Abortion - life begins when . . . ?

RGeeB · Post by **RGeeB** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 11:05 am

vajaradakini wrote: However, that is not the point of this discussion and bringing value into the equation only serves to throw emotions into the mix. The debate here is when does life begin. There are set standards that do not change from species to species and by those standards, the human embryo (or any other embryo) does not fit the description.

What is the purpose of this debate if human life is seen as not having value..or equal / lesser value than organisms routinely terminated in a biology lab?

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 11:19 am

RGeeB wrote:What is the purpose of this debate if human life is seen as not having value..or equal / lesser value than organisms routinely terminated in a biology lab?

Well, when you look at it, without bacteria, we're pretty much dead. Do you have any idea how much bacteria exists in the human digestive system that fights off the bad bacteria for us or help digest our food? Without plants we're dead. What would we eat?

Face it, we're more dependant on other organisms that you may consider lowly than they are on us. If we were to suddenly disappear off the face of the planet, well, the life would go on for the other species. If bacteria were to suddenly disappear, life wouldn't really go so well.

All life is valuable. Though viruses aren't technically life, so the argument about which life is more valuable, a human or a virus is pretty much moot. Oh, and also, viruses are not organisms, thus they cannot be organisms that are routinely terminated in a research lab.

RGeeB · Post by **RGeeB** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 11:27 am

Well, human or bacteria? If you suppose bacterial life is as valuable as humans, why not campaign against antibiotics?

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 11:39 am

Well, antibiotics flushed into the envirnoment are a bad thing.

And in the instance of taking antibiotics, the bacteria are invading and harming another organism (the human of animal who is ill) and thus, it is self defense in a way to take antibiotics (or the defense of a pet for instance)

At any rate, your insistance on the discussion of value of life has nothing to do with the initial thread topic which is when life begins. I'm not sure how kindly people here take to hijacking threads, I know some places that don't like it when people do so and being new, I do not wish to step on any toes. I also see your insistance on putting value on each life to be rather silly as it is rather subjective.

RGeeB · Post by **RGeeB** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 11:47 am

RGeeB wrote:
vajaradakini wrote: However, that is not the point of this discussion and bringing value into the equation only serves to throw emotions into the mix. The debate here is when does life begin. There are set standards that do not change from species to species and by those standards, the human embryo (or any other embryo) does not fit the description.
What is the purpose of this debate if human life is seen as not having value..or equal / lesser value than organisms routinely terminated in a biology lab?

My apologies. Back to the thread - I believe life begins at conception. I have nothing further to add to the points made earlier by posts supporting this view.

Deborah · Post by **Deborah** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:35 pm

RGeeB wrote:My apologies. Back to the thread - I believe life begins at conception. I have nothing further to add to the points made earlier by posts supporting this view.

I fully agree that life begins at conception.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:44 pm

Are identical twins one person then?

Is a chimeric person two?

Identical twins to not split until a week or so after conceived and a chimeric embryo can be formed after sex differntiation.

(Chimera is when two ovum, embryo et c merge into one, thus a single person is the product of two eggs and two sperm)

Finally, why is it that more than half of all life is terminated before pregnancy even begins?

Deborah · Post by **Deborah** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 pm

It's still life and without due care it dies.
You can call it the start of life, but it is still life.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:58 pm

Without due care? We're talking about blastoclasts that don't implant themselves in the uterine wall and are simply flushed out of a woman's system naturally, you realise. If life began at conception, then more than half of all human life is "killed" before it even implants itself in the uterine wall (which is when pregnancy begins)

And you ignored my questions about the identical twins and the chimeric person.

Deborah · Post by **Deborah** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 5:04 pm

Didn't ignore it, still thinking on it. that one is a little beyond me so have to look into it

we are not all educated you know

Without due care? We're talking about blastoclasts that don't implant themselves in the uterine wall and are simply flushed out of a woman's system naturally

If this is not life how does it become life ?
Life must come from life, it never comes from non life.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 5:09 pm

Deborah wrote:If this is not life how does it become life ?
Life must come from life, it never comes from non life.

It becomes an individual life gradually. Of course the cells are alive, but so are the cells of my arm, yet when i scratch an itch or when i burnt myself last week, I wasn't a mass nurderer.

Deborah · Post by **Deborah** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 5:46 pm

lol all I said was that life starts at conception.
Is it a human life? I don't know, but I do know it is the start of one.
God is the best judge of that.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:11 pm

vajaradakini wrote:Human DNA, yes, but it is only a potential human being. It does not meet the qualifications for life until it preforms stimulus response as an organism. This does not occur until significant brainwaves have began, which is not until the 20th week of gestation.

Hmm... so someone mentally retarded is less of a human being than someone not? Or someone with a higher IQ is more of a human being than some who has less IQ? Interesting concept, though absurd in my opinion.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:15 pm

I advocate that there are two important features required to make a human infinitely valuable. The first is "life," and if something grows and develops or has a continued flow of existence, then I believe we have life. The second is what kind of life we're talking about. If the unborn are human, as I believe they are biogically based on their own unique genetic code within each of their cells, then human + life = human life.

Now people (such as vajaradakini) might make further distinctions on what it is about human life that makes someone valuable (or makes them "persons" or a "human being"), but I believe human life is intrinsically valuable because it is human. Therefore I classify these two aspects ("life" and "human") as qualities that make an entity infinitely valuable, and so worth protecting.

Kurieuo.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:28 pm

Kurieuo wrote:Hmm... so someone mentally retarded is less of a human being than someone not? Or someone with a higher IQ is more of a human being than some who has less IQ? Interesting concept, though absurd in my opinion.

No, a person who is mentally challenged is still an individual human organism. They fit all the qualifications for life and they are undeliably human.

The brainwaves I referred to as significant are ones that are similar to a person that is sleeping rather than basic kinds of brain waves for heart beat. Non-stem cell brainwaves, basically. These do not occur until stimulus response occurs.