Does life begins at conception?

[CharlesDarwin]

you are giving eta waves as the only criteria for self awareness? Correct?

no i am giving low frequency beta waves the only criteria for consciousness

it goes beyond that such as laws against necrophilia to wills, etc. The dead have rights.

actually with a will it is the formerly living person’s rights…the dead body can not form a new will. if the will is not complete before death then it can not be treated as such by the law. necro is again to protect the living from disease…seriously

what hostillity. You must suffer personally from this issue.

hostility? because i said the common phrase stfu…|
ok i am sorry how about just su?

 

[CrimsonCatholic]

no i meant brain death

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death

a baby is not a nematode…a zygote however is actually more complex than a zygote, and since I am sure you give your dog heartworm medicine, you are killing life that is more advanced than the life you are defending now.

heart beat…yes

feels pain yes

deserves respect yes

deserves rights? no

I am pro life…i am pro all life…but i still swat flies, and give pets heart worm medication because sentient life deserves more rights and more respect than non sentient life

so when you detect beta waves in a zygote let me know

Deserves rights: yes.

Also, lets watch the language please on the post above you made in reply to NE Catholic.

You are not pro life, because as a pro lifer, you would understand that from the moment of conception life is present. Without life, there wouldn’t be such a big deal, but there is, and that is why what you are saying, makes me wonder if your conscious of what you realize your talking about?

 

[CharlesDarwin]

Deserves rights: yes.

Also, lets watch the language please on the post above you made in reply to NE Catholic.

You are not pro life, because as a pro lifer, you would understand that from the moment of conception life is present. Without life, there wouldn’t be such a big deal, but there is, and that is why what you are saying, makes me wonder if your conscious of what you realize your talking about?

when did i ever say life wasnt present at conception…go ahead show me just once…ill give you all the time you need

what i said was not present was CONSCIOUSNESS and PERSONHOOD was not present.

you destroy life every day by the trillions…so maybe you should rethink your pro-life stance

 

[edwest2]

A human embryo is a unique combination of genetic material from both parents. It is not a skin cell, and it is not just the father’s or mother’s genetic material. It is a new person.

God bless,
Ed

 

[NE_Catholic]

I emphasized scientists because it is they who are solving real problems in the country not just pushing illogical beliefs onto others with no real basis other than “that’s what i believe”

and since 93% of scientists are atheists and hence secular, you claim these people are the problem

they are? OTAY.

you said that secularism has made people with mental or physical ailments non living…i said show me how…you went off on a weird tangent about people with painful diseases wishing to go out on their time and at their place rather than allow the disease to put them and their family through a long expensive and painful process.

I fail to see how giving people with painful diseases the option of mercy is a devaluing of human life

no weird tangent, just you fail to grasp a concept

 

[CharlesDarwin]

A human embryo is a unique combination of genetic material from both parents. It is not a skin cell, and it is not just the father’s or mother’s genetic material. It is a new person.

God bless,
Ed

unique genetic material that differs from its parents by less than 1% of 1%…every bacteria on your hands that you kill with hand santizer can make that claim

 

[CharlesDarwin]

they are? OTAY.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

and actually it is probably higher now since that study was done in 98 and the studies they have done in the last 70 years show a clear and rapid decline in the ammount of scientists who have faith.

no weird tangent, just you fail to grasp a concept

what concept is it? that giving people in pain mercy is inhuman?

well if people have to deny mercy to others to be human, count me out

 

[CrimsonCatholic]

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

“The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Sadler, T.W. Langman’s Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

Well… that pretty much settles it for me again, Life begins at conception.

That’s pro life for you.

 

[CrimsonCatholic]

when did i ever say life wasnt present at conception…go ahead show me just once…ill give you all the time you need

what i said was not present was CONSCIOUSNESS and PERSONHOOD was not present.

you destroy life every day by the trillions…so maybe you should rethink your pro-life stance

A person who is sleeping doesn’t have full consciousness, so are they without rights too?

how about a person in a coma? rights?

i think you need to rethink YOUR stance on pro life there buddy!

 

[CharlesDarwin]

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

“The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Sadler, T.W. Langman’s Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

Well… that pretty much settles it for me again, Life begins at conception.

That’s pro life for you.

never said life didnt begin at conception…are you illiterate or do you just not read my posts?

 

[NE_Catholic]

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

and actually it is probably higher now since that study was done in 98 and the studies they have done in the last 70 years show a clear and rapid decline in the ammount of scientists who have faith.

what concept is it? that giving people in pain mercy is inhuman?

well if people have to deny mercy to others to be human, count me out

simple google and I get this:
livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html
depends on whose survey

I think you are just angry. You have a belief that people differ with.

