Wen Does Life Begin?

[HoppityRedux]

The value is that it’s a completely baseless and subjective claim. Of course they deny life - how does saying so detract from the credibility of the pro-life movement? Life is what we are fighting for - life for our children and for women.

In my experience if pro-choicers want to discuss abortion then they need to be objectively correct, and not manipulate language to fit their ideology, “bunch of cells” being a popular manipulation.

When nobody disputes a fertilized egg is alive, it’s somewhat silly to claim someone does.

 

[HoppityRedux]

The value is that it’s a completely baseless and subjective claim. Of course they deny life - how does saying so detract from the credibility of the pro-life movement? Life is what we are fighting for - life for our children and for women.

In my experience if pro-choicers want to discuss abortion then they need to be objectively correct, and not manipulate language to fit their ideology, “bunch of cells” being a popular manipulation.

A bunch of cells is an accurate description. That’s what I am. I am a bunch of cells. To deny that is silly. We can slice off pieces and look in a microscope. There may also be other accurate descriptions. An intelligent response from a pro-lifer would be , “Yes, a bunch of cells with the following characteristics…” The lack of success of the pro-lifers in the past thirty-five years might indicate their tactics don’t work.

 

[HoppityRedux]

It’s difficult to refute the idea that human life is valueless by itself without working from Christianity as a premise. The simple Christian answer is that human dignity comes from being made in the image of God and loved by him, and it is utterly clear from scripture and tradition that God loves each man, not merely men who are loved by others, have reached a certain size or complexity, exist in a certain space (outside of the womb), or have measurable brainwaves. It takes a pretty shallow Christian to think God’s love is dependant on those things.

The best secular argument against the idea that human life by itself is valueless is the world that such logic leads to. What does make a human life valuable then, if not the fact that it is a human life?

Is it that society says a human being of a certain size or stage of development is valuable? What happens when society changes its mind and decides 2 year olds are nothing more than evolving molecules? Child abuse becomes moral. Raping 2 year olds then becomes moral. Is that the world you think we life in, where society gets to decide who has worth and who doesn’t? Is that the world you want to live in?

Is it only human beings that are valuable to society that have a right to life? Could you best friend, or spouse, or mother suddenly become handicapped tommorow, and become unable to work, and thus become nothing more than a worthless lump of molecules? If you believe that the value of human life is dependant on value to society, you wouldn’t be mad if I murdered you best friend when he become no longer able to work, right?

Is it only human beings who have reached a certain stage of development that deserve life, or only human beings who can feel the pain of being murdered who have a right to life? If you could no longer feel pain tommorow because of that medical condition that impairs one’s sense of feeling, would I have the right to murder you?

I can play this game all day, but the point remains the same: The minute you base the value of human life on anything other than the fact that it is human life, you turn the kingdom of God on earth into hell. I ask you honestly: If human life is not valuable in-and-of itself, what makes some human lives valuable?

I apologize honestly is this post was too forceful, I do get carried away sometimes. God bless.

Value is assigned by social concensus. Folks might not like that idea, and might think value comes from something else, but observation shows us that the social consensus assigns value. Want to change the values? OK. Change the consensus.

 

[Jennifer123]

Value is assigned by social concensus. Folks might not like that idea, and might think value comes from something else, but observation shows us that the social consensus assigns value. Want to change the values? OK. Change the consensus.

Oy vey.

Only in the most morally-challenged political and ideological systems were human beings only seen as valuable through some subjectively determined social consensus. Mao? Hitler? Sanger?

“We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…" Aahhh…I guess that’s quaint. We’re so much more enlightened now.

 

[porriwiggle]

Value is assigned by social concensus. Folks might not like that idea, and might think value comes from something else, but observation shows us that the social consensus assigns value. Want to change the values? OK. Change the consensus.

The basic value of human life doesn’t change because of what people think. If I think the guy down the road who revs his car up at five o’clock every morning is a blot on the landscape, and every morning I value his life rather less than I value the life of a beetle. This doesn’t mean that his life is valueless. God loves him even if no one in our road does.

However I do agree that the modern concept of value is something that needs adjusting and social consensus needs to be changed. In fact we’ve been working at that for years. Any idea how to do it?

