The sperm and egg are dead?!?!There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
The sperm and egg are dead?!?!There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
If not actually dead, doomed.The sperm and egg are dead?!?!There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
I don't think that concept applies in the context, really. The sperm and egg are going to fuse. Neither of them die, they just change.If not actually dead, doomed.The sperm and egg are dead?!?!There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
Never confuse a play on words for an argument. We are not discussing whether something is alive, but whether it has a life.I don't think that concept applies in the context, really. The sperm and egg are going to fuse. Neither of them die, they just change.If not actually dead, doomed.The sperm and egg are dead?!?!There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
Millions of sperms will die but that one undergoes a metamorphosis, not a death.
We're all doomed.If not actually dead, doomed.The sperm and egg are dead?!?!There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
True, humans are violent, so are lions and tigers and chimpanzees. Chimps can be cannibals.There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
That said, the next bit of clarity is, so what.
As a society, we kill people all the time. State sanctioned homicide, not related to warfare, has been a part of every human culture since we decided sleeping in the rain was a dumb idea. It's never been consistent from group to group, or even within a group. Consistency has never been a real consideration. The only consistent factor in when we decide to kill someone is how much trouble they cause. This is always a practical consideration and measuring trouble requires double entry book keeping.
The trouble principle applies to abortion and Capitol punishment. It's only in the recent century there has been any debate about state sanctioned homicide and that's mostly because we're not very good at identifying the real trouble makers.
That's not a problem with abortion. The troublemaker is identified and we know exactly where they are. Since we're dealing with humans, there's no reason to expect logic or reason to be applied to this problem.
I had my tonsils removed when I was 7 years old. I don't know what happened to them, but for a short time the cells which constituted my tonsils were alive. No one can seriously claim my tonsils were a life.We're all doomed.If not actually dead, doomed.The sperm and egg are dead?!?!There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
An ovum outweighs a sperm by about as much as a kid outweighs his measles vaccination -- and he too may be imminently doomed if he doesn't get it. Claiming an ovum isn't alive until a sperm joins it makes about as much sense as claiming the kid isn't alive until he's vaccinated.
As I said above, whether or not we decide it's okay to kill someone depends only upon the trouble they will cause if we let them live. There's really no philosophy to it.True, humans are violent, so are lions and tigers and chimpanzees. Chimps can be cannibals.There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
That said, the next bit of clarity is, so what.
As a society, we kill people all the time. State sanctioned homicide, not related to warfare, has been a part of every human culture since we decided sleeping in the rain was a dumb idea. It's never been consistent from group to group, or even within a group. Consistency has never been a real consideration. The only consistent factor in when we decide to kill someone is how much trouble they cause. This is always a practical consideration and measuring trouble requires double entry book keeping.
The trouble principle applies to abortion and Capitol punishment. It's only in the recent century there has been any debate about state sanctioned homicide and that's mostly because we're not very good at identifying the real trouble makers.
That's not a problem with abortion. The troublemaker is identified and we know exactly where they are. Since we're dealing with humans, there's no reason to expect logic or reason to be applied to this problem.
Semantics. Homicide is illegal killing with no justfication such as self defense. Killing in war. Here in Seattle teens are killing each other.
Capitol punishment is killing but not murder.
The obvious problem wt abortion is where the line is drawn. That is why I asked the quetion is there a difference between abortion a day before normal delivery and killing the baby just after delivery and the cord is cut.
Why not allow eutenasia up to 1 year old. Maybe a serious birth defect emerges. Maybe the bby is blind, dumb, or deaf. That is the slippery slope the Pro Lifer argue.