 

[CharlesDarwin]

simple google and I get this:
livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html
depends on whose survey

I think you are just angry. You have a belief that people differ with.

LOL…a study that included about 50% social “scientists” sorry but you have one study done once

kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

i have several done several times over the past 70 years. also please read the methodology of the study you posted. its atrocious.and i dont find people with social and political science degrees wto be scientists, and especially not in the context i used since they are not discovering cures for diseases or fixes to our enegery problems.

and please do show me where I am angry i have been respectful and answered all questions with links to sources, and minus the use of the letter f one time because that abbreviation doesn’t make sense w/o it, you are just saying i am angry because you have no argument that doesn’t rely on your opinions

 

[NE_Catholic]

LOL…a study that included about 50% social “scientists” sorry but you have one study done once

kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

i have several done several times over the past 70 years. also please read the methodology of the study you posted. its atrocious.and i dont find people with social and political science degrees wto be scientists, and especially not in the context i used since they are not discovering cures for diseases or fixes to our enegery problems.

and please do show me where I am angry i have been respectful and answered all questions with links to sources, and minus the use of the letter f one time because that abbreviation doesn’t make sense w/o it, you are just saying i am angry because you have no argument that doesn’t rely on your opinions

that was one crazy link!
But I digress again.
we could exchange links all day, but wether scientists are atheists or not is not the arguement.

You have answered rudely to other posters besides me.
then again, let’s return to the core question.

Is the fetus a person?
well, you say scientifically, no.
Is that debatebale?
your criiteria is brain activity.
Scientifically, I can argue DNA makes a person a person. And technically, I would be right.
and then we could argue back and forth “scientifically”. A criteria must be agreed on.

But I also argue from a higher level, one that most “scientists” avoid. (I used quotes because I really don’t mean that )

 

[CharlesDarwin]

that was one crazy link!
But I digress again.
we could exchange links all day, but wether scientists are atheists or not is not the arguement.

You have answered rudely to other posters besides me.
then again, let’s return to the core question.

Is the fetus a person?
well, you say scientifically, no.
Is that debatebale?
your criiteria is brain activity.
Scientifically, I can argue DNA makes a person a person. And technically, I would be right.
and then we could argue back and forth “scientifically”. A criteria must be agreed on.

But I also argue from a higher level, one that most “scientists” avoid. (I used quotes because I really don’t mean that )

I guess rudeness is in the eye of the beholder…I find nothing more rude than replying to my posts with out ever actually reading them. but none the less its not the arguement at hand

except i have already shown you that abortion is not the only area we must change if you wish DNA to be the basis on which we judge personhood

1. All cells have unique DNA, even in your own body cells do not have the same DNA. infact by the time you are 70 it is estimated less than 5% of the cells in your body have the same DNA you had at birth.
2. Identical twins have the same DNA but are not the same person. if you wish to argue this point that DNA determines personhood then you must explain this and also answer why a person who murders identical twins is charged with two murders when only one unique set of DNA was “killed”(used because the DNA is not killed but you should see what i mean)
3. some people have more than one unique set of DNA in one body, its called chimerism and results in people having what is essentially when two zygotes form one and one zygote forms say the top half of the body and the other forms the bottom half…or one forms all but the left leg etc it comes in many levels but none the less one complete body has two sets of unique DNA…so is this body two people? if so should a person who murders a chimera be charged with two murders?

i realise these questions are Reductio ad absurdum, but they do help to illustrate the problem with the unique DNA argument
where as with the BETA wave argument, each conscious person would have a unique chemical and physical structure in the brain that resulted in a unique consciousness for every individual

 

[NE_Catholic]

I guess rudeness is in the eye of the beholder…I find nothing more rude than replying to my posts with out ever actually reading them. but none the less its not the arguement at hand

except i have already shown you that abortion is not the only area we must change if you wish DNA to be the basis on which we judge personhood

1. All cells have unique DNA, even in your own body cells do not have the same DNA. infact by the time you are 70 it is estimated less than 5% of the cells in your body have the same DNA you had at birth.
2. Identical twins have the same DNA but are not the same person. if you wish to argue this point that DNA determines personhood then you must explain this and also answer why a person who murders identical twins is charged with two murders when only one unique set of DNA was “killed”(used because the DNA is not killed but you should see what i mean)
3. some people have more than one unique set of DNA in one body, its called chimerism and results in people having what is essentially when two zygotes form one and one zygote forms say the top half of the body and the other forms the bottom half…or one forms all but the left leg etc it comes in many levels but none the less one complete body has two sets of unique DNA…so is this body two people? if so should a person who murders a chimera be charged with two murders?

i realise these questions are Reductio ad absurdum, but they do help to illustrate the problem with the unique DNA argument
where as with the BETA wave argument, each conscious person would have a unique chemical and physical structure in the brain that resulted in a unique consciousness for every individual

you are using DNA to prove…??? Human DNA is unique to humans therefore if fetus has human DNA it is a person, “human”. That is my scientific point, no more, no less. Everything else you post is does not change that fact in my eyes.

