Orathaic - Of course the actual living of life is a process. However, whether or not something is alive is not a process, it is a state of being, and for people, excluding some fuzziness around the moment of death, it is pretty binary (you are either alive or you are not).

Secondly, you are in effect agreeing with me that whether or not something is alive is not the issue, rather, it is whether or not that life has value, and if so, how much. If you would please change your terminology to that which is much more generally used for this debate (i.e. value of life, or persons as distinct from human life, etc.), I would appreciate it because that will help to clear things up a bit.

Also, though you use the words "my opinion" with regard to the process of life, again, I will reiterate that I have presented evidence that indicates that biological human life has a quite definitive starting point that is not really contested. Do you have evidence to the contrary, or are you just floating your opinion in contradiction to well-established scientific fact?

Finally, the whole skin cell argument did not make any more sense this time than last time. Skin cells are not people. The fact that they might be able to be turned into people is not relevant; they have not been turned into people and are just cells. An embryo is a distinct, living human life (again see the article I re-posted below for more information on this) and a skin cell is not. Similarly, an egg or a sperm is just something that might be a life one day, but at present, it is not. Things that actually are life are worth protecting. Things that are not life are not.

So you don't have to sift through previous comments, here is a link to the article I posted earlier about the beginning of human life:
http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf

@ Hunter49er: "@animals' rights- Question- Are Humans supposed to be the protectors of nature or something? If no, then why should we worry about the rights of Chimps..."

You misunderstand the point here. No-one mentioned the "rights" of chimps.

What we were talking about was personhood. In the case of chimps, we were looking at whether a fully-grown chimpanzee is more, or less, of a 'person' than a very early-stage foetus.

In my view the chimp is far more of a person than the foetus. The chimp is more intelligent, and more capable of communicating, etc.

It's not an issue of "animal rights" at all.


"@ people arguing with Nola on pages 1 and 2 about when life begins- I haven't seen a single one of you give evidence to support your argument. "

What about the evidence that The Ghostmaker provided? There was quite a lot of it, and in some detail.


"Everything that happens in your life is a result of your choices, everything."

Absolute bullshit. Some years ago my uncle's shop was badly damaged by a freak storm that was completely unpredicted by the weather forecast and was totally out-of-keeping with the seasonal weather for that area. In what way was this event "a result of his choices"??

(And you continue on the same line...) "If someone chooses to go on a killing spree or to start a genocide, then that is fine, but they have to live with the consequences, and one of the more likely consequences is death."

So the people who were killed in that killing spree - their deaths were "a result of their choices"??


@ nola: (to Orthaic) "I also find it a bit disturbing that you feel that you can be the judge of what is and is not life - who appointed you?"

But Nola, you are also making a judgement in exactly the same way. You judged, for example, that certain of the mutated fetuses (etc) which Ghostmaker described are not life.

So who appointed you?

Jamiet99uk - I referred to scientific evidence in presenting my opinion. Orathaic has been presenting his opinion for quite a while without any evidence whatsoever to support his position that life doesn't really have a clear beginning.

TheGhostmaker listed a bunch of different things to which I, again, referred to what I had presented before about the definition of life as being a human being in any stage of development. Things that are not human beings in a stage of development are not human life, and human beings in a stage of development that is not viable, while still life, do not have the ability to survive and can often kill the mother, so in that very specific particular circumstance, tough decisions have to be made.

As to who appointed me to judge what life is, no one did and I will not personally do so either. However, I will freely refer to those who are experts in the field and restate their findings.

no, i will not change my terminology to suit you.

Especially when you go on to say - "Things that actually are life are worth protecting. Things that are not life are not."

I would like to point out that your quoted paper specifically claims that this is an undecided question and then basically goes on to assert that it is the moment of conception (the fusion of sperm and egg) however such a simple, sterile, objective scientific analysis is of very little use in this discussion.

It is not a human person, it is the begining of what could be a human person, you can not convict someone because they COULD be a murderer, otherwise you might aswell execute all humans while they are still too weak to defend themselves. In the same manner that they COULD become a human some day does not entitle them to thes same protections.

