Where does life begin?

[Highland]

Dr. Paul speaks for me occasionally, but he does not speak for me always.

at the end Dr. Paul actually says that it doesn't satisfy everyone...

 

[JimDude]

Being Alive and Human aren't a same thing. A frog is alive, but its not human, therefore it doesnt have Human Rights. Rights are a Human invention. THey are a abstract concept created by men.

As for this topic, I think technically, every cell in our body is "alive." and with the genetic science and engineering they have today, I believe its possible they could turn those cells into potential humans. Does that mean every time we scratch our skin, were committing genocide? I dont think so, because the potential of life isnt necessiarly life.

So, my views are that when a egg and spem unite, they are life, because the potential has been realized.

 

[Highland]

Being Alive and Human aren't a same thing. A frog is alive, but its not human, therefore it doesnt have Human Rights. Rights are a Human invention. THey are a abstract concept created by men.

As for this topic, I think technically, every cell in our body is "alive." and with the genetic science and engineering they have today, I believe its possible they could turn those cells into potential humans. Does that mean every time we scratch our skin, were committing genocide? I dont think, because the potential of life isnt necessiarly life.

So, my views are that when a egg and spem unite, they are life, because the potential has been realized.

that is what Dr. Paul said too! Brilliant explanation! Also, it is a great discussion to...I like seeing people examining the issue at the other end of the spectrum.

 

[nate895]

Being Alive and Human aren't a same thing. A frog is alive, but its not human, therefore it doesnt have Human Rights. Rights are a Human invention. THey are a abstract concept created by men.

As for this topic, I think technically, every cell in our body is "alive." and with the genetic science and engineering they have today, I believe its possible they could turn those cells into potential humans. Does that mean every time we scratch our skin, were committing genocide? I dont think, because the potential of life isnt necessiarly life.

So, my views are that when a egg and spem unite, they are life, because the potential has been realized.

+1

You explained my thoughts on this subject, in a much smarter way.

 

[Kade]

Being Alive and Human aren't a same thing. A frog is alive, but its not human, therefore it doesnt have Human Rights. Rights are a Human invention. THey are a abstract concept created by men.

As for this topic, I think technically, every cell in our body is "alive." and with the genetic science and engineering they have today, I believe its possible they could turn those cells into potential humans. Does that mean every time we scratch our skin, were committing genocide? I dont think, because the potential of life isnt necessiarly life.

So, my views are that when a egg and spem unite, they are life, because the potential has been realized.

Having been realized as what? What does that mean... can it think? Can it live on it's own? Is it without absolute dependency?

There is no difference between a zygote and those cells... The DNA is combined. The DNA is intact... what is the argument.

No, the potential has NOT been realized because you are inventing arbitrary lines in the sand... who is to say that when the nerve fibers are finally connected that it is not further along the potential then that arbitrary moment of conception.

 

[Highland]

Having been realized as what? What does that mean... can it think? Can it live on it's own? Is it without absolute dependency?

which one of us can live on our own without absolute dependency?

I guess on the, can it think...we don't know yet...so killing babies is a really questionable thing to do when you are not sure if they think. also....have you seen the work the Japanese are doing on babies being grown in man-made wombs? fascinating.

 

[nate895]

Having been realized as what? What does that mean... can it think? Can it live on it's own? Is it without absolute dependency?

There is no difference between a zygote and those cells... The DNA is combined. The DNA is intact... what is the argument.

No, the potential has NOT been realized because you are inventing arbitrary lines in the sand... who is to say that when the nerve fibers are finally connected that it is not further along the potential then that arbitrary moment of conception.

You would be making arbitrary lines in the sand as well too. A baby just born cannot survive on its own, but there are few who'd argue it's OK to kill it. It is possible to sustain a baby born 4 or 5 months premature with modern medicine, should we ban abortion after that? Or we could not make arbitrary lines in the sand and say it is either OK until that baby can support itself without any aid, or from the moment that your body has determined that the zygote is viable.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Do we even exist at all?

