Colorado shooting

[avxo]

If you don't define an unborn child as a baby, then yes it's "debatable." 

Let's say I do define an "unborn child" as a "baby" tell me, is aborting a "baby" that has anencephaly - that is, it's brain hasn't developed - murder? Remember, the baby will never be conscious and will almost certainly die shortly after birth anyways. So is it murder to have an abortion, or should the Mother be forced to carry the "baby" to term because you and Allen West don't think the "baby" should be murdered?

Oh and one more thing: do you define a just-fertilized ovum as a baby? If not, when exactly does it become one?

[Dos Equis]

Let's say I do define an "unborn child" as a "baby" tell me, is aborting a "baby" that has anencephaly - that is, it's brain hasn't developed - murder? Remember, the baby will never be conscious and will almost certainly die shortly after birth anyways. So is it murder to have an abortion, or should the Mother be forced to carry the "baby" to term because you and Allen West don't think the "baby" should be murdered?

Oh and one more thing: do you define a just-fertilized ovum as a baby? If not, when exactly does it become one?

I wasn't talking about murder and your original post didn't mention murder.  I was responding to the two points you addressed:

1.  Whether it's debatable that PP "is in the business of killing babies."  If you believe life begins at conception, that point is not debatable.

2.  Whether "Roe v Wade provides for the legal killing of babies."  That really isn't debatable either if you believe life begins at any point before viability, which was the benchmark in Roe. 

Neither of the preceding points deal with "murder" or whether a mother should be "forced" to carry a pregnancy to term. 

Regarding my views on life, I believe life begins at conception.  When do you believe life begins? 

[Agnostic007]

I wasn't talking about murder and your original post didn't mention murder.  I was responding to the two points you addressed:

1.  Whether it's debatable that PP "is in the business of killing babies."  If you believe life begins at conception, that point is not debatable.

2.  Whether "Roe v Wade provides for the legal killing of babies."  That really isn't debatable either if you believe life begins at any point before viability, which was the benchmark in Roe. 

Neither of the preceding points deal with "murder" or whether a mother should be "forced" to carry a pregnancy to term. 

Regarding my views on life, I believe life begins at conception.  When do you believe life begins? 

after 40

[Dos Equis]

after 40

lol.  Or as a wise person once told me:  you don't become a real man till you turn 40.   

[avxo]

I wasn't talking about murder and your original post didn't mention murder.  I was responding to the two points you addressed:

That's true - you never mentioned murder and neither did the original post. Why use words like "murder" when "legalized killing" will still convey the right meaning to the right people and keep the rest from calling you on your bullshit, right?

Still, you did not mention murder. And since you helpfully included the things that I was responding to you in your post, I'll answer there.

1.  Whether it's debatable that PP "is in the business of killing babies."  If you believe life begins at conception, that point is not debatable.

Even if life begins at the very instant of conception, when the ovum is fertilized by a sperm, what does that matter? The question shouldn't be "when does life begin", but should start with something more basic: "what makes a human being a human being?"

Consider, for example, the case of a fetus that does not develop normally. Such fetuses are, through complicated mechanisms that we need not go into, aborted but some do slip by.

Let's think about such a fetus with anencephaly - literally meaning "without a brain" - that was carried to term and was then delivered. Typically, if born, such babies are allowed to naturally expire without providing any medical intervention or assistance that would typically be provided to a newborn that is in even a hint of distress. It is, unquestionably according to you, "alive".

So should we try to keep this baby alive? Or allow it to expire? If the latter, is this a "killing" since the baby is alive? If not, why not?

And if it's acceptable to allow the baby to be born, only to then die, without making any effort to save it, would performing an abortion be acceptable or would it be considered killing it?

Which brings us to a more fundamental question: is the important distinguishing factor whether the baby is alive or not, or whether it is a human being?

2.  Whether "Roe v Wade provides for the legal killing of babies."  That really isn't debatable either if you believe life begins at any point before viability, which was the benchmark in Roe. 