Have you considered the rythm method of contraception? or the morning after pill (which i admit my aunt, who is a practicing doctor, will not prescribe of she considers it the equivalent of an abortion and hence morally wrong)

The Sperm and Eggs aren't important because they don't qualify as life yet is just bullshit, you are drawing an arbritrary line. There is a specific and important part of the process occuring at conception, and yes life begins, meaning that all life went through this phase. So what?

sorry, i meant to add - Especially when you go on to say - "Things that actually are life are worth protecting. Things that are not life are not." - your terms makes this fact, and thus ends the discussion by your oversimplification.

Yet if the conversation is about whether abortion is wrong, or if we should be allowed to make that choice ourselves then that is another matter entirely.

@orthaic - the line isn't arbitrary, conception is the point of no return, where the organism will develop into a human being bar any sort of human intervention or sickness.

assuming one thing, a safe enviroment in which to attach - which is only available about 2/3 days of the month in the average woman.

Given that a woman doesn't have control over this you have a problem with her later deciding (making the choice) to make her body inhospitable (by taking drugs or whatever method she happens to choose to abort this life)

@nola

“TGM - So you agree that personhood is a completely arbitrary definition that we can make (at least it so appears). That essentialy means, that, for any reason, a living member of homo sapiens (in whatever state) can be defined to be not a person. I would obviously disagree with this (because I find the two to be inseparable) and I will also state that the belief that you can be human but not a person is highly dangerous.”

On the contrary, it is meaningful, but personhood is far more about having consciousness, a concept of past and future, reasoning, sense of identity etc.
Personhood is emphatically not the same as being a live homo sapiens.

As for your slippery slope argument, that doesn’t get away from the philosophical justification for what I am saying.

“And yes, human life does actually begin at conception. This was addressed quite clearly earlier. Neither a sperm nor an egg is a life; it is only a partial cell. Once the two are fused together, a human life is created. Whether or not this is a person is often debated, but whether or not it is a life is not so much (though I have nonetheless been arguing about it here for a bit). Again, though, if you think the government should not be allowed to decide who gets to live and die, then why do you think one individual should be able to make that decision for another without consent?”
If you say this (and I agree with what you say), you do have to reject the potentiality argument, because the potential to be born was present in the sperm and the egg combined beforehand. This means that your “healthy, possible to reach term” condition has just been contradicted.

"why do you think one individual should be able to make that decision for another without consent"
For the same reason I don’t resent the fact that my parents chose that I should be conceived in the first place. It’s a pretty big decision which I don’t remember being asked about.

“TheGhostmaker listed a bunch of different things to which I, again, referred to what I had presented before about the definition of life as being a human being in any stage of development. Things that are not human beings in a stage of development are not human life, and human beings in a stage of development that is not viable, while still life, do not have the ability to survive and can often kill the mother, so in that very specific particular circumstance, tough decisions have to be made.”
To be quite clear about what I am arguing, because it can be misinterpreted, I am attacking the claim that personhood begins at conception, and hence that the foetus is to be considered a person, and therefore is to be considered to have rights. My comments about cancers are not meant to create the straw man claiming that pro-lifers are in favour of letting the mother die.

Basically my point is this.

Killing a "biological human" is not intrinsically wrong.
Killing a "person" is. (This is basically any creature which is, to a sufficient degree conscious, transient, rational being with a concept of cause and effect as well as a concept of past and future)

The foetus is not a person.

The discussion of various foetal diseases is there to attack the life begins at conception myth, as if that point where life starts were any easier to define than when a pile becomes a heap.

the idea that conception 'naturally' results in a child being born a crazy considering women are able to have sex 31 days a month but only capable of having a fertilised egg attach to the womb lining about 18 of those same days.

You have not expressed any opinion about the rythm method or morning after pill.

Pro-Life--Only under certain conditions-illnesses
War--depends on the situation
Death penalty--against
Assisted suicide--against

Sorry, I was responding to a post on the bottom of page three.

