When does life begin?

[YT2095]

How refreshing!

 

The majority of posters on this site are human.

 

the Minority of us get a mention by default

[Aardvark]

And why not. People can justify it in any way that they want' date=' and one excuse is just as valid as another, in my opinion.

[/quote']

 

 

That is a complete abdication of reason. Absolute intellectual and cognitive surrender.

 

All excuses as valid as another? I hope you are never called for jury duty!

[Aardvark]

How refreshing!

 

 

 

the Minority of us get a mention by default

 

 

A pleasure

 

ps 6,666 posts. How cool is that?

[Cadmus]

That is a complete abdication of reason. Absolute intellectual and cognitive surrender.

I realize that in your mind when people give an opinion they must first pass it through you to get permission to have the right to such an opinion before it can be deemed valid. Some of us, however, grant that opinions are subjective, and each person has the right to one without requiring your approval.

[Callipygous]

Topics like this can only spurn arguments and flame wars. There is no way that someone's viewpoints on this topic can be changed. If someone believes that life begins at fertilization' date=' then they will ALWAYS feel that way. You will not be able to change their opinion no matter what you say. The same is true for those who believe that life begins 7 weeks after conception, or something like that. No matter what you say, they will ALWAYS feel that life begins at that point and not at conception. Trying to make people believe along the same lines as you will only lead to arguments and flame wars. People need to remember is that peoples answers to this thread are all their opinions. There are no facts. There can be no 'facts' since there is no solid definition of 'life'. So saying that someone is 'wrong' is just downright foolish. The same can be said if you feel that you are 'correct'. What you are stating is an opinion and nothing more, nothing less. With that disclaimer out of the way, here is my [b']opinion[/b]:

 

I believe that life begins when the fetus is able to survive outside of the mother's womb without any medical help/intervention. So if the fetus was born in the middle of the Amazon Jungle to some competent parents, it could survive.

 

none of this means we cant still debate it. the flame wars only start up when people take it personally, as though they are being attacked by the person who is questioning what they believe. keep in mind this is a discussion of ideas and there shouldnt be a problem.

 

as for not being able to change anyones mind, thats just hogwash. the only area that is true for is religion. with everything else you can show someone a new point of view(no one has considered all of them) which might cause them to reconsider and reach a different conclusion on their own. if nothing else you always learn something just from hearing what another person thinks.

[Callipygous]

I realize that in your mind when people give an opinion they must first pass it through you to get permission to have the right to such an opinion before it can be deemed valid. Some of us, however, grant that opinions are subjective, and each person has the right to one without requiring your approval.

 

 

its my opinion that the sky is red.

 

its also my opinion that the dumbest person in the country should be made president and all checks and balances should be removed.

[Cadmus]

its my opinion that the sky is red.

Good for you. Sometimes, particularly in the early evening, I agree with you.

[Sayonara]

I realize that in your mind when people give an opinion they must first pass it through you to get permission to have the right to such an opinion before it can be deemed valid. Some of us, however, grant that opinions are subjective, and each person has the right to one without requiring your approval.

He's referring not to the formulation of opinion itself, but to the complete lack of value of fence-sitting in a debate. As you well know.

 

You really need to stop this personal crusade.

[Callipygous]

while both the sentances above may somehow be considered opinions, both are without reason.

 

(and you know what i mean about the sky)

[Cadmus]

while both the sentances above may somehow be considered opinions' date=' both are without reason.

 

(and you know what i mean about the sky)[/quote']

You formulated an opinion, and I found some value and meaning in it. You then tell me that you somehow know that I understand what you "really" meant, without actually ever telling me what you really meant. I think that you should not believe that you can always count on people understanding your opinion in the way that you present it. This is not the nature of opinions, is it?

 

For the sake of a better discussion in the future, please tell me how you can decide in an abolustely objective manner that the entire world will surely recognize as objectively optimal what opinions that people express should we reject as being completely devoid of reason or value.

[Callipygous]

You formulated an opinion, and I found some value and meaning in it. You then tell me that you somehow know that I understand what you "really" meant, without actually ever telling me what you really meant. I think that you should not believe that you can always count on people understanding your opinion in the way that you present it. This is not the nature of opinions, is it?

 

absolutely, from here on out i will assume the utmost stupidity in whoever im talking too. i will explain every aspect of everything i say, since obviously people cannot be relied upon to use their own minds to discover anything but the most literal meaning in my words.

 

/sarcasm off

 

 

For the sake of a better discussion in the future, please tell me how you can decide in an abolustely objective manner that the entire world will surely recognize as objectively optimal what opinions that people express should we reject as being completely devoid of reason or value.

 

there is no absolute. but when someone says something like "People can justify it in any way that they want, and one excuse is just as valid as another, in my opinion." that just reeks of someone who is refusing to use their head just for the sake of holding up their arguement. one excuse is just as valid as another? i guess "it was a tuesday" is just as good of an excuse as "it was in self defense."

[Cadmus]

absolutely, from here on out i will assume the utmost stupidity in whoever im talking too. i will explain every aspect of everything i say, since obviously people cannot be relied upon to use their own minds to discover anything but the most literal meaning in my words.