I do, you don't.

 

[LibertiORDeth]

Life began billions of years ago, and it has yet to cease. Life is a chain, and we are one piece of that chain... who knows how long it lasts.. maybe forever, maybe not.

How did I know I was going to get this crap?

 

[nate895]

How did I know I was going to get this crap?

Kade is logged on right now.

 

[Highland]

Kade is logged on right now.

be nice fellas. this is a sensitive subject.

 

[Hiki]

Life began billions of years ago, and it has yet to cease. Life is a chain, and we are one piece of that chain... who knows how long it lasts.. maybe forever, maybe not.

qft

 

[SnappleLlama]

So how does one define life? It's true that human skin cells are alive and contain the same chromosomal makeup as the rest of the being; however, they cannot think, and they are absolutely dependent upon the rest of the body to maintain their survival.

Then again, plants can't think, but they certainly are alive.

...or are they?

 

[nate895]

So how does one define life? It's true that human skin cells are alive and contain the same chromosomal makeup as the rest of the being; however, they cannot think, and they are absolutely dependent upon the rest of the body to maintain their survival.

Then again, plants can't think, but they certainly are alive.

...or are they?

They are alive, but that doesn't mean they're entitled to life. They have little-to-no potential to become human life.

 

[Pete]

Being Alive and Human aren't a same thing. A frog is alive, but its not human, therefore it doesnt have Human Rights. Rights are a Human invention. THey are a abstract concept created by men.

As for this topic, I think technically, every cell in our body is "alive." and with the genetic science and engineering they have today, I believe its possible they could turn those cells into potential humans. Does that mean every time we scratch our skin, were committing genocide? I dont think so, because the potential of life isnt necessiarly life.

So, my views are that when a egg and spem unite, they are life, because the potential has been realized.

Very well said. You should consider becoming a legislator.

This abortion debate is never going to be settled as long as there are many who consider it to be murder, and a similar number who do not.

I'd just like to point out that Roe v. Wade was an ill-gotten victory in which federal powers were stretched through deception, much like the Federal Reserve. So, TPTB wish us to kill our young. That they want it that badly should be enough to make us at least question it.

 

[SnappleLlama]

I think what's so frustrating about this subject is that one has to define what life is before it can be decided when life begins.

I'm giving myself a headache.

 

[LibertiORDeth]

I just don't understand why it's so debatable when abortion is completely unnecessary. Maybe in the case of rape/risking the mother's life this discussion could be taking place, but I can't believe that you would abort an unborn baby, which debatably might be death, because... you can't use a condom or pill?

 

[nate895]

I just don't understand why it's so debatable when abortion is completely unnecessary. Maybe in the case of rape/risking the mother's life this discussion could be taking place, but I can't believe that you would abort an unborn baby, which debatably might be death, because... you can't use a condom or pill?

Even if was because contraception didn't work, you always have adoption. If you get pregnant via a rape, you can still get someone to adopt the child.

 

[SnappleLlama]

Ugh...I'll have to check on this thread later. Nice discussion!

 

[acptulsa]

Even if was because contraception didn't work, you always have adoption. If you get pregnant via a rape, you can still get someone to adopt the child.

Two different animals in my opinion.

Rape is a terrible blow to the psyche for most, and to have to carry the product of it to term and wrestle with the hatred for the attacker mixed with the overpowering maternal instinct, in many cases, would amount to extending the misery of the attack to nine long, unendurable months. To top that off, it amounts to rewarding the rapist, who may have well decided that the chance to reproduce is well worth the time in prison. Thus it would encourage some to rape. Bad news.

So, I am all for making rape another issue entirely from non-forcible intercourse. Of course, this could result in some unscrupulous women filing false charges of rape just because they want to abort, so it isn't exactly cut-and-dried...

Depressing subject.