When Does Life Begin?

But, you gave no points.

No, an accurate statement regarding your post.

CounterPoint: Your analogy using (for instance) war, has nothing to do with the OP which is when human life begins.

Yes it is HUMAN life...Thanks for making my point...No go lick your wounds.

 

The beginning of human life and the beginning of personhood are not the same thing. People often conflate the two.

Human life of individual human organism begins at conception. Even more accurately, life is a continuum which began billions of years ago. - sperm and eggs are also biologically alive (they are not dead).

This does not imply it should be also a person.

 

Before you gloat, you should check your reading comprehension skills(and possibly your spelling)

You wrote:

But I already yielded that point here:

If you can't be bothered to even notice when someone yields a point, then you can't be trusted to argue rationally or in good faith.

Bye.

 

When I am born.

Before that...why would I care that much?

 

Some differences are much more difficult to split than others are; and the matter of abortion very well illustrates this. Even so, it may not be impossible to split the difference here.

I remain staunchly pro-life; but it appears to me that there is a fundamental difference between, say, a seven-month-old fetus and a mere zygote. The former, I believe, should be protected by law; as to the latter, I am not quite so sure.

But what of those who deeply believe (1) that human life begins at conception (and which belief, in this regard, is not driven by religious doctrine, but by an understanding of objective reality); and (2) that all innocent human life is sacrosanct?

Is it really quite fair to describe such a person as a fanatic, absent any further evidence in support of the accusation; and ask him (or her) to privatize those core beliefs, rather than to "impose" them upon the larger society?

Think about it...

 

I answered "at implantation", but that doesn't properly represent my views on this topic.

I have a nuanced view on this subject; one made necessary by the same difficulties others in this thread have had regarding the determination of when life begins.

My position closely aligns with those who say "when the heart begins to beat". I could accept that position, but I choose a point slightly earlier: "when blood begins to move". I'm not entirely sure if "blood begins to move" when it is formed, but I understand that point to be between 14-21 days after conception, and I believe the heart begins to beat between 3 and 5 weeks.

I believe our lives are in our blood, which is why blood plays such a key cultural role in society. Terms like "lifeblood", etc, are emblematic of my position on this subject.

I like this position, because it allows many opposing positions to co-exist: those who are concerned about the absolutist position of "life begins at conception - people who criticize that position by bringing up cases of rape, etc - will find that choosing the point where "blood begins to move" (read: when the fetus begins to produce its own blood, separate from the mother's), eradicates sticky concerns such as terminating pregnancy due to rape, "whoops" moments; etc: there really is no excuse for the vast majority:

If they engage in unprotected (or even protected) sex, they have a responsibility to take oral contraceptive. If they are raped - likewise.

I think this position is logical, and clears up many of the issues over abortion which divide us.

 

Why should I value a fetus just because its producing its own blood, or the blood moves?

For me, the best test to determine if something is really what gives us value is to ask if you would lose personhood or become another person if such a thing was lost, replaced or substituted with life support alternative when you are an adult:
- Would adult people with no kidneys loose personhood? No. Therefore kidneys is not our "essence" what makes us a person. Its just a blood filtering system.
- Would people with artificial heart or extracorporeal circulation loose personhood? No. Therefore the heart is not what makes us a person. Its simply a pump.
- Would theoretical people with no blood (but all other things functioning) loose personhood? No. Do people with bone marrow transplant become another person? No. Therefore blood is not what makes us a person. Its simply a distribution system is a body.
- Would people with no functioning brain loose personhood? Yes. Braindead people are just an empty shell and are routinely dismantled for organs, even when all other things are working.

I think the functioning brain (brain waves) makes far more sense. We are our brains.

 

Do you care when your born?

At what age was your 1st childhood memory? Sure as hell wasn't when you were born was it?

 

It's called a joke.

Lighten up.

 

Well I don't know you that well, sorry.

 

No problem.

 

I thought threads ended after 500 posts?

 

New thread started. Please post there until this thread is closed by mods.

http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/233221-when-does-life-begin-part-2-a.html#post1060879276