I'd have thought no one can seriously claim a newly fertilized ovum is a life, and yet here we are. If when you were 7 your tonsils had been put in deep-freeze right away, maybe today somebody could thaw them out, clone them, implant them, and grow your identical twin brother out of them. That's every bit as good a case for your tonsils being "a life" as there is for "Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone."I had my tonsils removed when I was 7 years old. I don't know what happened to them, but for a short time the cells which constituted my tonsils were alive. No one can seriously claim my tonsils were a life.We're all doomed.If not actually dead, doomed.The sperm and egg are dead?!?!There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
An ovum outweighs a sperm by about as much as a kid outweighs his measles vaccination -- and he too may be imminently doomed if he doesn't get it. Claiming an ovum isn't alive until a sperm joins it makes about as much sense as claiming the kid isn't alive until he's vaccinated.
There's actually a very little bit of a case for my tonsils becoming my brother.I'd have thought no one can seriously claim a newly fertilized ovum is a life, and yet here we are. If when you were 7 your tonsils had been put in deep-freeze right away, maybe today somebody could thaw them out, clone them, implant them, and grow your identical twin brother out of them. That's every bit as good a case for your tonsils being "a life" as there is for "Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone."I had my tonsils removed when I was 7 years old. I don't know what happened to them, but for a short time the cells which constituted my tonsils were alive. No one can seriously claim my tonsils were a life.We're all doomed.If not actually dead, doomed.The sperm and egg are dead?!?!There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
An ovum outweighs a sperm by about as much as a kid outweighs his measles vaccination -- and he too may be imminently doomed if he doesn't get it. Claiming an ovum isn't alive until a sperm joins it makes about as much sense as claiming the kid isn't alive until he's vaccinated.
China has a history of female infanticide spanning 2,000 years.[1] When Christian missionaries arrived in China in the late sixteenth century, they witnessed newborns being thrown into rivers or onto rubbish piles.[2][3] In the seventeenth century Matteo Ricci documented that the practice occurred in several of China's provinces and said that the primary reason for the practice was poverty.[3] The practice continued into the 19th century and declined precipitously during the Communist era,[4] but has reemerged as an issue since the introduction of the one-child policy in the early 1980s.[5] The census of 1990 showed an overall male-to-female sex ratio of 1.066, while a normal sex ratio for all ages should be less than 1.02.[6]
Current situation
![]()
Roadside sign in Danshan, Yanjiang District, Ziyang, Sichuan, which reads "It is forbidden to discriminate against, abuse or abandon baby girls"
Many Chinese couples desire to have sons because they provide support and security to their aging parents later in life.[17] Conversely, a daughter is expected to leave her parents upon marriage to join and care for her husband's family (parents-in-law).[17] In rural households, which as of 2014 constitute almost half the Chinese population,[18] males are additionally valuable for performing agricultural work and manual labor.[17][1
A 2005 intercensus survey demonstrated pronounced differences in sex ratio across provinces, ranging from 1.04 in Tibet to 1.43 in Jiangxi.[20] Banister (2004), in her literature review on China's shortage of girls, suggested that there has been a resurgence in the prevalence of female infanticide following the introduction of the one-child policy.[21] On the other hand, many researchers have argued that female infanticide is rare in China today,[20][22] especially since the government has outlawed the practice.[23] Zeng and colleagues (1993), for example, contended that at least half of the nation's gender imbalance arises from the underreporting of female births.[22]
You're not addressing my point. Life "begins" at conception? That would mean neither the sperm nor the egg were alive.If not actually dead, doomed.The sperm and egg are dead?!?!There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
I'm not the one doing the word play--that's a pro-"life" position.Never confuse a play on words for an argument. We are not discussing whether something is alive, but whether it has a life.
Yeah, they don't have the religious-driven insanity. They don't see it as a person until it's functional.When China implemented a one child one family policy there were parents who killed male babies trying again for a male. Traditional in China apparently not a moral issue.
So, if yiur kid has brown eyeas and yiu want blue toss it in a river and try again?Yeah, they don't have the religious-driven insanity. They don't see it as a person until it's functional.When China implemented a one child one family policy there were parents who killed male babies trying again for a male. Traditional in China apparently not a moral issue.
fuck, if they come out being kinda stupid or taking to hobbies you don't like or having a weird face, chuck them in a river and try again.So, if yiur kid has brown eyeas and yiu want blue toss it in a river and try again?