 

[Jennifer123]

A bunch of cells is an accurate description. That’s what I am. I am a bunch of cells. To deny that is silly. We can slice off pieces and look in a microscope. There may also be other accurate descriptions. An intelligent response from a pro-lifer would be , “Yes, a bunch of cells with the following characteristics…” The lack of success of the pro-lifers in the past thirty-five years might indicate their tactics don’t work.

You are a bunch of cells. Can I end your life today? Give me any explanation why I can’t “abort” you today, since as you say, you, like an embryo, are also a “bunch of cells”.

But really - to not see how a skin cell (a part of an entity) is different from an embryo with DNA (the whole entity) is a bit disingenuous.

Our tactics don’t work not necessarily because we are unimaginative. There’s an unequal field with regards to media access, bias by the medical and scientific community, the willful efforts by the pro-abortion industry to supress information.

To think that our failure to end legalized abortion or to have much effect on the COD is due to our message is a bit simplistic. We are facing a very large and formidable opponent.

 

[Transformer]

Value is assigned by social concensus. Folks might not like that idea, and might think value comes from something else, but observation shows us that the social consensus assigns value. Want to change the values? OK. Change the consensus.

If that’s the truth, I wish I hadn’t ever been born. Do you have any good friends who are handicapped? What happens when society pulls a Margret Sanger and the consensus decides some time in the future that your good friend no longer deserves to live? You won’t cry injustice or evil when someone murders him? You’ll just say, “Oh well, society said he wasn’t anything more than a bunch of cells, so what happened was moral”?

How far in the future do you think I have to go before the cvonsensus decides that 3 year olds don’t have value? Can I morally rape and kill a 3 year old girl at that moment in time? Apparently so. How far in the future until child abuse is moral?

Are there any elderly people whom you love? Maybe in 10 years the consensus will decide that that person has no value and no longer deserves to live. Are you gonna be at all mad at me if I torture and murder him in front of you? I guess not, after all, the social consensus defines reality in terms of value, so your friend really was nothing more than a worthless lump of cells. It could just as easiuly have been your spouse or best friend I raped, tortured, and murdered, and apparently I wouldn’t have done a darn thing wrong.

Welcome to hell on earth, the world every Christian would die trying to destroy, and the world that your logic necessarily can lead to. I don’t have an exact logical refutation of your position without using Christianity as a premise, but damn, if the above is the world in which we really live in, in which the social consensus really does define who has value and who simply doesn’t deserve to live, you and I might as well suicide now.

 

[porriwiggle]

If that’s the truth, I wish I hadn’t ever been born. Do you have any good friends who are handicapped? What happens when society pulls a Margret Sanger and the consensus decides some time in the future that your good friend no longer deserves to live? You won’t cry injustice or evil when someone murders him? You’ll just say, “Oh well, society said he wasn’t anything more than a bunch of cells, so what happened was moral”?

How far in the future do you think I have to go before the cvonsensus decides that 3 year olds don’t have value? Can I morally rape and kill a 3 year old girl at that moment in time? Apparently so. How far in the future until child abuse is moral?

Are there any elderly people whom you love? Maybe in 10 years the consensus will decide that that person has no value and no longer deserves to live. Are you gonna be at all mad at me if I torture and murder him in front of you? I guess not, after all, the social consensus defines reality in terms of value, so your friend really was nothing more than a worthless lump of cells. It could just as easiuly have been your spouse or best friend I raped, tortured, and murdered, and apparently I wouldn’t have done a darn thing wrong.

Welcome to hell on earth, the world every Christian would die trying to destroy, and the world that your logic necessarily can lead to. I don’t have an exact logical refutation of your position without using Christianity as a premise, but damn, if the above is the world in which we really live in, in which the social consensus really does define who has value and who simply doesn’t deserve to live, you and I might as well suicide now.

It is not value, but rather society’s perception of value that is assigned by social concensus and yes it is a very frightening prospect, and it is already happening.

There are discussions going on at the moment as to whether doctors could reduce abortion by KILLING UNWANTED BABIES AT BIRTH. Of course they are being “compassionate” and “caring” here by only intending to kill the handicapped. worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51963

The argument being that since diagnosis in the womb for handicap is not foolproof, and occasionally a perfectly healthy baby is aborted by mistake, wouldn’t it be better to let the child be born and then kill it if it is not up to standard.

