I am a pro-life atheist

[Nine]

I have often wondered in naive people are naive because they drink Evian backwards.

I think naive people are naive because they'll spend an excessive amount of money on water because it has a label stuck on it.

Win!

[reverendjeremiah]

*note to self: Dont drink evian*

[NoMoreFaith]

If we are quite finished playing word games, you may note that the only definition that matters is Human Being.

But if we want to play the game, I should point out, that both Tiberius and myself are in the UK and it is defined thusly in English Law.

Murder is when a man of sound memory and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any county of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's peace, with malice aforthought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded, or hurt, etc. die of the wound or hurt, etc. within a year and a day of the same.

Is a Zygote a reasonable creature. No. It is incapable of reason.

I am not offering this as a counter argument, but rather to highlight the pointlessness of comparing different variations of the theme Murder.

We live in lots of different countries and the definition varies, so the only issue to hand is "Is Abortion a morally permissible act".

That is the only topic up for debate, everything else is word games, which from what I can tell, are being used in certain instances to obfuscate the lack of an actual argument.

[Faith No More]

In an effort to further the conversation on whether or not life begins at conception, I offer these thoughts. When going throught the invetro fertilization process, several eggs are fertalized knowing full well they will not all go to term. The reason is that it is not a fool-proof process, and at best you can expect to get is a 50/50 rate. That's not to say that they won't all develop into fetuses, as the infamous 'octo-mom' case demonstrates.

When my wife and I went through the process, she had two embryos implanted in the process. They both took at first, but one did not make it past 10 weeks. Should we be charged in the death of this unborn child? Afterall, we were directly responsible for the events that lead to this child's death, knowing full well it might not survive, but we chose to do so anyway. We were responsible for its existence, and even though it wasn't through malice nor our intent to kill, we were responsible for its death.

The issue should not be about whether or not 'life' begins at conception, as that is an inadequate defintion for the subject at hand. The issue is when does our humanity begin, and at what lengths will we go to to enforce that every potential life be taken to full term once it has begun.

[reverendjeremiah]

In an effort to further the conversation on whether or not life begins at conception, I offer these thoughts. When going throught the invetro fertilization process, several eggs are fertalized knowing full well they will not all go to term. The reason is that it is not a fool-proof process, and at best you can expect to get is a 50/50 rate. That's not to say that they won't all develop into fetuses, as the infamous 'octo-mom' case demonstrates.

When my wife and I went through the process, she had two embryos implanted in the process. They both took at first, but one did not make it past 10 weeks. Should we be charged in the death of this unborn child? Afterall, we were directly responsible for the events that lead to this child's death, knowing full well it might not survive, but we chose to do so anyway. We were responsible for its existence, and even though it wasn't through malice nor our intent to kill, we were responsible for its death.

The issue should not be about whether or not 'life' begins at conception, as that is an inadequate defintion for the subject at hand. The issue is when does our humanity begin, and at what lengths will we go to to enforce that every potential life be taken to full term once it has begun.

There is no discussion about it. Life clearly exists BEFORE conception. It is life that starts the conception, and it is LIVING sperm and eggs that are the building blocks of conception.

Human sperm is HUMAN sperm. Human eggs are HUMAN eggs. Cytoplasts are HUMAN cytoplasts.

everyone else on the board seems to be content on discussing spooky shit. Its all human, its all life.

Its also the womans womb, and she can do with it as she pleases.

To me it is a no brainer.

[Violet]

I never said it was murder. I argued it was tantamount to murder, which is true enough; the only difference between abortion and murder is that abortion is legal. Killing a cow is not murder because a cow is not a human; the definition of murder we are using here was already given by Rev Rye.

Then you hopefully understand that this definition of murder might have as much consequence as defining 'banana' to mean nuclear warhead.

In which case buying a case of bananas has an entirely different meaning, and is irrelevant to the discussion of a yellow fruit that vaguely looks like a penis.

---

*note to self: Dont drink evian*

Water has taste. It so happens I enjoy Evian water.

---

Don't think I'm singling you out here, Tiberius. Some of the things being said here are plain crazy (and I should know)

Murder is when a man of sound memory and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any county of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's peace, with malice aforthought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded, or hurt, etc. die of the wound or hurt, etc. within a year and a day of the same.