Are you realy justfying infanticide?
This is a false equivalency. While a the sperm and the egg are alive, neither are a life. As I said in another post, when my tonsils were removed at age 7, for a short time, the cells in my tonsils were alive. Taking them out and letting them come to room temperature before tossing them in the hospital incinerator, did not end a life.You're not addressing my point. Life "begins" at conception? That would mean neither the sperm nor the egg were alive.If not actually dead, doomed.The sperm and egg are dead?!?!There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
No, I am not. By the time it's born it's functional.So, if yiur kid has brown eyeas and yiu want blue toss it in a river and try again?Yeah, they don't have the religious-driven insanity. They don't see it as a person until it's functional.When China implemented a one child one family policy there were parents who killed male babies trying again for a male. Traditional in China apparently not a moral issue.
Are you realy justfying infanticide?
Abuse by local officials (their system is seriously lacking in checks and balances), not government policy.When the one child policy was in force I bekleive there were forced abortions.
Then you have an undefined term: "a life".This is a false equivalency. While a the sperm and the egg are alive, neither are a life. As I said in another post, when my tonsils were removed at age 7, for a short time, the cells in my tonsils were alive. Taking them out and letting them come to room temperature before tossing them in the hospital incinerator, did not end a life.You're not addressing my point. Life "begins" at conception? That would mean neither the sperm nor the egg were alive.If not actually dead, doomed.The sperm and egg are dead?!?!There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
It would be difficult to explain that concept, "a life", to someone who isn't sure whether or not sperm and ovum are alive.Then you have an undefined term: "a life".
I don't see any need to provide a definition, but feel free to provide one that precludes my tonsils from reproducing and raising a family of baby tonsils.Then you have an undefined term: "a life".This is a false equivalency. While a the sperm and the egg are alive, neither are a life. As I said in another post, when my tonsils were removed at age 7, for a short time, the cells in my tonsils were alive. Taking them out and letting them come to room temperature before tossing them in the hospital incinerator, did not end a life.You're not addressing my point. Life "begins" at conception? That would mean neither the sperm nor the egg were alive.If not actually dead, doomed.The sperm and egg are dead?!?!There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
It's difficult to explain because you don't really know what it means, it's just an undefined term used to argue your point. It's normally equated with "alive" + something, but that something is never properly pinned down--because there isn't a solid argument in the first place.It would be difficult to explain that concept, "a life", to someone who isn't sure whether or not sperm and ovum are alive.Then you have an undefined term: "a life".
It would be more productive if you stopped the word games, AKA semantic arguments.
Tom
If you can't define the terms you're using you don't have much of a position.I don't see any need to provide a definition, but feel free to provide one that precludes my tonsils from reproducing and raising a family of baby tonsils.Then you have an undefined term: "a life".This is a false equivalency. While a the sperm and the egg are alive, neither are a life. As I said in another post, when my tonsils were removed at age 7, for a short time, the cells in my tonsils were alive. Taking them out and letting them come to room temperature before tossing them in the hospital incinerator, did not end a life.You're not addressing my point. Life "begins" at conception? That would mean neither the sperm nor the egg were alive.If not actually dead, doomed.The sperm and egg are dead?!?!There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
It is all happening inside the woman, so that would be the source for it being a woman's issue. I mean, as much as you want to make this a male issue, pregnancy, at its basic level, is a female issue.Why did you specify women?What about a woman who keeps getting pregnant and can not afford or has no mental capacity to raise kids?
That's a big part of why I find this conversation difficult. People talk about it as though it's strictly a women's issue when it's not.
