What if life does begin at conception?

And what happens when that conceptus does not implant and ends up on a sanitary pad?

What happens to the 300,000 fertilised eggs sitting in cold storage around the nation?

 

The point is that there is no moral or natural imperative for a fertilized egg to reach maturity. The pregnant female is under no obligation to carry a fertilized egg to birth. It is her choice. End of story.

 

so we would have to ban all birth control that allow a egg to be fertilized but not stick to the wall of the uterus and become a baby
no plan b for rape victims, they must be forced to have their rapists baby

not a good thing imo

all the extra's in a IVF petri did woudl have to be born?

should we raise taxes to help raise all these unwanted babies that would be born

to me this is as illogical as saying rape should be legal as not allowing it prevents some potential babies from ever being born

next they will say


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy 22:28-29&version=NIV

 

Yes we've already established you think life begins at conception but that life is disposable until it draws it's first breath. You are just being redundant at this point.

 

And again, you make asinine assumptions. I'm not against some restrictions after the 24th week, when viability becomes an issue.

 

Lots of questions based on life does indeed begin at conception but this thread is about abortion in particular. What if life does begin at conception? Can we take the risk that it does when it comes to voluntaty abortion? If your answer is yes we can take the risk that it may be murder of a human does this also apply to your views on AGW and people who say that even if AGW might not be real we must alter our way of life because what if it is real?
It seems odd to say we should do something about AGW based on what if it's real but we should do nothing based on life begins at conception based on what if it's real. Pick a position and apply it to both cases.

 

In this case you may have a valid argument because I did assume you were on the abortion at any time during pregnancy side. You did say the following however and that coincides with your statement in your last post.

So it seems the line for abortion with you is up to 20 weeks and I stand corrected. You are pro choice until 20 weeks and then join the anti abortion crowd. We all have our lines on that and personally mine is a bit earlier at the end of the first trimester.

 

I don't know many pro-choice people who don't agree that life is already present when egg and sperm meet - the question for most is when does CONSCIOUS life begin. The cerebral cortex doesn't even start forming till well into the 2nd trimester, so conscious thought isn't possible prior to that. If life isn't aware of life, it makes no difference to that life if it is terminated through miscarriage or abortion. No difference.

 

the problem is, some think birth control is also abortion

some think throwing out the extra IVF samples in a petri dish is abortion

 

I NEVER join the anti-abortion crowd. I think that born children are important as well - I haven't met an anti-abortionists who gives the born as much consideration as the unborn.

Every dime wasted on ineffective anti-abortion laws could have been spent on upgrading hospitals and maternity wards to save wanted babies. Nope - **** the anti-abortionists. They waste time and money that should have been spent on wanted babies. They are a negative to society.

 

Arguing when conscious life begins is the same as arguing if AGW is unproven hypothesis or proven fact and brings us full circle back to my original original question. If we should do something about AGW based in what if it's real then should we not do something about early termination of pregnancy based in an unproven hypothesis that there is indeed life at conception? And by life I mean life as proponents of this hypothesis define it, a human has been created.

 

Fair points and both true and open for debate in a separate thread. I'm concentrating on abortion here.

 

You said you were fine with abortion up to twenty weeks beccause nature so often does that but now move the goal post and indicate your fine with it period so what was your nature does it all the time up to twenty weeks post about? Just chit chat? Trivia?

 

disagree, they both deal with conception and the prevention of a child being born, you made it valid when you said "Can we really take a chance that we are destroying a human life for the convenience of the mother." - birth control and ivf pertri dishes are a part of this discussion as are rape victims that do not want to have their rapists babies

 

people can make their own choice... pro-choice can even include people that woudl never have an abortion or support it, but believe the choice should be up to the women to have a baby or not, not them or the government

I personally set the line at 26 weeks, but I understand some may disagree

http://www.slate.com/id/2120872/
"a member of President Bush's Council on Bioethics, describes in his book The Ethical Brain, current neurology suggests that a fetus doesn't possess enough neural structure to harbor consciousness until about 26 weeks, when it first seems to react to pain. Before that, the fetal neural structure is about as sophisticated as that of a sea slug and its EEG as flat and unorganized as that of someone brain-dead."

 

Ok have it your way. Can we take the risk those people might be right? Should we base laws based on that "what if" argument like so many in the AGW crowd say we should?

 

Which has nothing to do with the question posed in the op

 

it had to do with the post I replied too, try to keep up

sad thing is, it was your post I replied too (guess you did not like my answer)

 

if we determine that brain dead people have already moved on, but their body is still alive - then the same can be true in the early stages of fetal development

when does consciousness begin and end are up for debate

some atheists may think all we are is our bodies, others think there is more to it and our bodies are just vessels for a soul or life force

 

The pro choice argument has nothing to do with the question in the op. What if it's true life does begin at conception? Should we base laws on that? Can we afford to take the risk that it might be true and if not why do you feel that way about AGW?

 

So once again based on what if they are right and the brain dead person is still at some level alive in there? Should we base laws on the what if scenario as AGW proponents say we should?

 

you went off topic and I replied to your post, maybe you shoudl stay on topic then

 

only the next of kin can decide... people have many differing beliefs

I personally want to be able to choose death with dignity for myself like I would for a pet if they were terminal and in pain, as I believe in life after death.... it's a personal choice

 

Again you make asinine assumptions. I said that after the 20th week, I support some restrictions to abortions.

You said I "join" with anti-abortionists. I find them disgusting - so no - I do not ever "join" with anti-abortionists because they waste money and resources that should be spent on born babies.

 

It's you who went off topic but let's say we both did. You never have answered the OP specifically. Should abortion laws be based on what if it's true life begins at conception as agw propnets say in their proposition that we should base laws on AGW based on what if it's true? If your answer is no on abortion is it also no on AGW?