Far be it for me to judge English law... but if you put a dagger in Mr. Bun Bun's chest (my stuffed pink rabbit): I'll shank you for committing murder (and murder of my friend, at that).

Respect da bunny.

Seriously: Is this the 16th century or do the English speak poor English?

[NoMoreFaith]

Far be it for me to judge English law... but if you put a dagger in Mr. Bun Bun's chest (my stuffed pink rabbit): I'll shank you for committing murder (and murder of my friend, at that).

Respect da bunny.

Seriously: Is this the 16th century or do the English speak poor English?

I promise to respect the bunny in that case. Always respect the bunny.

English Law is a bit funny because its based on common law (precedent) so my quote was a little inaccurate in terms of saying "thats the law". its simply a common citation for definition of it. My point was in the various definitions of it which gets us nowhere in terms of the debate.

EDIT: Additionally, if we were to define murder, I would have more faith in a legal definition since it has to deal with all the grey areas than a one line dictionary reference which must attempt brevity.

[Undeceived]

There is no discussion about it. Life clearly exists BEFORE conception. It is life that starts the conception, and it is LIVING sperm and eggs that are the building blocks of conception.

Human sperm is HUMAN sperm. Human eggs are HUMAN eggs. Cytoplasts are HUMAN cytoplasts.

everyone else on the board seems to be content on discussing spooky shit. Its all human, its all life.

Its also the womans womb, and she can do with it as she pleases.

To me it is a no brainer.

So you're saying yes, it's human life, but as long as that life is within your physical confines you can do with it whatever you please? If I put a midget in my stomach would I automatically have supreme power over he/she? You'll say I had the choice to put it there, but so does the woman.

---

Step 1: Why is human life particularly valuable, besides the fact that we are humans ourselves?
Step 2: The best answer one can come up with that makes human beings unique is our ability (or at least potential) to think rationally.
Step 3: A conditio sine qua non for (or inevitable byproduct of) thinking rationally is measurable brain activity in the cortex.
Step 3.5: The end of life is defined with brain death. Why should its start not be defined the same way?

Are you insinuating that we have the right to kill mentally retarded individuals? Who has the right to decide who can think rationally and who can't?

[NoMoreFaith]

So you're saying yes, it's human life, but as long as that life is within your physical confines you can do with it whatever you please? If I put a midget in my stomach would I automatically have supreme power over he/she? You'll say I had the choice to put it there, but so does the woman.

As crazy as this might sound but technically Yes. Its a bizarre analogy, so it requires a bizarre response, so forgive me.

First you make the assumption "Put a midget in my stomach". Abortions are rarely because they "changed their mind" after getting deliberately pregnant so its not a question of intent.

So if we bypass this and more realistically say a human crawled inside your body without your consent and lived off you as a parasite, then yes.. you would have a moral right for it to be removed imo.

However this still bypasses the difference between Zygote and fully functioning human, and they are not the same thing. The human can be caused harm, can feel pain, and make a rational decision, a Zygote can do none of those things.
All this talk of humans being conceived at conception are basically consciously or unconsciously hiding their true motivations of objection to the potential of a person, but cannot say so as it opens up a can of worms in terms of potentiality (outlawing male masturbation for instance ).

[Violet]

So you're saying yes, it's human life, but as long as that life is within your physical confines you can do with it whatever you please? If I put a midget in my stomach would I automatically have supreme power over he/she?

If you put a midget in your stomach: you have eaten that midget.

You'll say I had the choice to put it there, but so does the woman.

You can be coerced/forced to eat a midget, as a woman can be coerced/forced to get pregnant.

The term for the latter is usually called 'rape'. I'll call it 'applesauce' if you like, I'm easy.

Are you insinuating that we have the right to kill mentally retarded individuals? Who has the right to decide who can think rationally and who can't?

* Violet hollowly listens to yet more nonsensical banter about this 'rights' bullshit, as she thinks about more interesting things... such as apple pie.

That word is as universally meaningless as interpretation of beauty. I counter with two equally 'unanswerable' (read: subjective) questions:

Are you insinuating that people have no right to call someone incredibly beautiful? Who has the right to decide what is pretty and what is foul?

I really do hate this 'R' word, and I don't mean rape. (note: I hate that too).