Well, you've used this "isn't debatable" bit before, and I think I'm doing a pretty good job of showing that it is debable, so humor me for just a bit longer...

Again, let's be good sports and assume that life begins at the very instant of conception - way before viability. For the first 24 or so hours after conception, the zygote is only a single cell and that cell is inside the Fallopian tubes. It is undoubtedly alive, but we've already established that whether something is alive or not isn't the deciding factor. And although it has the potential to develop into a human baby it is not one yet.

Neither of the preceding points deal with "murder" or whether a mother should be "forced" to carry a pregnancy to term.

Considering that (a) you believe that life begins at conception, (b) murder is the premeditated killing of a human being, (c) the act of aborting a fetus will terminate it's life and (d) this requires premeditation, how are the preceding points not dealing with murder?

You have only two choices: either you must claim that a fetus, albeit alive, isn't a human being or you must agree that the killing

Regarding my views on life, I believe life begins at conception.  When do you believe life begins?

When life begins is irrelevant, but if you must know the answer to that question, I believe that the fertilized ovum is alive. But, for the reasons I've explained, I don't think that means much.

Now, if you want my position on abortion, it hasn't changed since the last time you asked: I believe that there exists a point in time after which a fetus is close enough to a human being that it needs to be granted some of the rights and protections we affords human beings, but not at the expense of the rights and protections of another.

Frankly, I'd prefer a world where there were no abortions, however, I don't think that's realistic (or advisable) so I'll settle for as few abortions as possible.

[Dos Equis]

That's true - you never mentioned murder and neither did the original post. Why use words like "murder" when "legalized killing" will still convey the right meaning to the right people and keep the rest from calling you on your bullshit, right?

Still, you did not mention murder. And since you helpfully included the things that I was responding to you in your post, I'll answer there.


Even if life begins at the very instant of conception, when the ovum is fertilized by a sperm, what does that matter? The question shouldn't be "when does life begin", but should start with something more basic: "what makes a human being a human being?"

Consider, for example, the case of a fetus that does not develop normally. Such fetuses are, through complicated mechanisms that we need not go into, aborted but some do slip by.

Let's think about such a fetus with anencephaly - literally meaning "without a brain" - that was carried to term and was then delivered. Typically, if born, such babies are allowed to naturally expire without providing any medical intervention or assistance that would typically be provided to a newborn that is in even a hint of distress. It is, unquestionably according to you, "alive".

So should we try to keep this baby alive? Or allow it to expire? If the latter, is this a "killing" since the baby is alive? If not, why not?

And if it's acceptable to allow the baby to be born, only to then die, without making any effort to save it, would performing an abortion be acceptable or would it be considered killing it?

Which brings us to a more fundamental question: is the important distinguishing factor whether the baby is alive or not, or whether it is a human being?


Well, you've used this "isn't debatable" bit before, and I think I'm doing a pretty good job of showing that it is debable, so humor me for just a bit longer...

Again, let's be good sports and assume that life begins at the very instant of conception - way before viability. For the first 24 or so hours after conception, the zygote is only a single cell and that cell is inside the Fallopian tubes. It is undoubtedly alive, but we've already established that whether something is alive or not isn't the deciding factor. And although it has the potential to develop into a human baby it is not one yet.


Considering that (a) you believe that life begins at conception, (b) murder is the premeditated killing of a human being, (c) the act of aborting a fetus will terminate it's life and (d) this requires premeditation, how are the preceding points not dealing with murder?

You have only two choices: either you must claim that a fetus, albeit alive, isn't a human being or you must agree that the killing


When life begins is irrelevant, but if you must know the answer to that question, I believe that the fertilized ovum is alive. But, for the reasons I've explained, I don't think that means much.

Now, if you want my position on abortion, it hasn't changed since the last time you asked: I believe that there exists a point in time after which a fetus is close enough to a human being that it needs to be granted some of the rights and protections we affords human beings, but not at the expense of the rights and protections of another.