"Killing a "biological human" is not intrinsically wrong.
Killing a "person" is. (This is basically any creature which is, to a sufficient degree conscious, transient, rational being with a concept of cause and effect as well as a concept of past and future)

The foetus is not a person."


Ultimately, the fetus should be able to make the decision. Too bad it can't care to let others know if it wants to be aborted or not.

ZaZa, can you explain briefly,

Assisted suicide - assuming a person chooses to kill themselves, they can etiher take a trip in front of a train, or a trip to switzerland where assisted suicide is legal (there is a suicide tourism business, and you can be provided with the means to kill yourself but have to do it yourself) - So this is not a hypothetical question - Do you prefer the idea of train jumpers to Swiss suicide tourists, in a civilised society (whatever that is, and your answer will probably heavily depend on what you think that is, which is somewhere we are entitled to disagree)?

@ Jamiet-
"You misunderstand the point here. No-one mentioned the "rights" of chimps.

What we were talking about was personhood. In the case of chimps, we were looking at whether a fully-grown chimpanzee is more, or less, of a 'person' than a very early-stage foetus.

And anyways, I was addressing whoever it was that said that pro-lifers should be protesting animal research and stuff like that.

In my view the chimp is far more of a person than the foetus. The chimp is more intelligent, and more capable of communicating, etc."

So value of life is based off of intelligence? Interesting idea, but one that I would have to disagree with completely. Is my life worth any more then that of someone with down syndrome? I can promise you that I am both smarter and communicate better. You know, there was once a famous leader who valued some Human characteristics over others and tried to advance the 'value' of mankind and create a sort of master race.


"What about the evidence that The Ghostmaker provided? There was quite a lot of it, and in some detail."

I saw. But none of it addressed Nola's main point. Nola stated "Human life is started at conception" and the only person who has tried to justify an opposing view point was Orthaic, and he only used his own opinions.

"Absolute bullshit. Some years ago my uncle's shop was badly damaged by a freak storm that was completely unpredicted by the weather forecast and was totally out-of-keeping with the seasonal weather for that area. In what way was this event "a result of his choices"??"

I didn't say that you could decide what you WANTED to happen to you; I said that your choices decide what happen to you. Yes, those both are a result of their choices. He decided to open a shop; he decided that area to use... We aren't in control of outside forces, but if he had chosen a different area or different vocation, then that would have never happened to him. The storm would have still taken place, but the outcome would have been much different.

I wasn't trying to say that we can all make perfect decisions and be psychic and never make mistakes. I was saying that we have the ability to make good or bad choices that will affect the rest of our lives. We don't always foresee the consequences of our decisions (as in your Uncle's case or people being murdered), and in most cases we have to make blind choices. For example, if those people (that were killed in my analogy) decided never to leave their houses then would they be killed? No, it's not a great way to live, but if you want to avoid the 1 in a million chance of being killed by a chainsaw then you have the choose to stay inside. (this is all way off topic though. :P)

@Orthaic- "The Sperm and Eggs aren't important because they don't qualify as life yet is just bullshit, you are drawing an arbritrary line. There is a specific and important part of the process occuring at conception, and yes life begins, meaning that all life went through this phase. So what? "

They are living, but they don't have a separate identity like a zygote does. Either egg or sperm is still just a sample of your own DNA, with no extra genes added. Also, no one is trying to 'abort' the sperm or egg cells, so I don't see your point. Either of them will naturally die on their own instead of growing into an adult Human, so there is really no relevance here.

ZaZa, can you explain briefly,

"Assisted suicide - assuming a person chooses to kill themselves, they can etiher take a trip in front of a train, or a trip to switzerland where assisted suicide is legal (there is a suicide tourism business, and you can be provided with the means to kill yourself but have to do it yourself) - So this is not a hypothetical question - Do you prefer the idea of train jumpers to Swiss suicide tourists, in a civilised society (whatever that is, and your answer will probably heavily depend on what you think that is, which is somewhere we are entitled to disagree)?"

I'm not going to contribute to getting this topic off-topic so I'll keep it brief. I value my life. I value other's lives. I believe that others who don't value their life as much as I do mine are uncapable of making sound decisions.

