01-24-2017, 05:33 PM
(01-24-2017, 01:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why is it so important to some to cloud the issue as to where Human life begins? I've seen in this very thread a poster claim it begins before conception, another claim after consciousness, in the past I have seen things such as when the heart beats, the egg attaches, the fetus feels pain, it is viable outside the womb, ect....
Good question. Why are you trying to cloud the issue? You're deliberately trying to obfuscate when life begins and fetal viability. The viability issue is a legal matter pertaining to abortion. Same applies to heart beats, egg attaches, fetus feels pain, etc. So let's just stop that train of thought here and now.
Quote:I think we would all agree (perhaps not publically) that conception is by far the most recognized point that a human is created and the starting point of human life. This very thread is nothing more than establishing a starting point for human life. What is wrong with establishing a consensus to a scentific happening?
Scientific happening? Gimme a break. No, we can't agree. That is a starting point determined by convention for the purposes of teaching a life cycle. A cycle is like a circle. No beginning or end. It just continues on and on. But, if I were to teach you how to draw a circle I have to pick a starting point to show you how.
When life begins isn't nearly as nice and neat or black and white as you would like others to believe based primarily upon your religious beliefs and not science. When life begins is the classic, "Which came first; the chicken or the egg" paradox. Or in this case which came first the human or the ovum. Well, you gotta have a human to produce an ovum. But, you gotta have an ovum to produce a human. So which came first? Don't know.
I have told you repeatedly a life cycle is a continuous process it doesn't really have a beginning except for teaching purposes. Look, what happens if you have two living human gametes (an ovum and a spermatozoa) at the point of fertilization? Hopefully, if all goes well, a living zygote. What happens when you have two human gametes (an ovum and a spermatozoa) but one of them is living and one of them isn't at the point of fertilization? Nothing. Nothing happens. Fertilization does not occur. Why? Because both gametes weren't alive. The gametes are fusing their genetic material and they are creating a new individual. But, they are vessels for the transfer of life. Life is a prerequisite for fertilization to happen to produce a zygote. But, if either of those gametes isn't alive then life doesn't continue.
You need living human gametes for for fertilization to occur for "life" to "begin," but you gotta have a living human for gametogenesis to produce those living gametes to produce a living zygote. So we're back to the chicken and egg paradox. If you trace the process backward it is a circle in reverse. So where does life begin? If you're of the Christian persuasion it began back in Genesis. And human life can be traced backward to Adam and Eve.
So I ask again, what is the difference between a living single celled human gamete and a living single celled human zygote expect the ploidy? Well, if you ask a Christian the mircle of life isn't miraculous when we are talking about a living gamete. The miracle of life in a haploid cell isn't miraculous until it is a diploid cell. Why? Scientifically, they are the same to me. But, to a Christian there are serious ethical and moral dilemmas if they consider the life of a single celled gamete equal to the life of a single celled zygote. Moral and ethical dilemmas they don't want to face. That's why they deny, deny, deny what I'm saying. Life is a miracle, but only if it is life on their terms. If "life" doesn't meet their terms, then it is easily discounted. A living human gamete is no different to a Christian than a living human skin cell; they don't count as life despite being a living cell. A living human gamete, a human skin cell, and a human zygote are all living cells to me. Why? Because they are alive.
I would say most Christians are resistant to that idea due to the ethical and moral implications. Specifically, if a single celled human gamete is alive as is a single celled human zygote then they would have to protect the life of the gametes the same as a zygote. "Scientifically," both those cells are alive. But, I'm the one ignoring the science. ***** hilarious.
Quote:Should we call it the Theory of Human life or should it be a scentifically recognized fact?
It seems you are treating a scientific theory as if it is a guess. A theory is the consensus belief based upon the preponderance of evidence. A theory is a theory based upon data, not guess work.
Quote:When this starting point is established should have no influence on your position as Pro life or Pro choice.Pat already explained in the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade summary they didn't decide upon when life begins citing the difficulty to do so.
Quote:Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
Those opposed to abortion are just trying to misuse the science to justify their position. That includes you.
The starting point of life has no affect upon whether I am Pro Life or Pro Choice. I'm rather Liberteraian in my view of abortion. I think it should be left up to the individual to decide for themselves.