The really aweful thing about this is that is hasn’t been shouted down from all sides.

 

[fix]

Value is assigned by social concensus. Folks might not like that idea, and might think value comes from something else, but observation shows us that the social consensus assigns value. Want to change the values? OK. Change the consensus.

This is why I think moral relativism is illogical. By your reasoning if a majority decided fresh water was of no value and started to pollute it and make it undrinkable so folks started to die in droves, you would still conclude that the “value” placed on water is not independent of what the majority think?

In essence, you would be denying reason and your own self preservation simply to support a false theory.

My point is so-called value is independent of any majority. That a majority can make laws and coerce a minority does not prove the majority are objectively right in their beliefs.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Oy vey.

Only in the most morally-challenged political and ideological systems were human beings only seen as valuable through some subjectively determined social consensus. Mao? Hitler? Sanger?

“We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…" Aahhh…I guess that’s quaint. We’re so much more enlightened now.

Multiple assignments of value exist at the same time. Multiple values exist at the same time. The consensus assigns a value. Others are also free to assign values. Some of these values may conflict, but the one assigned by the consensus will trump the others in social policy.

 

[HoppityRedux]

The basic value of human life doesn’t change because of what people think. If I think the guy down the road who revs his car up at five o’clock every morning is a blot on the landscape, and every morning I value his life rather less than I value the life of a beetle. This doesn’t mean that his life is valueless. God loves him even if no one in our road does.

However I do agree that the modern concept of value is something that needs adjusting and social consensus needs to be changed. In fact we’ve been working at that for years. Any idea how to do it?

I don’t dispute that. I simply observe how things really work.

If one wants to change the consensus, I would start by eliminating the name-calling, insults, and false accusations. It’s hard to change a consensus when he other side tunes out the core message because it is overwhelmed by the more emotionally strident advocates.

 

[HoppityRedux]

You are a bunch of cells. Can I end your life today? Give me any explanation why I can’t “abort” you today, since as you say, you, like an embryo, are also a “bunch of cells”.

But really - to not see how a skin cell (a part of an entity) is different from an embryo with DNA (the whole entity) is a bit disingenuous.

Our tactics don’t work not necessarily because we are unimaginative. There’s an unequal field with regards to media access, bias by the medical and scientific community, the willful efforts by the pro-abortion industry to supress information.

To think that our failure to end legalized abortion or to have much effect on the COD is due to our message is a bit simplistic. We are facing a very large and formidable opponent.

You can’t abort me today because I will resist. I will be joined in that resistance by many others who will come to my assistance because we have a mutual pact to resist those who attempt to harm us. I will also come to their aid should you atempt to abort them.

The skin cell has exactly the same DNA as fertilized egg

Tactics have to be adjusted to the enemy. If the tactics don’t work in the environment, then they lead to failure. One can complain about the enemy’s tactics, but that rarely leads to success.

 

[HoppityRedux]

If that’s the truth, I wish I hadn’t ever been born. Do you have any good friends who are handicapped? What happens when society pulls a Margret Sanger and the consensus decides some time in the future that your good friend no longer deserves to live? You won’t cry injustice or evil when someone murders him? You’ll just say, “Oh well, society said he wasn’t anything more than a bunch of cells, so what happened was moral”?

How far in the future do you think I have to go before the cvonsensus decides that 3 year olds don’t have value? Can I morally rape and kill a 3 year old girl at that moment in time? Apparently so. How far in the future until child abuse is moral?

Are there any elderly people whom you love? Maybe in 10 years the consensus will decide that that person has no value and no longer deserves to live. Are you gonna be at all mad at me if I torture and murder him in front of you? I guess not, after all, the social consensus defines reality in terms of value, so your friend really was nothing more than a worthless lump of cells. It could just as easiuly have been your spouse or best friend I raped, tortured, and murdered, and apparently I wouldn’t have done a darn thing wrong.