@Zaza- would you count 'pulling the plug' as something separate, or under the same category of assisted suicide?

@Hunter: "You know, there was once a famous leader who valued some Human characteristics over others and tried to advance the 'value' of mankind and create a sort of master race." - yes and that leader decided that one 'race' of humans was better than others, just as some people seem to think one species of Homonid are better than others.

I did disagree based on my opinion, let me be clear - the idea 'life begins at conception' is not wrong, it is also not useful. It simplifies things too much, when i say life is a process, and it is fuzzy at the edges (in space aswell as time, but that's not particularily relevant here) i mean that if we simplify it is easy to say 'life begins with conception and ends with brain death' or something like that - and hence conclude 'all life (human? but again that is a secondary arguement right now) must be protected to the best of our abilities' - now ignoring the fact that i take morale issue with the idea that 'everything is caused by your own choices' in that it leads to the poor being ignored and having no health care (we hope this will come to change) - not withstanding these minor complications - the simple idea is not useful.

we have a process, i can't tell you when I personally would choose to abort (42nd trimester" abortion was the joke in South Park about aborting 8 year old cartman) i do think that the father should have a say in this matter, IF a couple have decided to try having kids - otherwise the father has no right to force a woman to carry his child to term, it is inhuman akin to torture (whether it was rape or not) - now i am rambling -

Science can not tell us what we should do (that is usually the place of religion/politicians)

Science does not tell us justify or condemn any human action- the point about "Almighty Science declaring that life begins at conception" is not useful - we know that any single-celled life-form does not have the same feelings (or personhood) as our beloved pet dog; We do not feel the same kinship/empathy for any single celled life (whatever it's potential) You can not expect people to treat them the same as a healthy baby (which has yet to really begin to understand it's enviroment, but has this crazy-cool brain working everytinhg around it out...)

The pet dog versus fertilised egg - is not usually a useful comparison. We are rarely in a situation where we are given a choice of one or the other. Normally saying one type of life is more important than another is a very hard call because 'all life must be protected to the best of our abilities' - there is no first and second in that statement, who deserves to live and who gets to die... though it becomes important when planning for the future- should you choose to have a child or get a pet dog? Is that a nicer way of phrasing the problem? THere is no morale issue with chosing not to have a child.

"I believe that others who don't value their life as much as I do mine are uncapable of making sound decisions. " - that is about as fair and reasonable as me claiming that those who believe they speak to God or not of sound mind.

Geez. You leave for a second and you get left way behind.

I am in favor of passive assisted suicide (i.e. pulling the plug), but I am against active assisted suicide (i.e. intentional morphine overdose)

TMW - What you describe is not assisted suicide. It is natural death through discontinuation of artificial means of continuing life.

On other notes, I have to go to bed, but I will probably be able to post something sometime tomorrow.

"yes and that leader decided that one 'race' of humans was better than others, just as some people seem to think one species of Homonid are better than others."

Are you serious here? First, Humans are superior, but for this argument I will assume that all species are equal. Secondly, the idea of separate 'races' of Humanity is bullshit. Everyone is made up of the same gene sequences and all that DNA stuff. Even if there are small differences in nationalities of people, the main thing that is used to determine 'race' is appearances, which isn't very scientific.

With that all said; You and I are humans. It is not our responsibility to protect our Ape 'cousins.' Evolutionary speaking, the only species that we should be worried about our ourselves, and any species that are needed to keep us alive. This doesn't mean go out an d kill every animal that isn't useful, but the fate of chimps has no importance to the Human species.

lol, yeah. My paragraph on choice got completely sidetracked in my head somehow. The basic premise started as "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happyness" are the 3 inalienable rights and I believe that any member of the Human species should have these.

"I do think that the father should have a say in this matter, IF a couple have decided to try having kids - otherwise the father has no right to force a woman to carry his child to term, it is inhuman akin to torture (whether it was rape or not) - now i am rambling - "

LMAO... inhuman? How so? Pregnancy is completely 'human.'

