately. It is a developing life form even before
implantation. that which is not alive does not divide/reproduce. Keep in mind, I'm not using this to state that I think abortion should be illegal. That's another matter.
Originally Posted by tonton
Did I do that here? It's my opinion that life begins when a baby takes its first breath, but it's also my opinion that a viable life has value as well as an actual life.
Oh boy. Now we're getting into semantics. Is a fertilized egg alive or not?
I think except in medical cases where the mother's life is at serious risk or in rare cases with a court order showing a valid excuse, abortion should be illegal after the first trimester.
But this is my opinion, and I acknowledge that there are other well-meaning, valid opinions out there, and that this is a matter of debate, and of personal values and opinions, not of fact. SDW, who actually had the gall to call liberals 'elitist' and make a thread about it is saying explicitly in this tread that his opinion is the right opinion and that people with other opinions are in his very words, idiots.
Whatever...out of context.
I wasn't saying that the scientific opinion is the only valid opinion. I was using scientific consensus to demonstrate that SDW's opinion is exactly that. An opinion.
Here we go again. You liberals get yourselves all twisted up in semantics and backtracking. Were you or were you not arguing that life doesn't begin at conception?
What kind of safety? Moral safety? That, my friend, is also a matter of opinion.
I have presented my opinion as opinion.
Actually, the question of when life begins is irrelevant to te abortion debate.
It's not irrelevant. It's not the only facet, either.