Frankly, I'd prefer a world where there were no abortions, however, I don't think that's realistic (or advisable) so I'll settle for as few abortions as possible.

Ok Sarcastic Sam.  I didn't ask you for your position on abortion.  Nor did I recall discussing this issue with you and in particular saying the issue wasn't debatable.  But good job of knocking down your straw men.  

Given the 25 question marks in your post (no I didn't count them), I'm not sure which questions you want answered.  Let me just deal a few:

1.  As I said, I believe life begins at conception.  I see you refused to answer that question and instead changed the question to one I didn't ask, which is "what makes a human being a human being."  It reminds me of the people who beat their chest about macroevolution, but are unable or unwilling to explain either a scientific theory or their own personal theory about how life began on earth on day 1.  But I understand your tactic:  if the question doesn't fit your narrative, change the question.    

2.  You haven't shown me that if someone believes life begins at conception that it's debatable whether abortion kills a baby or that Roe provides for the legal killing of babies before viability.  If you don't believe life begins at conception, or before viability, then yes both of those issues are debatable.  It doesn't sound like you understand that distinction.  

3.  Your last straw man regarding killing v. murder is irrelevant for a few reasons:  (a) a woman will almost never learn that she is pregnant until she misses her period, which would make her at least five or six weeks pregnant, so trying to attach some significance to a newly fertilized egg is unrealistic; (b) I think we established on here that numerous states criminalize killing unborn children, some at any stage of development; and (c) as previously indicated, I didn't make any reference to murder.    

I know you want to try and taint the issue by using inflammatory rhetoric, but I was (and am) only talking about whether abortion kills a baby.  I'll let you and others get all worked up over the murder issue.  

[avxo]

Ok Sarcastic Sam.  I didn't ask you for your position on abortion.  Nor did I recall discussing this issue with you and in particular saying the issue wasn't debatable.  But good job of knocking down your straw men.  

Given the 25 question marks in your post (no I didn't count them), I'm not sure which questions you want answered.  Let me just deal a few:

1.  As I said, I believe life begins at conception.  I see you refused to answer that question and instead changed the question to one I didn't ask, which is "what makes a human being a human being."  It reminds me of the people who beat their chest about macroevolution, but are unable or unwilling to explain either a scientific theory or their own personal theory about how life began on earth on day 1.  But I understand your tactic:  if the question doesn't fit your narrative, change the question.    

2.  You haven't shown me that if someone believes life begins at conception that it's debatable whether abortion kills a baby or that Roe provides for the legal killing of babies before viability.  If you don't believe life begins at conception, or before viability, then yes both of those issues are debatable.  It doesn't sound like you understand that distinction.  

3.  Your last straw man regarding killing v. murder is irrelevant for a few reasons:  (a) a woman will almost never learn that she is pregnant until she misses her period, which would make her at least five or six weeks pregnant, so trying to attach some significance to a newly fertilized egg is unrealistic; (b) I think we established on here that numerous states criminalize killing unborn children, some at any stage of development; and (c) as previously indicated, I didn't make any reference to murder.    

I know you want to try and taint the issue by using inflammatory rhetoric, but I was (and am) only talking about whether abortion kills a baby.  I'll let you and others get all worked up over the murder issue.  

How did I refuse to answer the question of when life begins? My post says very clearly: "When life begins is irrelevant, but if you must know the answer to that question, I believe that the fertilized ovum is alive."

If you are only talking about whether abortion kills a baby then you aren't making a great job of that. You haven't even defined what "baby" means - is a fertilized ovum a baby? If not when does it become one?

[Dos Equis]

How did I refuse to answer the question of when life begins? My post says very clearly: "When life begins is irrelevant, but if you must know the answer to that question, I believe that the fertilized ovum is alive."

If you are only talking about whether abortion kills a baby then you aren't making a great job of that. You haven't even defined what "baby" means - is a fertilized ovum a baby? If not when does it become one?

If you are saying that life begins at conception, but want to word it differently to say a "fertilized ovum is alive," I'll accept that.  Six-and-half, half dozen.  It's the same thing. 

