When Does Human Life Begin?

[NewToLife]

Here is a potentially interesting way to look at the question;
If a man has a row with a woman who is pregnant but within the legal deadline for an abortion and punches her in the stomach causing a miscarriage does the woman involved have any moral justification for being upset that her baby has been murdered by this man? Of course she is in every case morally justified in claiming assault but I am interested specifically in the loss of the pregnancy.

For a pro lifer the answer is an easy yes, what do others believe?

 

[JohnnyV]

"So it all comes down to defining when human life begins. When does that spark of humanness enter the cell(s), and make that body a living human being?"

The Spark of Humaness enters the cell when the Sperm and Ovum come together and the Sperm makes it through the eggs shell. Watch it through a microscope and you will see it, its amazing.




"Some say it begins at conception, but how can that be? How can a fertilized cell be equated with a human? Yes, the cell contains the entire human genetic code. So what? Skin cells contain all the genetic code. But a skin cell that comes off of the body is not a human being, is it?"

NO skin cells would not be human per se, but a fertilized egg is. The Egg/Sperm combined cell contains everything needed to become a human, a skin cell is differentiated to only produce skin and by the time it sloughs off, it has lost that ability.


"Does human life begin when the cell starts dividing? But how can this collection of cells be equated with a human being?"

Life begins when they come together. Cells are living. When sperm and ovum come together they form a new cell that is living, takes in nutrients and expels waste just as any other cell in the body does. That is how it equates with being a human being.


"How about when the embryo begins to resemble a human shape? What does that prove? "

It proves that it is a tiny human, as for the monkey thing... you can tell a difference, you are comparing apples to oranges.


"How about when the heart starts beating? Once more, how would that define human life? A chimpanzee embryo will also come to the point where it's heart starts beating. It does not then have all of the rights of a human because it has a heart, does it? It is not the beating heart that defines what we all value in human life, is it?"

NO it is not the heart itself that defines human life it is the act of 'being' . Human LIFE is the same as any other form of LIFE, we are just creatures even though we are more intelligent.

"If a person's brain shuts down, and he is declared to be brain-dead, the heart can still be kept beating by artificial means. But nobody recommends that we do that. So a beating heart is not the part that makes us human, is it?"

Nope already said my bit about this.

"How about when the brain cells begin to develop, brainwaves begin, and rudimentary feelings start? Many would argue--quite convincingly--that this is when human life really begins. This is when it can be argued that the cells are, at least to some extent, human."

Hmm, already said my bit about this too, life begins at fertilization. a Cell is 'alive'. Humans and animals are all a combinations of millions of cells that are alive, the cells 'breathe', and 'make decisions', reproduce and excrete waste. when mutiples of any one differentiated cell comes together it forms tissue which is what the brain (& heart are).

"If this is true, then the aborting of an embryo before it reaches this point would not be murder."

Its not true, Abortion is murder. Abortion is stopping the developement process of living tissue/cells. When you think about it, that is all we humans are, a bunch of cells.

"So what do you think? When does human life begin? Can you prove that your definition is true? "

I think I answered that. Yes I can prove it, read Hole's anatomy 10th edition or take a Biology class.

"Can you live with those who differ with your definition, or will you insist that only your definition is true?"

I can live with those who differ from me, if they can live with me
I believe my definition is true, but they have a right to believe how they want, IF GOD TELLS ME abortion is ok, then I will change my mind, but barring a divine revelation, Im sticking to abortion is murder.
I have said before on different posts that I believe a woman has the right to choose. I do not agree with it at all mind you, but she has the right in this present day and there is nothing I can do about it.

---------
As for stem cell research, that is a whole seperate issue... post a new thread, may be interesting.

 

[Lioness816]

I believe "life" begins at conception. I would not have an abortion for any reason, but it is not for me to condemn those who do. I would never want to live with that decision. Some women very dear to me have had to choose.
I see nothing wrong with using the stem cells from an aborted, intentional or not, embryo. I would not agree with creating an embryo to abort it for research purposes.

 

[Stormy]

Cord blood yields stem cells of the same nature as embryotic stem cells, without the moral issues.

Problem solved. I do not see any reason to be guessing about when life begins.

I see this as a ploy to break down our resistance to abortion. Maybe later, if all this passes, we will be questioning why we cannot use the organs of an aborted baby to transplant into one of our "chosen" children.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

No doubt there were people around in the 30s and 40s that said something similar about the treatment of the Jews. They were personally against it, but who were they to say what is right and wrong for others. Is that the way we are to look at abortion?

