A Pro-Life argument that doesn't include religion

In this country we have a right to life. This allows that we should respect life, which pro-choicer's I'm sure will agree.
The real question is when does that life begin.

If we address this question from a biological stand point, then doesn't life begin with a cell?

It is the smallest unit in which something is considered to be alive... So when something becomes a human cell in and of its own shouldn't we respect its life?

 

Eggs and sperm are human cells. Alive and human.

There is more to the question of abortion than the beginning of life.

 

I dont agree.

You said it yourself - "We" have a right to live. Not "every living thing has a right to live". Thats a very important distinction there.

But what exactly are "we"?

 

Do we? Can you show where and what it means?

Why is that the real question? What is the significance of the beginning and who made it significant?

 

The unfortunate reality of being human is that we need to kill life in order to survive.

Nor do we give rights on the basis of human life. Sperm, egg, skin cells, heart cells are all example of human life with no rights.

From a biological standpoint life is present prior to the cell. In fact Science has yet to create anything animate from something inanimate. "Life comes from Life" is what we observe.

We respect the rights of "a human".

A human cell, regardless of whether the DNA in that cell is in the process of creating a human, is not "a human".

Whether or not we should respect rights based on the Potential that a human might be created from/by that cell is an open question.

 

You are absolutely correct, but good luck convincing anybody here. You are dealing with a crowd of people so deep in denial that they are drowning in it.

 

Who's in denial? I linked to twenty dictionary definitions for "life" that said it begins at birth, remember?

 

But a zygote is a cell all to its own. It has its very own unique set of Human DNA . This makes it different from egg and sperm cells which carry their hosts DNA.

I don't think it does. Not at a fundamental level at least. Before we can decide whether or not abortion is right, we must decide when life begins.

 

Idk who you're quoting with "every living thing has a right to live." I never said that... Anywho...

If you could take my words in context you will see this is an unnecessary question. The heading under which I'm speaking is human abortions, therefore when I speak with a general pronoun such as "We," it refers to my context: humans.

 

Yes I believe we do.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
-Declaration of Independence

If this isn't enough, you could say we established a policy of a right to life in courts by prosecuting murderers. When a decision such as this is made in the Supreme Court it carries the same weight as Constitutional law. (look up right to privacy).

the significance of the beginning is: if we, as an American community, determine something as being alive, then we must question whether or not it is right to kill it. And if by scientific definition you define "human" by DNA, then killing this alive zygote would be killing an alive human zygote (then probably referred to as "child.")

We made it significant through our respect for life.

 

But if it has its own unique set of DNA, does that take away "potential" for humanity and make a human?

 

Law isn't made based off of webster's dictionary, but rather consensus among the people and judgement of those who we trust with power.

Society decides Law, which is exactly the reason we have forums like this one.

 

We are not simply "humans", we are more. Braindead human is a biologically alive human (just like embryo), and we regularly kill them in hospitals (dismantle them for organs).
We are human persons.

And what exactly is a person? Is it enough to be biologically alive and have human DNA to be considered a person?
I think not.

Were the words "we" and "men" from Declaration of Independence meant to mean "homo sapiens", or were they meant to mean "persons"? Thats the question (if you want to argue on the basis of DoI).

 

But dictionary definitions reflect common usage of a word, so the consensus of opinion according to the first twenty dictionaries listed is that life is the period between birth and death.

http://www.onelook.com/?w=life&ls=a

http://www.vocabulary.com/definition/life

 

Yes, a zygote is different from an egg or sperm. A zygote is different from an embryo, an embryo is different from a fetus, and so on, ad infinitum. You are deciding that a particular point or a particular characteristic designates value. Others have different ideas about those points and/or characteristics.

You are totally focusing on WHAT the zef is, when the real determinant is WHERE it is. It does not matter what the zef is, the woman carrying it within her body has the right to determine whether she will continue to carry it and support it's being. The pregnant woman bears ALL of the costs of producing a child, i.e. the physical costs to her body (which includes not just the temporary discomfort and pains, but lifetime damage to her body), costs to her pocketbook, the cost to her of an interruption in her career or education, and ignoring those costs by assigning some superior value to the nurturance of a zef is devaluing all of womanhood.

 

Who does not have a right to live? Please explain further.

 

And you should thank your mother today for not killing you…so that you could share your opinion and bias on this site. Other humans do not have this chance….so do thank her today.

You pro-aborts are the sad ones because life really has no meaning that matters to you, its a cold worldview. That crowd of people you are talking about recognizes life and values it…and we stand united against your position that human life is nothing great.

 

Embryos, fetuses (except late term), braindead people, people who threaten others on life or health.. All these can be killed without any punishment. Even though they are all biologically living humans.

 

It does take away the potential to make a human but I do not see how this is bad.

Humanity already has enough "potential" for making humans. So much so that the population of the planet is becomming a threat to the furture.

 

Clearly you do not fully grasp what it is and means. Are you telling us that if a bunch of people get together and utter something it magically becomes real and mandatory?

No, that is enforcing laws and not an affirmation of rights.

What are you talking about?

But scientific facts are not subject to popular opinion. Moreover, that does not address why the beginning is significant.

And that still does not address the beginning.

Fortunately science does not because if that were the case a diaper full of poop would also be of the same status as the infant who filled the diaper.

Yes indeed, killing a human zygote is killing a human zygote and as a result the human zygote is killed by said killing and it becomes a dead human zygote which is no longer alive.

Does that respect apply universally or just to zygotes?

 

Notice that it says "all men" does this mean women do not have rights ?

Of course what was meant was all people, as in "living born people".

Second: When Buch changed the definition of personhood he did it for religious reasons. The thread is to find a non religious reason.

Any bunch of silly humans can make silly laws that are not rational. Bush did not consult any subject matter experts nor the public.

 

Your position that a one-celled zygote has rights equal to or greater than the woman who sustains it does nothing to exalt life; it devalues the life of the woman.

 

It devalues the life of all of us, and those of us who have known the grief of seeing a loved one die will feel sick to their stomachs.

 

Grannie….


Wow….lifetime, pregnancy damages a woman's body for a lifetime? Hey what do you think abortion leaves Granny…on a physical and emotional level?

I have no damage to my body from my two pregnancies. LOL And your a grandmother….LOL How do you do it grannie….with all the damage you got from having children? You are the only grannie I know that condones abortion through the ninth month….so sad.

 

Question for ya cady….do you condone abortion in the ninth month?