What is your main issue?

[ChaosControl]

Is a fertilized egg the same thing as a chicken?

Yes, once fertilzied, it is a chicken in the earliest stage of life.

If I put it in the ground does is it automatically become the same thing as a tree?

Yes, once planted, it is a tree int he earliest stage of life.

 

[Vessol]

Yes, once fertilzied, it is a chicken in the earliest stage of life.

Yes, once planted, it is a tree int he earliest stage of life.

But where do we cut it off?

Why isn't a unfertilized egg a chicken? Or an unplanted seed a tree?

They still have the potential to be either a chicken or a tree.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Allowing something does NOT imply approval.

I don't approve of many thing people do. Heroin use is a good example. But prohibition? Not the answer in my book. Abortion is a differently striped tiger, but the principle still applies, depending on the real answer to the "start of life" question.

No, those are two entirely different concepts. If someone wants to destroy themselves through heroin or any other mechanism, that is their own affair. But, abortion involves the destruction of another living being. That is what makes your examples quite different indeed. If there was no baby involved, I firmly believe it would be none of my business. But, there is.

The proper role of government is to protect liberty. Even of the unborn.

 

[LibertyEagle]

But where do we cut it off?

Why isn't a unfertilized egg a chicken?

Because it is missing a major component. The fertilization. Unless the egg is fertilized, it will never become a chicken.

 

[Vessol]

Because it is missing a major component. The fertilization. Unless the egg is fertilized, it will never become a chicken.

But if the egg is destroyed it will never have the chance to become fertilized in the first place.

 

[LibertyEagle]

But if the egg is destroyed it will never have the chance to become fertilized in the first place.

True enough. And women should have the option of destroying their own unfertilized eggs if they so choose.

 

[Vessol]

True enough. And women should have the option of destroying their own unfertilized eggs if they so choose.

But those eggs have the potential to become life.

How is a fertilized egg any different than a unfertilized egg?

How is a chicken any different than a fertilized egg?

What makes life?
The potential for life?
Or sentience?

Why is a human corpse not considered life when there is still potential for life within it?

I really don't have a strong opinion here, don't get me wrong, I just like digging into all sorts of ideas.

 

[Sola_Fide]

No, those are two entirely different concepts. If someone wants to destroy themselves through heroin or any other mechanism, that is their own affair. But, abortion involves the destruction of another living being. That is what makes your examples quite different indeed. If there was no baby involved, I firmly believe it would be none of my business. But, there is.

The proper role of government is to protect liberty. Even of the unborn.

Yes. If you cede the ground of Liberty on this one issue, it becomes the basis for every other drawback from Liberty.

Abortion is very plainly the State denying an entire class of innocent people the protections of the law. Once you do it to one group, you can do it to any group...because the State declares them "not developed enough".

There is no question that at conception there is a distinct life. The logical hoops that people jump through to try to get around that is frankly sickening. I have a hard time associating sometimes with people who hold this blood-thirsty and cold view of human dignity, but I understand that when you reject the Living God, He will allow you to travel to depths of evil that you couldn't imagine...

 

[LibertyEagle]

p.s. Am I the only person who listed "the environment" lol....Al Gore hates you guys.

I'm quite sure he does. But, it's not because we don't want his Cap and Trade bull. I am also quite sure that we care more about the environment than Al Gore ever did. His carbon footprint is bigger than all of ours put together.

 

[ChaosControl]

So you say, but offer no proof. Proof by assertion is invalid..

I'm sorry but I don't know how one proves life is simple, just as I don't know how one would prove it complex. I'd just say the simplest answer is probably the right one and that a simpler life generally results in a happier life. People stress themselves out and are miserable, all in pursuit of what? More money, more fame, more whatever. I think people forgot how to just live peacefully and content with what they have.

I am afraid I understand nary a word of this. I have no idea what you are trying to convey.

Basically I don't even know why you responded to my original statement since it was merely acknowledgement that pregnancies can be quite undesirable at times.

Actually I do not disagree. But this was not the point at hand. The question of when human life as such begins has not been definitively answered by anyone, to my knowledge. I have no answer. If you do, that is great. I hope one day that I, too, will be in possession of same.

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. You don't know when life begins. So at least you don't firmly believe life begins at conception and still support abortion. Some people believe as firmly as me that life begins at conception but still think allowing abortion is acceptable. Okay, at the very least, can you understand how someone who does believe life begins at conception, is against abortion and wishes the practice ended?