This is also John Kerry's position (currently ); personally against it, but defend the “right” of others to do it. Makes me want to ask would he have defended the right of the Nazi’s to do what they did, while personally against it? To me that position on abortion is a cop out. It is a way for liberal politicians to present a position appealing to a wider voter base and a way for liberals to justify voting for them.

The real issue is whether any of us has a "right" to decide if somebody lives or not. Just because this someone has not taken a breath of air yet, IMO does not remove him or her from deserving our protection. A fetus is a human in our most helpless and defenseless form. Surely they deserve our protection, like any of the helpless or defenseless breathing among us. IF not, by what logic do we defend the decision to protect any of the defenseless or helpless among us? Who decides which group gets defended and which one does not?

 

[doubtingmerle]

So when faced with the reality about partial birth abortion you want to return to the thread. Ok, but let's remember you are the one that pushed for me to support my claim against your unsupported statement that it was only done for the "health" of the mother.

Oh, please. I said that this was my opinion about what the words "partial birth abortion" meant. But now I find that those words mean many different things to many different people. This is simply an argument from semantics. Exactly what do those particular words mean? People differ on what is meant by those words.

Let me illustrate the problem: George W. Bush in in favor of killing people in certain situations--such as when an anemy soldier is attacking us. Okay, since W believes that killing is sometimes right, can we counter Bush's position by showing bodies of brutal murders and claiming that, since Bush favors killing enemy sodiers, he must favor all killing? Of course not. One cannot go from saying that someone allows "partial birth abortion" from one definition, to the conclusion that he must then allow "partial birth abortion" from all possible definitions of the word. Get it?

Ok back to your question. We do not know, which for me is enough to say we have no right to stop a human life from forming.

Okay, if you do not know if it is life, you cannot termiante it?

Do you know for sure that if the egg cell in a teenage girl has life? If we follow your logic, than it seems that someone would need to get every teenage girl pregnant possible, to keep the egg cells inside from dying due to lack of sperm. So I do not think I agree with your logic.

How can an embryo actually be a person if it has no brain?

It puts us in a position of saying who will become, and who will not.

Yes.

And I declare that an egg cell inside an unwed teenage girl should probably not be allowed to become a person. What do you declare about this issue?

For if we did not interfere, the end result is a human no matter how you view “when” that happened.

Yes, but it is not yet a person. That is the point.

The same logic applies to making decisions like people did during the holocaust and other such evils.

Oh, excuse me. The holocaust dealt with living people with a brain. Nobody is suggesting that.

People have no ‘right’ to decide based on any criteria who should live and who should die.

Sure they do. If any enemy soldier points a gun at you, you have the right to take him out, don't you?

The only difference between such decisions and abortion is when in the process of a human life the decision is made.

How do you know that a zygote is human life?

Someone made the analogy earlier to someone studying to be a doctor. The point was the person was “becoming” a doctor(human) and could not properly be called a “doctor”(human), no matter how bad that person wanted to “become” a doctor. Let’s continue that analogy. First we would have to add the provision that the mother participated in non-financial but in some very necessary and absolute way in making it possible for the student to enter a doctoral program. Then the argument would be that the student’s mother has the “right” at any point in the educational process before the student “becomes” a doctor to say “stop, I will not allow my child to become a doctor”. Now never mind why any mother would do that, the question is why would anyone argue for such a “right” for the mother?

Huh? The analogy was used to say there was a difference between becoming something and being something. That is all the analogy was trying to say. You cannot take an analogy and say that every aspect of an analogy must hold. I was merely trying to illustrate a point. Okay?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I believe "life" begins at conception. I would not have an abortion for any reason, but it is not for me to condemn those who do. I would never want to live with that decision. Some women very dear to me have had to choose.
I see nothing wrong with using the stem cells from an aborted, intentional or not, embryo. I would not agree with creating an embryo to abort it for research purposes.

That is an honorable position.

Oddly, many Christians choose candidates for political office solely on the rhetoric they give on abortion. If one candidate wants to condemn all people that have an abortion, then that candidate gets the vote regardless of where he stands on other issues.

For instance, on the Is it not the rich thread, many Christians seem to be unconcerned about whether a candidate has their economic interests in mind, and are concerned only that he condemns women that have abortions.

It would seem to me that there are many things at stake in this election. Voting solely on candidates who condemn women who have abortions seems short-sighted to me.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Cord blood yields stem cells of the same nature as embryotic stem cells, without the moral issues.

But researchers tell us otherwise. They tell us they need embryonic stem cells.

