RE: Why I Am Pro-Life
July 29, 2013 at 10:13 am
(This post was last modified: July 29, 2013 at 10:38 am by Slave.)
@Creed of Heresy: I don't want to answer for fr0d0 but I will address the question of what science claims an embryo as human.
http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/8/...onception/
Also here's a site that lists off scientific resources that back up the claim that human life begins at conception:
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articl...otes2.html
The links go into detail about it more than I care to here, so please read them (the second is not exactly reading material, more of proving a point). However let's define life for the purposes of this discussion:
An embryo displays all signs of life. As for reproduction, while an embryo cannot reproduce, it has the genetic coding enabling it to reproduce. It is simply a matter of growth phases. Not all living plants are in a stage whereby they are able to reproduce, but they are still alive, just as an embryo is. It is a human life because it is a human embryo. This is just common sense. The embryo is a single entity, separate from the mother, complete with a full genetic code and human DNA. Therefore it is a human life.
The fingernail argument is lame and fails to take into account genetic determinism. A baby has a heart, lungs, fingernails, eyelashes and a circulatory system. The blastocyst you had none of these things, and yet the blastocyst you is exactly that collection of cells that gave rise to all those specialized parts of the baby that eventually got born. Fingernails do not an embryo make.
As for your remark that I quote mined Hitchens, I didn't quote mine him. Nothing in the quote that follows directly contradicts my viewpoint on the matter and in fact it is essentially exactly the same.
When have I argued that sperm and eggs are potential lives? Perhaps if I were also against contraception, your objection to my quoting Hitchens in that context would make sense, but I am not against contraception. In fact I am certain that more contraception is exactly what we need as it will lessen the demand for abortions. Decreasing abortions is definitely something I support.
I also expressed the sentiment that in many ways I am still pro-choice, a few pages back, depending upon circumstance.
I want to make it clear from here on out, before any members posting here derail my arguments again, that I understand that it isn't as simple as a fetus is a human life therefore abortion must be illegal. All I have stood to argue is that an embryo > fetus > baby is a human life and not just a clump of cells comparable to my pinkie that have no rights whatsoever. I am also still not 100% comfortable with the notion of 'right to life', as I do not view life as a right perse. I do think it is more along the lines of 'a right to not be killed'. A stance which is not often purported by the typical pro-life religious sector as they tend to be pro-death penalty as well which makes little sense to me (but hey, they're religious, no surprise).
You guys can argue all you want until you are blue in the face, but I have arrived at this uncomfortable conclusion based on facts alone. It is problematic however, as if this assertion is true (as I claim it to be), that an embryo + is a human life, then what happens to abortion legally, and where do we draw ethical lines regarding the issue?
I am still not decided upon the intricacies of the legality issue and I see problems with the logical progression of my argument, but since that hasn't come up in this debate yet I won't go further.
Just related to the Hitchens part of our discussion, I want to post this. I am not using Hitchens as a banner man or anything, it's just the way he phrases his reasons for being part of the pro-life movement reflect my own:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbYCQ7w_wFs
http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/8/...onception/
Also here's a site that lists off scientific resources that back up the claim that human life begins at conception:
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articl...otes2.html
The links go into detail about it more than I care to here, so please read them (the second is not exactly reading material, more of proving a point). However let's define life for the purposes of this discussion:
Quote:Life: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death:http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/life
the origins of life
An embryo displays all signs of life. As for reproduction, while an embryo cannot reproduce, it has the genetic coding enabling it to reproduce. It is simply a matter of growth phases. Not all living plants are in a stage whereby they are able to reproduce, but they are still alive, just as an embryo is. It is a human life because it is a human embryo. This is just common sense. The embryo is a single entity, separate from the mother, complete with a full genetic code and human DNA. Therefore it is a human life.
The fingernail argument is lame and fails to take into account genetic determinism. A baby has a heart, lungs, fingernails, eyelashes and a circulatory system. The blastocyst you had none of these things, and yet the blastocyst you is exactly that collection of cells that gave rise to all those specialized parts of the baby that eventually got born. Fingernails do not an embryo make.
As for your remark that I quote mined Hitchens, I didn't quote mine him. Nothing in the quote that follows directly contradicts my viewpoint on the matter and in fact it is essentially exactly the same.
Quote:The only proposition that is completely useless, either morally or practically, is the wild statement that sperms and eggs are all potential lives which must not be prevented from fusing and that, when united however briefly, have souls and must be protected by law.
When have I argued that sperm and eggs are potential lives? Perhaps if I were also against contraception, your objection to my quoting Hitchens in that context would make sense, but I am not against contraception. In fact I am certain that more contraception is exactly what we need as it will lessen the demand for abortions. Decreasing abortions is definitely something I support.
Quote:There's no choice but choice. I mean that to sound the way it does sound. But there are choices about the conditions in which that choice is made.
I also expressed the sentiment that in many ways I am still pro-choice, a few pages back, depending upon circumstance.
I want to make it clear from here on out, before any members posting here derail my arguments again, that I understand that it isn't as simple as a fetus is a human life therefore abortion must be illegal. All I have stood to argue is that an embryo > fetus > baby is a human life and not just a clump of cells comparable to my pinkie that have no rights whatsoever. I am also still not 100% comfortable with the notion of 'right to life', as I do not view life as a right perse. I do think it is more along the lines of 'a right to not be killed'. A stance which is not often purported by the typical pro-life religious sector as they tend to be pro-death penalty as well which makes little sense to me (but hey, they're religious, no surprise).
You guys can argue all you want until you are blue in the face, but I have arrived at this uncomfortable conclusion based on facts alone. It is problematic however, as if this assertion is true (as I claim it to be), that an embryo + is a human life, then what happens to abortion legally, and where do we draw ethical lines regarding the issue?
I am still not decided upon the intricacies of the legality issue and I see problems with the logical progression of my argument, but since that hasn't come up in this debate yet I won't go further.
Just related to the Hitchens part of our discussion, I want to post this. I am not using Hitchens as a banner man or anything, it's just the way he phrases his reasons for being part of the pro-life movement reflect my own:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbYCQ7w_wFs