Actually, "conception" is the most over-rated moment of life ever, because unless the fertilized egg adheres to the uterine wall, it ain't ever going to become life. It'll go the way of your tonsils.There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
Actually, "conception" is the most over-rated moment of life ever, because unless the fertilized egg adheres to the uterine wall, it ain't ever going to become life. It'll go the way of your tonsils.There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
I just did, but you missed it.If you can't define the terms you're using you don't have much of a position.I don't see any need to provide a definition, but feel free to provide one that precludes my tonsils from reproducing and raising a family of baby tonsils.Then you have an undefined term: "a life".This is a false equivalency. While a the sperm and the egg are alive, neither are a life. As I said in another post, when my tonsils were removed at age 7, for a short time, the cells in my tonsils were alive. Taking them out and letting them come to room temperature before tossing them in the hospital incinerator, did not end a life.You're not addressing my point. Life "begins" at conception? That would mean neither the sperm nor the egg were alive.If not actually dead, doomed.The sperm and egg are dead?!?!There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
It sounds like the standard definition of pornography.
i think the whole "when does life begin" argument is a red herring from its starting point - it's a distraction meant to confuse the conversation away from the real issue, to derail any discussion of the real subject with a pointless argument about something that doesn't even matter.Actually, "conception" is the most over-rated moment of life ever, because unless the fertilized egg adheres to the uterine wall, it ain't ever going to become life. It'll go the way of your tonsils.There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
Your definition of the beginning of life results in an average infant mortality rate of about over 1.Actually, "conception" is the most over-rated moment of life ever, because unless the fertilized egg adheres to the uterine wall, it ain't ever going to become life. It'll go the way of your tonsils.There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
I know, but the broader question is whether the group has something to say about it considering it is about human life.It is all happening inside the woman, so that would be the source for it being a woman's issue. I mean, as much as you want to make this a male issue, pregnancy, at its basic level, is a female issue.Why did you specify women?What about a woman who keeps getting pregnant and can not afford or has no mental capacity to raise kids?
That's a big part of why I find this conversation difficult. People talk about it as though it's strictly a women's issue when it's not.
Axing Roe v Wade will increase suffering, anxiety, depression, and deaths. Where is the moral standing in that?
There is so much wrong with this statement. Firstly, what group? Right now, abortion rights are favored well above that of eliminating access to abortion. So currently, if we went the "group" way, abortion would be legal. 1000%. But "the group" isn't the people, it consists of partisan politicians elected to office in states with gerrymandered districting. So your statement above, in order to make it accurate with the conditions in the US, "the broader question is whether a bunch of partisans elected to office in gerrymandered states has something to say about considering it..."I know, but the broader question is whether the group has something to say about it considering it is about human life.It is all happening inside the woman, so that would be the source for it being a woman's issue. I mean, as much as you want to make this a male issue, pregnancy, at its basic level, is a female issue.Why did you specify women?What about a woman who keeps getting pregnant and can not afford or has no mental capacity to raise kids?
That's a big part of why I find this conversation difficult. People talk about it as though it's strictly a women's issue when it's not.
Axing Roe v Wade will increase suffering, anxiety, depression, and deaths. Where is the moral standing in that?
Huh? You said you didn't need to provide one, then you turned around and said you did provide one--but I see no definition here other than my reference to pornography. You know it when you see it is not a definition!I just did, but you missed it.If you can't define the terms you're using you don't have much of a position.I don't see any need to provide a definition, but feel free to provide one that precludes my tonsils from reproducing and raising a family of baby tonsils.Then you have an undefined term: "a life".
It sounds like the standard definition of pornography.
Okay, go back and read the part about baby tonsils. The difference between being alive and being a life is, the life is something that can replicate itself and create a new life. Tonsils, whether in my throat or in a bowl, cannot do that.Huh? You said you didn't need to provide one, then you turned around and said you did provide one--but I see no definition here other than my reference to pornography. You know it when you see it is not a definition!I just did, but you missed it.If you can't define the terms you're using you don't have much of a position.I don't see any need to provide a definition, but feel free to provide one that precludes my tonsils from reproducing and raising a family of baby tonsils.Then you have an undefined term: "a life".