If a researcher thinks he can make great progress in the cure for Parkinson's, for instance, if he has embryonic stem cells that he can use, and there are embryonic stem cells available which will either be thrown away or given to him for his research, what should we do?

Problem solved. I do not see any reason to be guessing about when life begins.

I see this as a ploy to break down our resistance to abortion.

Is an embryo human life or isn't it? If it is not human life, than why condemn an abortion if a woman does not want these living cells to grow into a person?

 

[JohnnyV]

Is an embryo human life or isn't it? If it is not human life, than why condemn an abortion if a woman does not want these living cells to grow into a person?

An embryo is a living organism. It has life. Those cells are developing and no it does not have a brain such as we have, but it does have a nucleus that instructs the cells to divide, differentiate and develope.

As i have said before, abortion is murder. Yes , legally women have the right to choose abortion over life, but each time they do.. they take the life of an unborn human being.
Instead of teaching that abortion is a form of birth control, why not teach these men & women about condoms or, hey heres a novel Idea... keep their legs closed and clothes on!
It is my opinion that if the man & woman are willing to choose to have sex unprotected then they should be willing to take the responsibility of raising a child from conception to birth, then if they dont want the kid, give it to someone who does want it.

Threads like these are really a waste of time. Because no matter what either side says, the other side is not going to change their minds.
For every one like me that thinks abortion is wrong, there are equally as many who think it is a fine alternative to pregnancy. All these threads do is make people angry.

Teach your kids to respect life and themselves, & teach them how to be responsible for their actions.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Oh, please. I said that this was my opinion about what the words "partial birth abortion" meant. But now I find that those words mean many different things to many different people. This is simply an argument from semantics. Exactly what do those particular words mean? People differ on what is meant by those words.

Let me illustrate the problem: George W. Bush in in favor of killing people in certain situations--such as when an anemy soldier is attacking us. Okay, since W believes that killing is sometimes right, can we counter Bush's position by showing bodies of brutal murders and claiming that, since Bush favors killing enemy sodiers, he must favor all killing? Of course not. One cannot go from saying that someone allows "partial birth abortion" from one definition, to the conclusion that he must then allow "partial birth abortion" from all possible definitions of the word. Get it? ?

Actually what you said twice, was that it was "your understanding" that PBA was restricted to being used for the health of the mother. That was Kerry's alledged excuse for voting against a federal ban, that the proposed ban did not allow it in those "health" cases. What my post showed was that even in places where the law has such a provision, some doctors were doing it for "health" to be within the law as a treatment for depression. Furthermore the former surgeon general was quoted as saying no mother has ever been saved by PBA and in fact it involves significant risk in and of itself. If a ban with provisions for health can allow depressed unwed mothers to abort, in practice would we really have a ban? Apparently where such bans are in place most of the "health" diagnosis were for depression. While sounding like a very noble position, you might as well say there should be no ban at all.
Nothing in my post indicated any spliting hairs on what Partial Birth Abortion is. Again let's be clear, Kerry voted against a ban on inducing labor, grabbing the baby by the feet, poke a hole in the skull and suck out the brain so the skull collapses and you can pull the baby out without unduly stretching things for the mother (in case she wants to be irresponsible again we would not want anything to interfere with her sexlife!). We would like all abortion banned, but banning PBA would have been a step in that direction.
As for your problem with Bush decisions and death because of it, are you suggesting that you do not have the freedom to bring these things to light? That would make you the only liberal on the planet that had not heard of Michael Moore and his movie. The funning thing about liberals in this country is they scream about freedom of speech, unless the person speaking does not agree with them, then they want to silence that voice.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Okay, if you do not know if it is life, you cannot termiante it?

So your point would be as long as one is not sure about what your killing, it is ok to kill it. The reason the Nazi position is relevant is people like that can and have declared groups of people sub-human to justify killing them. To me the logic justifying killing the unborn because they are “not human” is exactly the same.

Do you know for sure that if the egg cell in a teenage girl has life? If we follow your logic, than it seems that someone would need to get every teenage girl pregnant possible, to keep the egg cells inside from dying due to lack of sperm. So I do not think I agree with your logic.

While we think sperms and eggs are meant for one purpose, left alone neither will become a human. After conception the natural outcome is a human. My point then was that in regards to abortion, no matter how you view when life begins, people are then deciding who shall live and who shall die. You seem to get it, but then want to make such logic look absurd by applying to sperm and eggs. Is that because you do not like the implication?