You seem to imply here that I have no proper regard for life simply because I do not hold an opinion identical with yours on the question at hand. Let us be clear - these are your OPINIONS and not statements of absolute fact. Prove them to me and I will change my position. I cannot put it any more plainly than that.

Then, you're basically asking me to prove life begins at conception?
I question when else can it even begin? No other point even makes any sense and seems arbitrary. I think of it like a number line, conception is the point just to the right of zero. Birth may be point 1 on the number line and adolescence point 2 and adulthood point 3. It doesn't mean it isn't life just because ti isn't at point 1, it is just in earlier development, just as infancy is earlier development than adolescence.

I don't know that it can really be proven than human personhood begins at conception, although science as time goes on shows when certain developments occur, such as when the first heart beat is, when the fingers are formed, etc. All of those forming within that first trimester, even first month.

I cannot properly prove personhood begins at conception, but to me it is simply the logical conclusion based on that no other point in time would make sense. Why would it start at one month, or three months? Why wouldn't it start at the beginning?

I've talked to some people who have a different criteria, such as being self-aware. I suppose in that case my view isn't going to come across to them. To me it is more the biology of the issue than the mental state of the individual. They are biologically human from the beginning. I suppose we can argue whether all biological humans are entitled to equal rights, I would say they are.

You appear quite fond of making these absolutist statements about what my responsibilities are, yet once again you offer not the merest shred of evidence to substantiate the claims. When I ask for proof you cop out by saying there is nothing you could say that would change my mind. This is beginning to take on a certain odor. If you wish to continue this exchange I must ask that you respond forthrightly with me as I do with you. Otherwise we are wasting time and I am not in the mood for that, pardon me.
Says who? Cite the source of authority for this monumental decree. And who determines what is in my ability? By what standard do they judge? By what authority do they judge? Is it me? A third party?

Not every statement is a matter of proof. You don't prove that someone has the responsibility to take care of others. If you feel that you need this proven to you, I don't know what yo say. It is all a part of making society better for everyone, we are part of society and as part of it we have a duty to do our part in improving conditions. The most fundamental part to ensure would be that we have the right to life, so a responsibility than a pregnancy comes to term would be pretty necessary. I have nothing against ending this part of the discussion though if you must only deal in proofs.

And if the rest of us fail to toe your line of narrow opinion on the subject... then what? Should we be jailed? Bamboo slivers under the finger and toe nails? Either you believe in forcing people to act as if they cared or you do not. Which is it?

I don't support forcing people to act that way, I think people should voluntarily act that way. I think people should WANT to help others. No, I oppose a law forcing it because I really wouldn't want to be around others who only help because the law makes them, I want to be a part of a community that actively wants to help one another because they care about others and feel it is right.

More invalid emotionalism. I hope like hell you are not on a debate team because if so, you guys are doomed. 1/2

No, I dislike debate because it is too try and dead. Its like robots or lawyers talking, it has no humanity to it.

Seriously, this statement presumes many things, none of which are fact and all of which are opinion. You are entitled to your opinions, but the fact that you appear to expect the world to accept them as fact is more than a little perplexing.

This exchange appears to be pretty hopeless, so I will excuse myself. Let us agree to disagree and go our ways without rancor.

Agreed?

I can agree to disagree and end this pointless exchange since we have very different ways of thinking about things in general.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I believe all of these things are symptoms of a greater disease which ails this country and this world. We have no moral compass or respect for self-reliance and thus self-governing. Our government whom we elect is nothing more than a bunch of sociopaths who play off of the people's unconscious fears in exchange for more power. I do not see a shift happening in government unless there is first a shift in the consciousness of the citizens who put these people in positions of authority.

I think this is worth repeating.

 

[Vessol]

I believe all of these things are symptoms of a greater disease which ails this country and this world. We have no moral compass or respect for self-reliance and thus self-governing. Our government whom we elect is nothing more than a bunch of sociopaths who play off of the people's unconscious fears in exchange for more power. I do not see a shift happening in government unless there is first a shift in the consciousness of the citizens who put these people in positions of authority.

“That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support”

"Therefore a man’s voting under the Constitution of the United States, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Consequently we have no proof that any very large portion, even of the actual voters of the United States, ever really and voluntarily consented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Nor can we ever have such proof, until every man is left perfectly free to consent, or not, without thereby subjecting himself or his property to injury or trespass from others."

“The only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in keeping their money in their own pockets”

-Lysander Spooner

 

[LibertyEagle]

Oh geez, Vessol. So, we're back to this again? Even though it isn't perfect, don't you think we would be much better off if we head in the direction of what is laid out in that document? If we had a constitutional government, 95% of what the federal government is now doing, would be stopped.

