What if life does begin at conception?

All I can say is where have you been hiding? These are the arguments that have been flying back and forth for decades. I will say that typically when a pro lifer talks about life begining at conception they are either trying to claim that personhood starts at that moment, or that, by some logic, a human life is somehow superior, even as a single cell,o all other life.

 

Personhood is more than just whether one is human or not. Humans are simply the only real example we have. However, we have shown repeatedly that we, as a whole, can envision personhood applying to more than humans. We've applied it to AI's and alien/fantasy races for decades, if not centuries. In our stories, which are reflections of our thoughts and feelings, we understand that sentience is the base of personhood, not DNA.

Additionally, if the individual in question is brain dead, but otherwise alive, are they still a person, or just an autonomous shell, exhibiting the basic signs of life that even a lowly snail or protozoan has?

You will note that I did say life indeed started at conception. And by that I am noting a new unique life, not the living cells of an existing life, i.e. sperm and eggs.

That said, the only logical reason to place this question in the Abortion forum, is to imply that said human life, that starts at conception, is so valued above that of the one bearing it, that it should not be knowingly terminated. I have, 1) shown that simple life, human or otherwise, is not enough to hold up that claim, and 2) that said human life is irrelevant to to issue of whether the bearer of the ZEF is required to carry it to term, barring a natural abortion.

 

It is a logical conclusion for you, one I fully acknowledge, because there are certain values and weights you assign to words and concepts. The asinine part is the assumption that everyone else has those same assignments, and at the same points along the factual development line, starting from conception onwards until natural termination. Yes there are others who share your views, but that by no means makes them universal or even in the majority.

 

The entire person-hood canard was developed because the fact remains a human life begins at conception, an individual human life. Those on the pro-abortion side must play these semantic games in order to dehumanize, depersonalize the life that is killed during the abortion.

The OP question "what if life begins at conception" is not a question at all it is a biological fact. Now continuing jumping through hoops trying to justify killing that human life simply because the mother does not want to give birth to it. And if the mothers life is in imminent danger due the pregnancy, an extremely rare circumstance many in the medical field would say is never the case, then yes abortion is necessary, the child would not survive anyway.

 

Guess you missed this part.

"Now there suddenly seems to be a new and previously silent group saying yes, life does begin at conception but doesn't matter and is disposable until it takes it's first breath."

 

Point of the OP is to ask the question of those that don't believe life begins at conception, what if you are wrong and it does? That seems to be the question asked of skeptics in the AGW debate and the reasoning of true believers saying we have to act as if it's fact man is warming the planet because " what if he is"? It's a goose gander question.

 

You cited a bunch of stuff on numerous occasions - most of which did not even claim what you said it did and none of which proved your claim - you have a love of fallacy.

 

WHY do you think Pro-Choice people need to dehumanize the fetus?
NO one said a human fetus wasn't human EVER.
It's fine with me if it's aborted , I know exactly what it is.

I also know exactly what rights women have to their own bodies.

The Anti-Choicers who claim the fetus has more rights than the woman it's in are trying to dehumanize women to the level of cattle.

So what?

It makes no difference when "life" starts......it has NO rights until birth..

 

It makes NO difference to me if "life" starts at conception....that does NOT give that "life" any rights, it does NOT make it superior to the woman it's in or anyone else....

It's an empty point...

 

That is exactly the part that made me ask where you've been. While it may seem sudden and new to you, some of us have been pushing these opposing ideas back and forth for decades.

 

The opposing ideas have been when does the fertilized egg become a human life. It's new to me that some people are still ok with abortion after they believe it's a human life. That's a sick individual and thank god there are a very tiny amount of people that believe that way.

 

And it's a bad argument. That's why only a single person was pushing it.

Just like your bad argument here.

Of course, since all the data backs us up, we don't need such bad arguments.

All the data contradicts you, so you're forced to rely entirely on such bad arguments.

An outright lie. Since you're the poster, that was expected.

I do understand why you act like that. Your fanatical religious cult has told you that any sleaze in the name of the cult is justifiable, being how all unbelievers must be destroyed for their wickedness.

 

I'm not arguing the law I'm arguing the science with others. I have repeatedly stipulated with you that current abortion is legal, I do not dispute that.

 

Gee, ya missed the rest of the post

FoxHastings said: ↑
WHY do you think Pro-Choice people need to dehumanize the fetus?
NO one said a human fetus wasn't human EVER.
It's fine with me if it's aborted , I know exactly what it is.

I also know exactly what rights women have to their own bodies.

The Anti-Choicers who claim the fetus has more rights than the woman it's in are trying to dehumanize women to the level of cattle.

 

Simple question. Convoluted answer unrelated to common sense. I get this nonsense every time I ask.

 

I am not arguing current law what are you missing here. I am pointing out the science those who claim the human life does not begin at conception. Try to focus.

 

Myself. It is just representative of what I said. The pro-abortion side denies the common language and science in order to make it more palatable to kill unborn babies simply because the mothers wants the baby dead.

 

There was nothing convoluted about my answer. What is convoluted is twirling around in a circle crying "nonsense - nonsense" because you have no coherent argument.

 

Allow me to put it in terms you might better understand:

'Ya see, when a man and a woman have boom boom day sumtime make lil' tadpoles dat turn into big folk. Thing is, dem lil' tadpoles aint tadpoles yet onna counta day is still growin' first. Kinda like when you plant seeds fer yer tobacky ya aint smokin' yet..

Your lack of understanding does not equate to convoluted expression.

 

Common sense isn't. Neither is friendly fire. Can you counter the arguments or not? I think not, given the lack of response.

 

And continually avoid the part about dehumanizing the woman while complaining about dehumanizing the ZEF/child.

 

I haven't dehumanized women, they are living human beings starting at conception when they are babies.

 

Why are you attempting to communicate in some kind of pigeon English?

 

It is a means of ridicule due to what seems limited comprehension ability and purposeful ignorance.

 

Ridicule who, blacks? Are you saying they are ignorant?