How can an embryo actually be a person if it has no brain?

Yes.

Since we will never agree whether or not that is a person, my posts avoids that issue by saying we both must agree that left alone, the natural course would result in a human. Your yes above in response to my post was to say you feel it is ok for us to predetermine who shall be born. And you see that as great leap from deciding who shall live and who shall die?

And I declare that an egg cell inside an unwed teenage girl should probably not be allowed to become a person. What do you declare about this issue?

Did you mean an egg? If so then we agree. The only sure way to do that is for the girl not to have sex, not to give them condoms, say good luck and no matter what happens you don't have to be responsible for your actions cause we can just kill the baby.

Yes, but it is not yet a person. That is the point.

that is your opinion, but you already agreed with me that it is at least growing into a human. Growth is life. Stopping it is ending life. Your point would be because we cannot say or at least prove to you that it is human, it is ok to kill it. My retort is that any point from conception to birth is completely arbitrary. Life begins for each of us at conception. Where it naturally ends belongs in the hands of God. We have no "right" over the decision of when to end it.

Oh, excuse me. The holocaust dealt with living people with a brain. Nobody is suggesting that.

The logic is the same. Something is less than human in your view, must be a ok and in this case one even has a right to kill it. Think some Nazis felt it was there obligation, a right to carry out genocide.

Sure they do. If any enemy soldier points a gun at you, you have the right to take him out, don't you?

If a growing life inside me represented a threat to my life, then my decision to save my own by killing it, while still a wrong, could perhaps be justified or at least understood. In almost all cases we are talking about killing someone to avoid the consequences of sex, not saving a mothers life.

How do you know that a zygote is human life?

If it does not at least represent the very beginning of a human life, then what is it? A blob of cells? Our bodies are full of blobs of cells. Are you saying you would not mind if someone was given the 'right" to take some of yours, completely without your approval of course. After all it is not human life, just a blob of cells. How about your hand or leg? Those are not human life, can never become a human.
If we can destroy what can become a person by saying it is a 'non-person", then the only difference between that act and my destroying part of you without your consent is that you have a voice to object.

Huh? The analogy was used to say there was a difference between becoming something and being something. That is all the analogy was trying to say. You cannot take an analogy and say that every aspect of an analogy must hold. I was merely trying to illustrate a point. Okay?

And I was merely making your analogy more logically equivalent to what you were comparing it to, the decision to abort. That you obviously would not like your analogy being more equivalent only means you got my point.

 

[doubtingmerle]

When does human life begin? Many people differ with your definition. Many think human life does not begin until long after conception. And so they see nothing wrong with abortion. But many others insist that only the view that life begins at conception is true. And they insist that those who think an embryo is not human are murderers. But it seems to me they have no proof that their view of when human life begins is correct. Nevertheless, they insist that everyone agree with them. Why?

So your point would be as long as one is not sure about what your killing, it is ok to kill it.

No. Of course not. Don't be silly.

I am saying if one has good reason to believe a growth is not a living human, one could terminate its progress. And you seem to agree with me if the growth in question is an unfertilized human egg. You seem to agree that one could terminate this cell--or at least deprive it of the sperm it needs to continue on--without committing murder. So we all seem to agree. If it is not a human being, the laws against murdering humans do not apply. (We do all agree on that, don't we?)

So once more the questions we must concern ourselves with: When exactly does human life begin? How do we know we are correct? Can we tolerate those who differ with us?

The reason the Nazi position is relevant is people like that can and have declared groups of people sub-human to justify killing them. To me the logic justifying killing the unborn because they are “not human” is exactly the same.

Huh? You think those who allow the killing of a sub-human cell use the same logic as Nazis? But you allow the terminating of a sub-human unfertilized egg, don't you? If those who allow the terminating of sub-human cells use Nazi-lgic, your words tell us that you use the same logic as the Naz...Oh, nevermind. I don't think you really mean what your words say.

You seem to get it, but then want to make such logic look absurd by applying to sperm and eggs. Is that because you do not like the implication?

No. The point is simple. When does life begin? If the zygote is not human life, then killing it is not murder. What part are you missing?

Since we will never agree whether or not that is a person, my posts avoids that issue by saying we both must agree that left alone, the natural course would result in a human.

Left alone a zygote will die. It needs the constant provisions of the mother.

Just like a human egg will die without sperm. But just because the natural course of an egg in a womb in the presence of sperm is eventual human life, that does not mean an egg is human life, does it?

you already agreed with me that it is at least growing into a human. Growth is life. Stopping it is ending life.