Also, Why should the man not get the same choice as the woman? Maybe he doesn't want to support the kid financially (because you know he is going to have to pay child support if the mother goes through with the pregnancy that was caused by a shitty condom). If the man didn't want the child any more then the women, why doesn't he get to decide to have an abortion?

Because the child is inside the mother, and it's her body. Not his.But you bring up a good point. I read a dirty joke once upon a time that goes like this:
"A man and a woman were getting a divorce, and were arguing over child custody in court. The woman went on and on and on about the shortcomings of the father. When it was the father's turn to speak, he stood up and looked at the judge. "Judge, if I put a quarter in a candy machine, is the candy bar mine or the machine's?""

I can't believe that after all this time we're getting hung up on so called scientific definitions. I already pointed out, that scientific definition does not equal scientific fact. It's an arbitrary delineation point used for commonality in communication. What you call something doesn't change what it is, it only lets people refer to the same thing. It's just a label. Scientific fact is more like, a zygote has no conscious experience.

I will say that abortion is one of the few social issues where I can easily sympathize with both sides. The issue is not clear cut, and neither is the underlying biology.

"I can't believe that after all this time we're getting hung up on so called scientific definitions. I already pointed out, that scientific definition does not equal scientific fact. It's an arbitrary delineation point used for commonality in communication. What you call something doesn't change what it is, it only lets people refer to the same thing. It's just a label. Scientific fact is more like, a zygote has no conscious experience. "

Precisely my point when discussing personhood.

Precisemy

Precisely my point when stating both sides to an argument can be 'reasonable'

Chrispminis: "The issue is not clear cut, and neither is the underlying biology. "

Yes.

Many (and I would presume virtually all) strict pro-lifers believe in the soul and the idea that the soul enters the picture upon the instant of conception. (It is worth noting here that older religious ideas centered on the "quickening" [beginning of movement] of the fetus as the moment when the soul enters the picture). ...regardless of when, the concept is dependent on the idea of a soul - which as much as the pro-lifers talk about the "scientific fact" of human life beginning at conception, they really have absolutely no data that shows that a soul is something real. They lean on the DNA being the sign of humanity when clearly it is the soul that is the ghost in the machine they are concerned about. (If it was simply DNA, then products of IVF or cloning or gene splicing or whatever would also be valued by them equally, for example... and at least for the pro-lifers here [as stated by them previously], zygote products of IVF are not valued as much as other zygotes... presumably due to some concept of naturalness and God's intent rather than simply DNA.)

Where is the evidence of a "soul" as a spirit entity separate from physical reality and where is the evidence that such a construction enters or leaves a body (or cells)? The concept of a soul as conceived by western religions also is limited to humans... where is the evidence of that limitation? There is a lot of morality and legality based on this imagined concept of a soul (which is based on the concept of mind/body dualism - rather than the simpler model of materialism). Why should such an imagined construction be considered a firm foundation to base our legal system on? Scientific data tells us that a zygote has the potential to grow into a full human being but it clearly also can show us many lines of evidence that distinguish a zygote from an embryo from a fetus from an infant from a child from an adult in some very real ways (self-awareness, perception of pain, ability to process sensory input, presence of a brain, presence of differentiated cells, etc.)... If our determination of what is important in being human is to be based on evidence than it cannot be based on the concept of a soul (as there is no evidence of that). And to base it on potential (to grow into a fully realized human being) than it would also logically follow for the relative value of the individuals to vary depending on their potential... those with conditions dooming them to a death in infancy or the absence of a fully developed brain, for example, would have less potential, and thus less value. And, as noted in my previous paragraph, claims of basing value on DNA are specious. We are left with a knot of logical inconsistencies and contradictions.

Given the messiness and lack of clarity, do you hand that authority over to a judge or do you trust that the individual most central to the question (the pregnant woman) is in the best position to make the decision? Admittedly neither solution is perfect (setting aside for the moment the idea [which I ardently hold] that it is the woman's right to make the decision)... Can it then be reduced to the question of whether personal knowledge and judgment or distance from that knowledge and judgment in trade for "objectivity" is of the most value here? I don't see this as an easy question even though I do have my own opinion.