 

[po18guy]

whats your point had i been aborted as a clump of cells I wouldnt have ever developed the consciousness to even realize i ever alive let alone care that i was not allowed to develop

Point: life begins with one cell. Since we were not aborted, on a basic level, you or I cannot know the full effects of abortion, except that it violates the natural law.

 

[brumano]

my human cheek cells i kill everyday have the same genetic code as that first original cell…but i kill thousands of cheek cells when i brush my teeth with out batting an eye

and wow thanks for proving godwin’s law so quickly lol

either way, a cell is not a person it is incapable of being person…did you know when a body is buried almost 3/4s of the cells in the body are still alive? so does that mean the PERSON is still alive? no…a PERSON is the consciousness contained in the body not the body itself

Apparently you the organism did not kill yourself when you brushed your teeth sloughing away dying or dead epithelium. An embryo is a human organism in the embryonic stage of it’s own human life, and so that all he or she will become is dependent on it’s present state of living existence.
Thanks for acknowledging that life begins at the moment of conception in the other post, because this means that the unborn must absolutely be afforded and guaranteed the full protection of their right to live as being completely equal with yours.

…No, a cell is not a person. The next time you go to sleep try to keep track of how many faculties, qualities, capabilities, etc., of your concioussness are being either diminished, disorganized, compromised, depressed and even practically speaking; lost, but as you’re doing this remember your own definition of having to remain concious to remain alive, if you wake up you should have the answer to the question that you put forth above, if you don’t wake up it won’t matter to you anyway to know that you were right.

 

[CharlesDarwin]

you are using DNA to prove…??? Human DNA is unique to humans therefore if fetus has human DNA it is a person, “human”. That is my scientific point, no more, no less. Everything else you post is does not change that fact in my eyes.

but your cheek cell has human dna and is not A human

a stem cell can become a zygote…but is not A human

what makes the cell created by egg sperm joining so much better than any of these other cells?

it doesn’t have unique DNA, it doesn’t have any consciousness, it could be killed and not even “know” it so why does it deserve rights and a cheek cell killed by listerine does not?

 

[CharlesDarwin]

Apparently you the organism did not kill yourself when you brushed your teeth sloughing away dying or dead epithelium. An embryo is a human organism in the embryonic stage of it’s own human life, and so that all he or she will become is dependent on it’s present state of living existence.
Thanks for acknowledging that life begins at the moment of conception in the other post, because this means that the unborn must absolutely be afforded and guaranteed the full protection of their right to live as being completely equal with yours.

…No, a cell is not a person. The next time you go to sleep try to keep track of how many faculties, qualities, capabilities, etc., of your concioussness are being either diminished, disorganized, compromised, depressed and even practically speaking; lost, but as you’re doing this remember your own definition of having to remain concious to remain alive, if you wake up you should have the answer to the question that you put forth above, if you don’t wake up it won’t matter to you anyway to know that you were right.

a human organism? really so…say i take a cheek cell…turn it into an adult stem cell…then implant it in a woman and make a fetus…

there for by killing that cheek cell you are destroying the possibility of it ever being a child.

naturally formed zygotes only ever have about a 50% chance of making it to a fetus and about 25% of fetuses are spontaneously aborted. so the chances of it becoming a child are rather slim form the get go.

and no…i do not put myself on the same level as a clump of cells because I am a sentient being…if i was destroyed before i attained sentience then “I” would not be around to care

someone running over a squirrel is more of a destruction of sentient life than an early term abortion

 

[NE_Catholic]

but your cheek cell has human dna and is not A human

a stem cell can become a zygote…but is not A human

what makes the cell created by egg sperm joining so much better than any of these other cells?

it doesn’t have unique DNA, it doesn’t have any consciousness, it could be killed and not even “know” it so why does it deserve rights and a cheek cell killed by listerine does not?

you are extending “rights” to your arguement.
point of order: the question is when does life begin? Not “what are the rights of a fetus?”.

Your examples are not relevent to the question. Since we both can agree you need to have an egg & a sperm, we now are tasked to answer when life begins after their joining.