I honestly don't think we are doing ourselves any favors at all by trash talking the Constitution. All the while that Ron Paul is talking about the need to get our government to follow it.

 

[Brett85]

Uh. A fetus not have a heart until about 3.9 months in and it does not have lungs till about 5 months into the pregnancy.

Until about 6 months there is no actual brain activity. At about this time the neurons in the brain are used for the first time and sentience and self-awareness happens. Because this is when neurons first actually start firing, this is the first time that the fetus can actually feel stimuli which would include pain.

90% of abortions are performed before 3 months, before these things develop. In the first few months, it literally is a tiny mass of cells.

What defines a human? The potential to be a human? Because if that is the case, it should be wrong for me to destroy spermatozoa. If you want to define life beginning at conception when there is no sentience or any kind of functions, then why isn't a human corpse alive as well?
I've always defined a human as being sentient. This goes for any other animal. I don't look at an egg and think "That's a chicken"

I'm not going to debate abortion, but you should at least have your facts straight.

Your claims are simply false. The baby's heart starts beating 3 weeks after conception, and it begins breathing at about 11 weeks.

 

[Brett85]

No it does not form a human being at the moment of conception, it forms a human embryo. A bunch of sexual discharge is not the same as a full human being.

A seed does not become a tree the moment you plant it in the ground.



The embryo eventually forms a human being inside the mother, but this does not happen instantaneously at the moment of conception. That is a religious belief, not science.

So when exactly is it a human being in your opinion? At the moment of birth?

 

[Vessol]

Oh geez, Vessol. So, we're back to this again? Even though it isn't perfect, don't you think we would be much better off if we head in the direction of what is laid out in that document? If we had a constitutional government, 95% of what the federal government is now doing, would be stopped.

I honestly don't think we are doing ourselves any favors at all by trash talking the Constitution. All the while that Ron Paul is talking about the need to get our government to follow it.

I'm just following Thomas Jefferson really, who was against the drafting of the Constitution as well. I personally feel that the Articles of Confederation, while not perfect, were much better if someone desires smaller government.

The Constitution did nothing to prevent the size and growth of the Federal Government for the past two hundred years, why should I believe that if we hit reset and go back to 1787 the same thing won't happen?

Your claims are simply false. The baby's heart starts beating 3 weeks after conception, and it begins breathing at about 11 weeks.

I did a bit of research and you are correct, thank you for the correction.

What do you believe defines a human being? I'm not asking "when is it a human being?", but rather, what makes it a human being?

 

[LibertyEagle]

But those eggs have the potential to become life.

How is a fertilized egg any different than a unfertilized egg?

How is a chicken any different than a fertilized egg?

What makes life?
The potential for life?
Or sentience?

Why is a human corpse not considered life when there is still potential for life within it?

I really don't have a strong opinion here, don't get me wrong, I just like digging into all sorts of ideas.

Until the egg is fertilized, it is not life.

 

[Vessol]

Until the egg is fertilized, it is not life.

So a chemical reaction between cells=life. Thank you for the clarification .

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm just following Thomas Jefferson really, who was against the drafting of the Constitution as well. I personally feel that the Articles of Confederation, while not perfect, were much better if someone desires smaller government.

The Constitution did nothing to prevent the size and growth of the Federal Government for the past two hundred years, why should I believe that if we hit reset and go back to 1787 the same thing won't happen?

Well, Vessol, I sincerely hope you put a cap on it if and when Ron Paul runs again. Because personally, I always found it pretty disgusting to see people who claimed to support Ron Paul so strongly and then go stab him in the back by pushing arguments that ran contrary to his platform all over these forums and elsewhere. We lost more than a few people because of it.

 

[ChaosControl]

But where do we cut it off?

Why isn't a unfertilized egg a chicken? Or an unplanted seed a tree?

They still have the potential to be either a chicken or a tree.

I cut it off at the beginning. Before the egg is fertilized it is not and cannot be a chicken.
The seed/tree is a little more iffy though. It makes me think of implantation vs fertilization, so maybe it should be considered a tree even unplanted.

It isn't about potential or not, but about what it is. A fertilized egg, chicken or human, IS chicken or human. It isn't potentially that, it already is that just at the earliest stage of development.

An unfertilized egg may have the potential, but until it is fertilized it isn't human life anymore than semen on its own is. That unique DNA must be created. Which of course is why yeah, I support the seed of the tree should be considered a tree planted or not, just at the earliest stage.