It sounds like the standard definition of pornography.
If this were true, vasectomy would invariably be fatal.The difference between being alive and being a life is, the life is something that can replicate itself and create a new life.
As Hamlet said, we are undone by equivocation.If this were true, vasectomy would invariably be fatal.The difference between being alive and being a life is, the life is something that can replicate itself and create a new life.
There have been many attempts to define ‘life’ and ‘alive’, but they all founder on the fact that they either include stuff we really need to exclude, or (as here) exclude stuff (like sterile people) we really need to include.
True. But who would claim you have a car at the start of the assembly line? I mean, yeah, you've got the pieces and a design, but you don't have a car. Your fuel analogy would be equivalent to people questioning whether hungry people are living.As Hamlet said, we are undone by equivocation.If this were true, vasectomy would invariably be fatal.The difference between being alive and being a life is, the life is something that can replicate itself and create a new life.
There have been many attempts to define ‘life’ and ‘alive’, but they all founder on the fact that they either include stuff we really need to exclude, or (as here) exclude stuff (like sterile people) we really need to include.
There is a distinction between can and must. If my car runs out of gas, very few people would dispute that
it is still a car, whether or not I ever put gas in the tank.
Because the timing matters. When one says life begins at conception, that means the birth control pill helps contribute to "abortions". Also, with an estimate half or more of blastocysts flushing out of the system, the question of whether something is alive at conception is a bit muddled. Especially when conception doesn't provide any sense of awareness, ability to fend for itself, or to live on its own. All it has is a set of chromosomes and DNA.What I find strange is, I make a statement that life begins at conception, but that it is irrelevant to the abortion discussion, everybody wants to debate the timing and not the irrelevancy.
Why does any of that matter? You are just moving the until you're on the side where you feel comfortable.True. But who would claim you have a car at the start of the assembly line? I mean, yeah, you've got the pieces and a design, but you don't have a car. Your fuel analogy would be equivalent to people questioning whether hungry people are living.As Hamlet said, we are undone by equivocation.If this were true, vasectomy would invariably be fatal.The difference between being alive and being a life is, the life is something that can replicate itself and create a new life.
There have been many attempts to define ‘life’ and ‘alive’, but they all founder on the fact that they either include stuff we really need to exclude, or (as here) exclude stuff (like sterile people) we really need to include.
There is a distinction between can and must. If my car runs out of gas, very few people would dispute that
it is still a car, whether or not I ever put gas in the tank.
Because the timing matters. When one says life begins at conception, that means the birth control pill helps contribute to "abortions". Also, with an estimate half or more of blastocysts flushing out of the system, the question of whether something is alive at conception is a bit muddled. Especially when conception doesn't provide any sense of awareness, ability to fend for itself, or to live on its own. All it has is a set of chromosomes and DNA.What I find strange is, I make a statement that life begins at conception, but that it is irrelevant to the abortion discussion, everybody wants to debate the timing and not the irrelevancy.
Indeed; But your definition is based on ‘can’, and so is my objection. Introducing ’must’ is just muddying the waters.There is a distinction between can and must.
Never mind timing or relevancy; We still have no working definition of ‘a life’.What I find strange is, I make a statement that life begins at conception, but that it is irrelevant to the abortion discussion, everybody wants to debate the timing and not the irrelevancy.
The vasectomy thing is just an absurd quibble.Never mind timing or relevancy; We still have no working definition of ‘a life’.What I find strange is, I make a statement that life begins at conception, but that it is irrelevant to the abortion discussion, everybody wants to debate the timing and not the irrelevancy.
All we know so far is that it excludes tonsils and men who have had a vasectomy, because things that cannot reproduce may be ‘life’, but are not ‘a life’.