I believe life begins at conception.  I believe an unborn baby becomes a "person" at conception.  That's the logical starting point for me, rather than some arbitrary line before birth.  I had this discussion the other day with someone who said he believes life begins when the heart starts beating.  That's still a bit arbitrary, but not illogical. 

[avxo]

If you are saying that life begins at conception, but want to word it differently to say a "fertilized ovum is alive," I'll accept that.  Six-and-half, half dozen.  It's the same thing.

I believe life begins at conception.  I believe an unborn baby becomes a "person" at conception.  That's the logical starting point for me, rather than some arbitrary line before birth.  I had this discussion the other day with someone who said he believes life begins when the heart starts beating.  That's still a bit arbitrary, but not illogical. 

As I said, however, when life begins is not the relevant question. A single cell is unquestionably alive and contains DNA that is identical to that in the zygote. And it is oh so fragile. Just swirling Listerine around your mouthwill kill hundreds of thousands of such cells. If all that matters is whether a cell is alive, why is using mouthwash ok?

[Agnostic007]

I think Avxo is making very valid points here.

[Dos Equis]

As I said, however, when life begins is not the relevant question. A single cell is unquestionably alive and contains DNA that is identical to that in the zygote. And it is oh so fragile. Just swirling Listerine around your mouthwill kill hundreds of thousands of such cells. If all that matters is whether a cell is alive, why is using mouthwash ok?

It's not the relevant question to you.  It is to me. 

And I see you are playing word games.  I'm talking about human life.  Not the life in a plant, etc. 

[Agnostic007]

It's not the relevant question to you.  It is to me. 

And I see you are playing word games.  I'm talking about human life.  Not the life in a plant, etc. 

He isn't talking plant life either

[Dos Equis]

He isn't talking plant life either

Yeah.  He's talking about killing a "cell" using mouthwash.  Huge distinction there. 

[Agnostic007]

Yeah.  He's talking about killing a "cell" using mouthwash.  Huge distinction there. 

I think he is making the point, "when life begins", if you believe it to be at conception, is little different at that point. 

[Dos Equis]

I think he is making the point, "when life begins", if you believe it to be at conception, is little different at that point. 

I am talking about when a human life begins.  He knows exactly what I'm talking about.  He's just trying to play devil's advocate. 

[Agnostic007]

I am talking about when a human life begins.  He knows exactly what I'm talking about.  He's just trying to play devil's advocate. 

I would say anyone that is on the other side of a debate could be said to be playing devils advocate. Sometimes the Devils Advocate is just as right as the other person or more so. Certainly you would agree that abortion is debatable   

[Dos Equis]

I would say anyone that is on the other side of a debate could be said to be playing devils advocate. Sometimes the Devils Advocate is just as right as the other person or more so. Certainly you would agree that abortion is debatable   

Of course the whole issue of abortion is debatable.  I've also said before I don't think there is a political solution to the abortion question. 

[avxo]

Yeah.  He's talking about killing a "cell" using mouthwash.  Huge distinction there.  

You claim that life begins at conception. Well, at the very moment of conception - and for almost 24 hours after that moment - this new life that you believe has begun consists entirely of a single cell.

So what, exactly, do you think is the distinction? Remember, that that one single cell that started it all for you contained the identical DNA as the epithelial cells that make up the lining of your mouth in your mouth. How is killing one different from killing the other?

I am talking about when a human life begins.  He knows exactly what I'm talking about.  He's just trying to play devil's advocate. 

You are talking about when human life begins, and, in the process, you claim that that the single cell that is the result of a sperm fusing with an ovum is both alive and a human.

Simple yes or no question: do you believe that every cell in your body is both alive and a human being? If your answer is no, can you explain your rationale? Remember, every last cell on your body contains the identical DNA as that first cell did...

[Dos Equis]

You claim that life begins at conception. Well, at the very moment of conception - and for almost 24 hours after that moment - this new life that you believe has begun consists entirely of a single cell.