We all agreed that embryos were growing into human life before you entered this thread.

But has an embryo yet become what we refer to as a person? That depends. What is your definition of a person?

Your point would be because we cannot say or at least prove to you that it is human, it is ok to kill it.

If you cannot prove it is human, how can you prove that terminating it is murder? And if you cannot prove it is murder, why must you refuse to let others have a choice?

My retort is that any point from conception to birth is completely arbitrary.

How can there possibly be human life without a brain? Without a brain there can be no thoughts, emotions, will, personality, or memory. How can that be human life?

We have no "right" over the decision of when to end it.

Thousands of eggs are fertilized in test tubes for invitro fertilization. Many of these are never used and discarded. Are you saying it is murder to discard these embryos? Are you saying mothers must be found to implant all of these embryos into?

The logic is the same. Something is less than human in your view, must be a ok and in this case one even has a right to kill it. Think some Nazis felt it was there obligation, a right to carry out genocide.

Huh? You think an unfertilized egg is less than human. And you seem to think those who think something is sub human think like Nazis. Are you calling yourself a Na...Oh, nevermind.

If a growing life inside me represented a threat to my life, then my decision to save my own by killing it, while still a wrong, could perhaps be justified or at least understood.

Okay, so a "partial birth abortion" if absolutely necessary to preserve the mother's life could perhaps be justified? Is that what you are saying?

If it does not at least represent the very beginning of a human life, then what is it? A blob of cells?

An embryo is becoming a human life. We have gone over that many times. Why do you ask again?

An acorn is becoming an oak tree. An egg is becoming a chicken. A caterpillar is becoming a butterfly. A first-year medical student is becoming a doctor. Medal in a factory is becoming a car. A zygote is becoming a person.

Becoming is not necessarily the same as being. Get it?

And I was merely making your analogy more logically equivalent to what you were comparing it to, the decision to abort. That you obviously would not like your analogy being more equivalent only means you got my point.

Huh? You can't possibly be serious. When I use an analogy, it does not mean everything about the anlalogy is logically equivalent. Good grief.

Above I used the analogy that an egg becoming a chicken is analogous to an embryo becoming a human being. Okay, since I used that analogy, does that prove that people have wings? NO! Absolutely not! The analogy refers to one thing: That something is becoming something else. It does not prove that every aspect of a chicken is identical to a person. It does not prove that people have wings.

Get it?

 

[Freedom From Ignorance]

Do you realize that everytime a man [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] millions of potential babies die?! Everytime a female has her period, a potential child dies!!

I propose 2 new laws. One against [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and one against women having their periods.

Who's with me?

 

[Brahe]

Do you realize that everytime a man [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] millions of potential babies die?! Everytime a female has her period, a potential child dies!!

I propose 2 new laws. One against [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and one against women having their periods.

Who's with me?

You're absolutely correct, FfI. Not impregnating a woman with every sperm is murder. Not getting pregnant is murder. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. But sadly, men and women have the legal option not to breed wildly.

It is my opinion that if a man and a woman choose not to have their reproductive organs removed, then they must take responsibility. After all, if they don't want dozens of children, then they can give some to people who do want them. Teach your kids to respect life and themselves, & teach them how to be responsible for their actions. Don't let them not breed like mad!

It makes me sick, these non-breeding Nazis. And if anyone tries to ATTACK my FAITH with logic or reason, I'll call 'em Nazis! Never mind that it doesn't make any sense, if anyone disagrees with me, I'll insult them. It's just like abortion. Never mind that the Nazis actual position against abortion, anti-choicers are still free on this board (bless those godly moderators looking the other way) to make wildly inappropriate insults and comparisons. And if anyone points out logical inconsistencies with my arguments, I'll make bizarre slurs against "liberal beliefs" (which are really just projection), just like my brother-in-faith, DrBubbaLove. God bless those moderators for selectively enforcing the rules!

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Did not mean you guys or anyone here was a Nazi, sorry if you got that impression. To me the only reason for declaring a person "non-human" from the point of conception to some point before birth is to justifying being able to end that life, feel better about it and not call it murder. Why else are we even asking? Labeling so one can feel better about ending life seems to be the same thought process whether you are talking about the breathing or the unborn.
Many like hypotheticals here. Say time travel is possible. Now the mob can simply avoid a murder rap by sending a doctor back to abort the mark. And even if the mark finds out about the plot before hand, the law is powerless as abortion of course is legal, nothing wrong with that. In fact the pro-choice mark is left in the absurd position of defending the mob's right to abort him. And why should the pro-choice mark be upset, they are not taking him out. Just stopping him from becoming, making him only potential.