Apparently.
Or an inescapable logical flaw in your definition, that you have no reasonable response to.The vasectomy thing is just an absurd quibble.Never mind timing or relevancy; We still have no working definition of ‘a life’.What I find strange is, I make a statement that life begins at conception, but that it is irrelevant to the abortion discussion, everybody wants to debate the timing and not the irrelevancy.
All we know so far is that it excludes tonsils and men who have had a vasectomy, because things that cannot reproduce may be ‘life’, but are not ‘a life’.
Apparently.
No, it's still an absurd false equivalency and now you've gone on to propose that life is something created from corporate memory.Or an inescapable logical flaw in your definition, that you have no reasonable response to.The vasectomy thing is just an absurd quibble.Never mind timing or relevancy; We still have no working definition of ‘a life’.What I find strange is, I make a statement that life begins at conception, but that it is irrelevant to the abortion discussion, everybody wants to debate the timing and not the irrelevancy.
All we know so far is that it excludes tonsils and men who have had a vasectomy, because things that cannot reproduce may be ‘life’, but are not ‘a life’.
Apparently.
It’s OK; I have yet to see any adequate definition of life, and suspect that this is because life is an entirely fictional human construct, and not a characteristic of reality at all.
It's just not important. What is important is that the person they are tethered to says NO, they do not continue to consent.
There is no acknowledged right to walk up to someone and tether yourself to them for 9 months while using yourself as a hostage.
So why the fuck would we allow this to be done by anyone, to anyone, beyond their consent? Because the person doing it is "innocent"? Of what exactly? Certainly it is not innocent of tethering itself parasitically to someone for 9 months in some kind of fucked up hostage situation.
Do you even understand where babies come from?
So you've asserted that I am wrong three times without actually invalidating anything I've said.It's just not important. What is important is that the person they are tethered to says NO, they do not continue to consent.
There is no acknowledged right to walk up to someone and tether yourself to them for 9 months while using yourself as a hostage.
So why the fuck would we allow this to be done by anyone, to anyone, beyond their consent? Because the person doing it is "innocent"? Of what exactly? Certainly it is not innocent of tethering itself parasitically to someone for 9 months in some kind of fucked up hostage situation.
This is probably the most appallingly ignorant and unethical argument for feticide rights ever.
Do you even understand where babies come from? That they don't "walk up to someone and tether themselves"? Fetal children aren't parasites who drift around looking for a host to invade. Parents make the choices that involve human beings who don't even exist when they Choose. Choices that are very well understood by competent adults.
When it isn't both parent's decision, that's a whole different crime. It's called rape.
Your premise that parents are the victims of a zygote would be laughable if it weren't so evil.
Tom
There is no acknowledged right to walk up to someone and tether yourself to them for 9 months while using yourself as a hostage.
you've asserted that I am wrong three times without actually invalidating anything I've said.
Yes, they do. They implant themselves and then tether umbilically to the implanted cyst wall.There is no acknowledged right to walk up to someone and tether yourself to them for 9 months while using yourself as a hostage.
you've asserted that I am wrong three times without actually invalidating anything I've said.
Fetal children do not walk up to anyone and tether themselves.
So, yeah, I'm totally invalidating your post.
To me, you sound like a 19th century slaver whining about their property rights.
Tom
Technically you'd be the one sounding like a slaver because you are going on about your rights to inhibit the rights of another living / breathing human being.There is no acknowledged right to walk up to someone and tether yourself to them for 9 months while using yourself as a hostage.
you've asserted that I am wrong three times without actually invalidating anything I've said.
Fetal children do not walk up to anyone and tether themselves.
So, yeah, I'm totally invalidating your post.
To me, you sound like a 19th century slaver whining about their property rights.
Tom
And those Africans did sail across the Atlantic headed for South Carolina.Yes, they do. They implant themselves and then tether umbilically to the implanted cyst wall.