How do you convince those who do not believe life begins at conception?

  • Thread starter Thread starter system
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s not individual, it’s a symbiote, connected to the mother, and drawing on her life for it’s own, fairly parasitic in nature, as the mother doesnt exactly gain anything, save 40 pounds or so. It is human life, but it is in no way a human being.
That is not true. A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative and unhealthy manner which will often damage the host and affect the procreative capacity of the host.

A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.
 
It’s not that hard.
Also, it’s very on point with this discussion. You need both sides represented so as not to look foolish when trying to convince someone of something they don’t believe, especially when it’s really not anyone’s place to convince anyone of anything. People should present the facts, then allow people to draw their own conclusions.
We don’t need both sides - we need only truth.
 
That is not true. A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative and unhealthy manner which will often damage the host and affect the procreative capacity of the host.

A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.
Incorrect. The only difference between a fetus and a parasite is that the mother and the fetus share a common species.
As for you “only needing the truth” that’s ridiculous. You only reach the truth by comparison. Do you just KNOW something is hot, or do you have someone tell you it’s hot, and if you doubt them, you touch it and find out it’s hot? All “truth” is relative.
 
It’s not individual, it’s a symbiote, connected to the mother, and drawing on her life for it’s own, fairly parasitic in nature, as the mother doesnt exactly gain anything, save 40 pounds or so. It is human life, but it is in no way a human being.
It is not a parasite as it is not pathologic. New humans develop in this way. As was intended.
 
That is how life works. I marvel when people see humans as pathology.
And yet belief in a magic man in the sky who creates people a certain way the punishes them for acting in accordance with their nature is rational.
 
So how do you convince people that life begins at conception? Seems to me if you do that - all arguments are over, and the laws of the land would change virtually overnight.
I am not sure even if most accepted that the laws would change.

As for life starting at conception I would say any time other than that is arbitrary.
 
So, you agree babies are not parasites?
The only difference between a fetus and a parasite is that a fetus shares a species in common with its mother(host), he said repetitively.
 
The only difference between a fetus and a parasite is that a fetus shares a species in common with its mother(host), he said repetitively.
So, in propagating the species every single unborn child is a parasite?
 
A embryo doesn’t have lungs, or a brain, either. A fetus is not a “whole being”.
People are born without parts all the time. Legs, immature lungs, missing kidneys etc.

Does that make them something other than human?

I’m not sure if you’re talking about an embryo or a fetus, but we’ll say you’re talking about early physical development.

Can you take one cell, which isn’t a whole being, from a zygote, which is a whole being, and not kill the whole being (the zygote).

What right does anyone have to decide that a human being in the early stages of physical development has no human rights?

Every argument about abortion points to the physical status of the unborn. What difference does the level of development make? If it’s a human zygote, it’s a human being.

Yet those who support a woman’s right to commit abortion say that a human isn’t a “person” until it reaches a certain, arbitrary level of physical development.

That’s bad enough. There are some who support a woman’s right to commit abortion at any stage of development.

What difference does it make if a person has fully formed lungs yet? Does having immature lungs, or having only the cells that will develop into lungs, give you the right to kill a human being?

And if the zygote isn’t human, then what is it?
 
The only difference between a fetus and a parasite is that a fetus shares a species in common with its mother(host), he said repetitively.
Really? I’ve never heard of any living thing giving birth to a parasite. I’ve never heard of a parasite being conceived by its host with the host’s own cell which is designed to created it.

BTW, you say that the fetus is the same species as its host. If the fetus is a member of the species, it is a human being.

All human beings have human rights. One of those rights is the right to life.
 
I am not sure even if most accepted that the laws would change.

As for life starting at conception I would say any time other than that is arbitrary.
That’s an excellent point.
 
Really? I’ve never heard of any living thing giving birth to a parasite. I’ve never heard of a parasite being conceived by its host with the host’s own cell which is designed to created it.

BTW, you say that the fetus is the same species as its host. If the fetus is a member of the species, it is a human being.

All human beings have human rights. One of those rights is the right to life.
no, it’s human life, not a human being. a human being can vote, a human being can be enrolled in school, a human being can be passed around to annoying relatives when its about to throw up. a fetus isnt a human being.
 
no, it’s human life, not a human being. a human being can vote, a human being can be enrolled in school, a human being can be passed around to annoying relatives when its about to throw up. a fetus isnt a human being.
A one month old cannot vote. Are they human beings?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top