So what, exactly, do you think is the distinction? Remember, that that one single cell that started it all for you contained the identical DNA as the epithelial cells that make up the lining of your mouth in your mouth. How is killing one different from killing the other?


You are talking about when human life begins, and, in the process, you claim that that the single cell that is the result of a sperm fusing with an ovum is both alive and a human.

Simple yes or no question: do you believe that every cell in your body is both alive and a human being? If your answer is no, can you explain your rationale? Remember, every last cell on your body contains the identical DNA as that first cell did...

I'm not "claiming" life begins at conception.  I'm saying that is my belief.  You, on the other hand, are refusing to say when you believe "human" life begins.  Is it conception?  Heartbeat?  Viability?  Birth?

Comparing a fertilized egg to a cell inside someone's cheek is silly.  "At the instant of fertilization, your baby's genes and sex are set. If the sperm has a Y chromosome, your baby will be a boy. If it has an X chromosome, the baby will be a girl."  http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/understanding-conception

You cannot say that about a single cell in someone's cheek.  Absurd comparison.  Why are you making that comparison?  What exactly is your point?  

  

[avxo]

I'm not "claiming" life begins at conception.  I'm saying that is my belief.

Right. It's your belief. If you believe that life begins at conception you are making a claim, but if the word "claim" is the issue, let me rephrase my post:

You believe that life begins at conception. Well, at the very moment of conception - and for almost 24 hours after that moment - this new life that you believe has begun consists entirely of a single cell.

So what, exactly, do you think is the distinction? Remember, that that one single cell that started it all for you contained the identical DNA as the epithelial cells that make up the lining of your mouth in your mouth. How is killing one different from killing the other?

You, on the other hand, are refusing to say when you believe "human" life begins.  Is it conception?  Heartbeat?  Viability?  Birth?

I believe that the zygote is alive and has the potential to develop into a human being. I cannot tell exactly where the line between "potential human" and "actual human". If I had to choose one option, I'd go for identifiable human brainwave patterns.

Comparing a fertilized egg to a cell inside someone's cheek is silly.  "At the instant of fertilization, your baby's genes and sex are set. If the sperm has a Y chromosome, your baby will be a boy. If it has an X chromosome, the baby will be a girl."  http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/understanding-conception

Right, and? The fertilized egg (called a zygote) contains identical DNA to a cell that's in your cheek. So what's the difference as far as you're concerned?

You cannot say that about a single cell in someone's cheek.  Absurd comparison.  Why are you making that comparison?  What exactly is your point?

I'm not making a comparison, but if I were why would it be absurd? Both are single cells. Both have identical DNA. Both meet the scientific criteria of being alive.

I'm trying to understand what difference you see between those two cells.

[Dos Equis]

Right. It's your belief. If you believe that life begins at conception you are making a claim, but if the word "claim" is the issue, let me rephrase my post:

You believe that life begins at conception. Well, at the very moment of conception - and for almost 24 hours after that moment - this new life that you believe has begun consists entirely of a single cell.

So what, exactly, do you think is the distinction? Remember, that that one single cell that started it all for you contained the identical DNA as the epithelial cells that make up the lining of your mouth in your mouth. How is killing one different from killing the other?


I believe that the zygote is alive and has the potential to develop into a human being. I cannot tell exactly where the line between "potential human" and "actual human". If I had to choose one option, I'd go for identifiable human brainwave patterns.


Right, and? The fertilized egg (called a zygote) contains identical DNA to a cell that's in your cheek. So what's the difference as far as you're concerned?


I'm not making a comparison, but if I were why would it be absurd? Both are single cells. Both have identical DNA. Both meet the scientific criteria of being alive.

I'm trying to understand what difference you see between those two cells.

I just gave you a crucial distinction between a fertilized egg and cell from someone's cheek, complete with a quote and link. 

At what stage do "identifiable human brainwave patterns" begin and why do you pick that as your actual but not really benchmark for when human life begins? 