Welcome to hell on earth, the world every Christian would die trying to destroy, and the world that your logic necessarily can lead to. I don’t have an exact logical refutation of your position without using Christianity as a premise, but damn, if the above is the world in which we really live in, in which the social consensus really does define who has value and who simply doesn’t deserve to live, you and I might as well suicide now.

If the social consensus decides the handicapepd should not live, then they will die. We have many examples of this in history. What I say about it has no bearing on the death of the handicapped person. Only if I am clever enough to say something that changes the social consensus will I have an effect.

I don’t know how far into the future one must go before raping 3-year-olds is social consensus.

My emotional response to actions of the social consensus have no bearing on the actions of the society unless I can change the consensus.

I do not choose suicide.

 

[HoppityRedux]

This is why I think moral relativism is illogical. By your reasoning if a majority decided fresh water was of no value and started to pollute it and make it undrinkable so folks started to die in droves, you would still conclude that the “value” placed on water is not independent of what the majority think?

In essence, you would be denying reason and your own self preservation simply to support a false theory.

My point is so-called value is independent of any majority. That a majority can make laws and coerce a minority does not prove the majority are objectively right in their beliefs.

I observe society places value on things. I observe others place different values on things. I observe the social consensus determines the rules, roles, and relationships that will prevail. There is no logic involved. It is simple observation.

 

[Jennifer123]

You can’t abort me today because I will resist. I will be joined in that resistance by many others who will come to my assistance because we have a mutual pact to resist those who attempt to harm us. I will also come to their aid should you atempt to abort them.

**That is not a good enough reason. I asked for an explanation as to why you think you shouldn’t be aborted today. Why are you more valuable than an embryo? **

The skin cell has exactly the same DNA as fertilized egg

Yes - but a skin cell is only a part of what is included in the fertilized egg. They are not equivalent, a skin cell is not a human being. You can not slice a skin cell from your body and then say that the skin cell contains your whole human being.

Tactics have to be adjusted to the enemy. If the tactics don’t work in the environment, then they lead to failure. One can complain about the enemy’s tactics, but that rarely leads to success.

I agree with you on some level here. But I was pointing out that your assumption about our “failure” has little to do with the message.

 

[mosher]

Fine it does, but I challenge what makes the embryo special besides its membership in the species Homo sapiens. I argue life is nothing special but a throng of molecules that undergo Darwinian evolution.

Fine I can accept that. I also have mo problem with that in any way. This may come as a suprise to some but I am glad that you expressed this point. This allows for the real conversation to happen and that is the issue of rights and dignity. That is a far more iteresting conversation.

 

[Jennifer123]

I observe society places value on things. I observe others place different values on things. I observe the social consensus determines the rules, roles, and relationships that will prevail. There is no logic involved. It is simple observation.

Not all values are equal and social consensus is no true arbiter of morality.

 

[mosher]

Alive can be agreed upon but in my experience many pro-choicers deny that embryos are human. I get a lot of “bunch of cells” nonsense.

That is because people are not intelligent. I have seen enough high school and college educated idiots to affirm this and every late night host exploits this fact for ratings. It is a very simple concept to grasp.

A Human Zygote is to a Human Adult as an Acorn is to an Oak Tree.

Explained a little further: in classification of things we say that an acorn is in the same species as an Oak Tree just at a different state of development. This is also said in humans. A human zygote is in the same species as a human adult just at a different state of development. So, the qualification of that “mass of cells” as being anything other than human is not only irrational but unscientific.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Jennifer123:
You asked why you can’t abort me. That’s the reason. It will be effective even if you don’t approve.

The DNA in the skin cell is identical and equivalent to the DNA in the fertilized egg. If one says the fertilized egg represents a whole human being because it contains DNA, then one can also observe the skin cell contains the same DNA and ask if it, too, represents the whole human being.

The failure of the pro-life movement has everything to do with the message. I include presentation as an integral part of the message. The presentation has been awful; the name-calling juvenile; the spurious accusations easily dismissed; and the general impression left with the public one of emotional and religious extremists. My general impression is the tatics of the pro-life movement are designed for members to demonstrate their commitment to each other.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Not all values are equal and social consensus is no true arbiter of morality.

Equality of values and morality have little to do with the dynamic of social consensus. The consensus defines the morality for the society.