Slavery still exists in America.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Does human life begin at conception?

[/ QUOTE ]

No

[Gamblor]

It's all my opinion, based on my Upper Canada College / International Baccaleaureate high school education and assorted life experience.

First 3 years in Hebrew, last 2 years in english. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

You're right, it's a random smattering of my opinions on an issue about which I'm not particularly well-informed. After all, even a cactus responds to stimuli (i.e. ever notice that plants tilt toward the sun?), and they are certainly not sentient beings. The point is that my opinion is based on the assumption that one must be possess the traits of a living breathing human to be afforded the rights of a human. What they are, I'm not sure, as I've never met a fetus.

But stirring up the pot a little, I can do!

Frankly, I was under the impression that the pro-lifers in the States were driven by the Bible thumpers.

As for me, I'm definitely pro-life. I don't think people should die.

On Abortion, though, to each his own.

OT: Why, in your opinion do we "like" some things and "don't like" other things? It's all self-preservation (i.e., pleasure => comfort => safety => survival). We "don't like" getting punched, when people get in our space, getting fired.

It's all biologically hard-wired. We're not that different from each other - if we were, we wouldn't have survived this long.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
This is self-evident to any logical person. Human life must be 1) alive, 2) human. And to to be aware it must 3) have a functional brain. Human tissue obviously doesn't qualify - that was just a jdl22 red herring.

[/ QUOTE ]

But a functional brain doesn't develop until well into pregnancy.

Ultimately, there is no biological argument for treating a bunch of cells as a human being anywhere near conception. You can only talk about a potential human being, and this necessarily brings you into much more abstract territory.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />

Human life begins at birth, not conception.

[/ QUOTE ]


this is pretty weak, and blatantly false. you're saying, say 8 1/2 months into a pregnancy, there is no human being inside another human being? you're saying it actually takes the act of exiting the womb to become human? come on man...

[Gamblor]

Read my response to el Barto.

You're right. it's weak.

On the other hand, can you really call yourself human if you've never filled on the river against the nut flush?

[daryn]

there i go again firing off responses before reading the whole thread [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[superleeds]

The metabolic view
There is no point when life begins. The sperm cell and egg cell are as alive as any other organism.


The genetic view , clarkmeisters view
A new individual is created at fertilization. This is when the genes from the two parents combine to form an individual with unique properties.


The embryological view
In humans, identical twinning can occur as late as day 12 pc. Such twinning produces two individuals with different lives. Even conjoined ("Siamese") twins can have different personalities. Thus, a single individuality is not fixed earlier than day 12.Such a view would allow contraception, "morning after pills", and contragestational agents, but not abortion after two weeks.

The nuerological view
Our society has defined death as the loss of the cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. Conversely, some scientists have thought that the acquisition of the human EEG (at about 27 weeks) be defined as when a human life has begun. This view and the ones following would allow mid-trimester abortions.

The ecological/technological view my view
This view sees the human life as beginning when it can exist separately from its maternal biological environment. The natural limit of viability occurs when the lungs mature, but technological advances can now enable a premature infant to survive at about 25 wks gestation. (This is the view currently operating in many states. Once a fetus can be potentially independent, it cannot be aborted).

The immunological view
This view sees human life as beginning when the organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self. In humans, this occurs around the time of birth.

The integrated physiological view
This sees human life as beginning when it has become independent of the mother and has its own functioning circulatory system, alimentary system, and respiratory system. This is the traditional birthday when the baby is born into the world and the umbilical cord is cut.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, I was under the impression that the pro-lifers in the States were driven by the Bible thumpers.

As for me, I'm definitely pro-life. I don't think people should die.



[/ QUOTE ]

I find that in America, if you disagree with a position taken by a major Church or religious group, all you have to do is say "don't legislate the bible" or "seperation of church and state".

This is actually a phony argument. Just because someone's religious views inform one's opinions, doesn't invalidate those opinions. Since I am agnostic, I don't have this problem - but unlike many non-religious people I am not quick to dismiss a person's view just because it has a religious foundation.

After all, if we refused to ever "legislate from the bible", we couldn't criminalize murder. "Thou shalt not kill" is in the bible after all.

My hope is to have discussions based on logic and reason even if you originally came to your views because of your religious or non-religious background.

So, back to your statement, you would think that religion is the only reason abortion is opposed by anyone - when in fact (as this thread demonstrates) there are good scientific reasons for a pro-life position.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
The metabolic view
There is no point when life begins. The sperm cell and egg cell are as alive as any other organism.


The genetic view , clarkmeisters view
A new individual is created at fertilization. This is when the genes from the two parents combine to form an individual with unique properties.


The embryological view
In humans, identical twinning can occur as late as day 12 pc. Such twinning produces two individuals with different lives. Even conjoined ("Siamese") twins can have different personalities. Thus, a single individuality is not fixed earlier than day 12.Such a view would allow contraception, "morning after pills", and contragestational agents, but not abortion after two weeks.

The nuerological view
Our society has defined death as the loss of the cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. Conversely, some scientists have thought that the acquisition of the human EEG (at about 27 weeks) be defined as when a human life has begun. This view and the ones following would allow mid-trimester abortions.

The ecological/technological view my view
This view sees the human life as beginning when it can exist separately from its maternal biological environment. The natural limit of viability occurs when the lungs mature, but technological advances can now enable a premature infant to survive at about 25 wks gestation. (This is the view currently operating in many states. Once a fetus can be potentially independent, it cannot be aborted).

The immunological view
This view sees human life as beginning when the organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self. In humans, this occurs around the time of birth.

The integrated physiological view
This sees human life as beginning when it has become independent of the mother and has its own functioning circulatory system, alimentary system, and respiratory system. This is the traditional birthday when the baby is born into the world and the umbilical cord is cut.


[/ QUOTE ]

nicely done.

I sometimes wonder if 50 to 100 years from now, we will all be saying "why did they debate abortion so much, it should be obvious that an unborn baby is a human being."

Just as we now say, "wasn't it obvious that African-Americans were people back then? and that slavery was wrong?"

[andyfox]

So if a woman, who conceived the night before, takes a hot bath, or exercises virorously, or in some other way, unbeknown to her, kills the human life, she is a killer, and should be prosecuted?