[avxo]

I just gave you a crucial distinction between a fertilized egg and cell from someone's cheek, complete with a quote and link. 

You quoted this: "At the instant of fertilization, your baby's genes and sex are set. If the sperm has a Y chromosome, your baby will be a boy. If it has an X chromosome, the baby will be a girl."

And that's true: at fertilization the genes and sex are set: that's the new zygote's DNA. But then again, a cheek cell has exactly the same DNA. So how is one cell different from the other? So why is destroying one kind of cell OK but destroying the other isn't? Is it because destroying the zygote destroys the one and only copy?

At what stage do "identifiable human brainwave patterns" begin and why do you pick that as your actual but not really benchmark for when human life begins?

Let me answer out of order. First the why. I picked "identifiable human brainwave patterns" because the brain is the seat of our consciousness. There's precedent: we pronounce people brain-dead even if their hearts continue to beat. Once the brain starts functioning, that individual human is gone. It is, to use an analogy you might prefer, where I think the "soul" is.

Now on the question of when these "identifiable human brainwave patterns" begin. It's not important to pinpoint the exact point in time down to the nanosecond, or even down to the hour. What is important is that, at any given point in time, we can check whether they are present. If they are now but weren't present before, the line has been crossed. If they aren't yet, the line hasn't been.

[Dos Equis]

You quoted this: "At the instant of fertilization, your baby's genes and sex are set. If the sperm has a Y chromosome, your baby will be a boy. If it has an X chromosome, the baby will be a girl."

And that's true: at fertilization the genes and sex are set: that's the new zygote's DNA. But then again, a cheek cell has exactly the same DNA. So how is one cell different from the other? So why is destroying one kind of cell OK but destroying the other isn't? Is it because destroying the zygote destroys the one and only copy?


Let me answer out of order. First the why. I picked "identifiable human brainwave patterns" because the brain is the seat of our consciousness. There's precedent: we pronounce people brain-dead even if their hearts continue to beat. Once the brain starts functioning, that individual human is gone. It is, to use an analogy you might prefer, where I think the "soul" is.

Now on the question of when these "identifiable human brainwave patterns" begin. It's not important to pinpoint the exact point in time down to the nanosecond, or even down to the hour. What is important is that, at any given point in time, we can check whether they are present. If they are now but weren't present before, the line has been crossed. If they aren't yet, the line hasn't been.

So what if a cell has the same DNA as a fertilized egg?  Of course it will.  So will a fingerprint, hair follicle, skin, etc.  None of those, standing alone, makes a human being.  That really makes no sense. 

I don't prefer a "soul" analogy and not sure why you make that assumption. 

Is a person who is "brain dead" always literally dead? 

Funny how you try and completely sidestep precisely when human life begins when you have to specifically talk about when your own views, rather than some unrealistic hypothetical involving someone else.  You want to be precise when it comes to a "zygote," which no women ever really know about, but when it comes to your own views, it's "not important" to be precise. 

[Agnostic007]

So what if a cell has the same DNA as a fertilized egg?  Of course it will.  So will a fingerprint, hair follicle, skin, etc.  None of those, standing alone, makes a human being.  That really makes no sense. 

I don't prefer a "soul" analogy and not sure why you make that assumption. 

Is a person who is "brain dead" always literally dead? 

Funny how you try and completely sidestep precisely when human life begins when you have to specifically talk about when your own views, rather than some unrealistic hypothetical involving someone else.  You want to be precise when it comes to a "zygote," which no women ever really know about, but when it comes to your own views, it's "not important" to be precise. 

you saw that as a sidestep? I thought it was pretty spot on.. Where there are brainwaves... life.. where there are no brainwaves.. not life.. questions?

[Dos Equis]

you saw that as a sidestep? I thought it was pretty spot on.. Where there are brainwaves... life.. where there are no brainwaves.. not life.. questions?

Yes it was a sidestep to say it's not important to determine when brainwaves begin, when you're trying to be precise about when human life begins. 

If you agree with him then tell me when human brainwaves begin.