Bring it back to the real world; failed abortion attempts are not unknown. My guess would be that if the child of such a failed attempt ever learned of it, that such knowledge would be disturbing for them. Just a guess. Wonder how such a person would feel about their mother's "right"?

Jokes about reproduction and male fantasies aside, we are not really talking about reproduction here or stopping it. Once there is conception we have already reproduced life. It may or may not result in a live birth, but a life has begun at conception.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Many here have insisted that the only true concept of when a person's life begins is the idea that it begins at conception. But what proof have they offered for this position? Nothing substantial. So it seems to me that if one has no substantial reason to disagree with those who believe that life begins later, that one should allow others to live consistant with their beliefs. And if they believe that a 1-month embryo is not human life, why not allow them to have an abortion?

Did not mean you guys or anyone here was a Nazi, sorry if you got that impression.

Oh good. I am glad you are not implying that those who diagree with your concept of when life begins are using Nazi-logic. I am glad you are not implying that that those who call a fertilized egg sub-human are Nazi-like. So we will ignore all your references to Nazi-logic in previous posts.

To me the only reason for declaring a person "non-human" from the point of conception to some point before birth is to justifying being able to end that life, feel better about it and not call it murder. Why else are we even asking?

Let us see what your logic looks like if we apply it to your position: You seem to declare that an unfertilized egg is not a human. What is your reason for that? Is your reason so that you can justify "being able to end that" egg's life, and so that you can "feel better about it and not call it murder"? Are you calling an unfertilized egg sub-human so that you can justify murder? Is that your real motive--justifying murder? Of course not.

Can you see how silly your argument sounds if the same argument is applyed to your position? Please do not use an argument if you would not want the same logic applyed to your position.

Please understand that we are all interested in truth. This discussion is about the truth of when human life begins. It is not about trying to justify murder.

Labeling so one can feel better about ending life seems to be the same thought process whether you are talking about the breathing or the unborn.

And yet you label an unfertilized cell sub-human, don't you? And you do not do this because you are trying to end the death of unfertilized eggs, do you?

Many like hypotheticals here. Say time travel is possible. Now the mob can simply avoid a murder rap by sending a doctor back to abort the mark. And even if the mark finds out about the plot before hand, the law is powerless as abortion of course is legal, nothing wrong with that. In fact the pro-choice mark is left in the absurd position of defending the mob's right to abort him. And why should the pro-choice mark be upset, they are not taking him out. Just stopping him from becoming, making him only potential.

You could use the same argument to declare any means of birth control to be illegal. You could use this argument to ask what would happen if someone could have gone back in time and convinced your parents to use the rhythm method. You could use this argument to say it was wrong to go back in time and warn teenagers about unwed sex.

So your argument seems like a silly argument to me.

Bring it back to the real world; failed abortion attempts are not unknown. My guess would be that if the child of such a failed attempt ever learned of it, that such knowledge would be disturbing for them. Just a guess. Wonder how such a person would feel about their mother's "right"?

Failed birth-control pills are not unknown. Your argument could be used to prove the pill is wrong.

Failure of the rhythm method is not unknown. Your argument could be used to prove that the rhythm method is wrong.

I would not object at all if I found that my parents had thought they had enough of children, and were not intending to have more (provided, of course, that they were loving parents after the whoops occurred).

Jokes about reproduction and male fantasies aside, we are not really talking about reproduction here or stopping it. Once there is conception we have already reproduced life. It may or may not result in a live birth, but a life has begun at conception.

You are merely stating your view of the point in question: When does human life begin? But you have not proven that your view is correct. Can you tolerate those who have a different opinion of when life begins?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I have said before on different posts that I believe a woman has the right to choose. I do not agree with it at all mind you, but she has the right in this present day and there is nothing I can do about it.

May I suggest that you vote accordingly?

 

[Carico]

So human life now depends on a vote? VERY scary, indeed! It is a no-brainer that an egg or a sperm by itself HAS NO CHANCE of becoming a person!!! Once an egg and sperm are fertilized, it then has ALL the components of a human being! A fertilized egg is in a stage of development just as a 4-yr.-old, teen-ager, and any human being! So why do people even want to argue about it...unless they're looking for a reason to get rid of it. There's absolutely NO reason to question that otherwise. NONE.

 

[Evee]

It has to begin the moment of conception.
Some don't recoginize this though.

 

[Risen Tree]

Thread closed for review.