Good for you. Not only can you feel free to reject the opinions of others as stupid as freely as you want, buy you can consider them stupid in the process.

 

there is no absolute. but when someone says something like "People can justify it in any way that they want, and one excuse is just as valid as another, in my opinion." that just reeks of someone who is refusing to use their head just for the sake of holding up their arguement. one excuse is just as valid as another? i guess "it was a tuesday" is just as good of an excuse as "it was in self defense."

So, in refutation to my argument, you have presented two separate posts wherein you purposefully post a completely non-serious statement as though it were a serious opinion that a real person might hold, and you contend that any statement that you might imagine should not be consider to be equivalent in value to your "serious" opinion. I never suggested that any stupid (as you claim) statement that you might make constitutes a valid opinion.

 

If a person comes to a decision that an abortion is the way to go, I don't care why the person opts for an abortion. I don't feel that the person's reason should have to pass my value judgment before being legal or moral. People should have the right to make their decision on abortion without worrying about my acceptance of their reasoning. That is what I said. Any reason that a person gives is valid, because it is not your position or mine to determine whether their reason is good enough. I am surprised that you are wasting so much time harping on my willingness to let people come to their own decision in this matter.

 

that just reeks of someone who is refusing to use their head just for the sake of holding up their arguement. one excuse is just as valid as another? i guess "it was a tuesday" is just as good of an excuse as "it was in self defense."

I find it humerous that you accuse me of refusing to use my head just because I refuse to pass judgment on people for their personal decisions. If someone has an abortion and tells me that the reason is it was a Tuesday, I do not consider the abortion any more wrong than any other reason that the person might give. The topic of our controversy is about abortion, and you seem to be suggesting that I should be far more critical of abortion. If that is your contention, then make it. Don't hide behind dumb statements that hide the real topic. If you have a point, make it. I wonder if you even understand my original point, as you seem to be harping on a very minor ramification of my meaning.

[Newtonian]

I wonder if you even understand my original point, as you seem to be harping on a very minor ramification of my meaning

As your guilty of yourself..sometimes i fret for you cadmus

[Phi for All]

I wonder what you mean by the word justifiable. The way that I understand the word, there are many conditions under which it is justifiable to take a life, such as in self defense.

I personally make a distinction between justification and necessity so I don't fall into the trap of tailoring my morality to suit my needs. Self defense is necessary for survival. It is a just reason for killing, and does not need to be justified.

I wonder what you mean by moral consequences. The word moral is such a subjective word that I have no idea what you might mean by this.

Everyone's morals are different. If you do something you know to be wrong, you are violating your own moral code, and trying to justify your actions is simply lying to yourself to make yourself feel better.

And why not. People can justify it in any way that they want, and one excuse is just as valid as another, in my opinion.

To me, there is a difference between an excuse and a reason. Nothing excuses you for doing something you perceive as wrong. You can have reasons for being wrong, but you are still wrong.

I wonder what you mean by the word necessary. Is it necessary if a person decides that a child would not be desirable? I wonder what you mean by the phrase face the consequences of our actions. What might this entail in your mind?

In this case, I mean necessary for survival. I have no problem with people taking a life if they are willing to suffer the moral and legal consequences of that act (whatever that may entail). What I can't abide is people who kill and then try to skirt the obligations and responsibilities for such an act with justifications and excuses. I am pro-choice but I personally couldn't pay the moral costs involved in abortion if my wife's survival were not in question.

[Callipygous]

If a person comes to a decision that an abortion is the way to go, I don't care why the person opts for an abortion.

 

whoa! we agree on something (however, this is assuming the person is not mentally retarded)

 

 

I don't feel that the person's reason should have to pass my value judgment before being legal or moral. People should have the right to make their decision on abortion without worrying about my acceptance of their reasoning. That is what I said. Any reason that a person gives is valid, because it is not your position or mine to determine whether their reason is good enough.

 

now we disagree again. if a person wants to end a human life, at a point where i consider the thing to have rights, and the best reason they have is "because its a tuesday" then i think its my moral obligation to step it. starting with trying to talk some sense into them, and then depending on the circumstances maybe taking further measures.

 

I find it humerous that you accuse me of refusing to use my head just because I refuse to pass judgment on people for their personal decisions. If someone has an abortion and tells me that the reason is it was a Tuesday, I do not consider the abortion any more wrong than any other reason that the person might give. The topic of our controversy is about abortion, and you seem to be suggesting that I should be far more critical of abortion. If that is your contention, then make it. Don't hide behind dumb statements that hide the real topic. If you have a point, make it. I wonder if you even understand my original point, as you seem to be harping on a very minor ramification of my meaning.

 

"you seem to be suggesting that I should be far more critical of abortion. If that is your contention, then make it. "

 

i think taking any life for trivial reasons is morally wrong, especial something sentient. if you want my opinion, yes, i do think you should be more critical of abortion than you seem to be, but that is not something i am going to tell you to do. what business is it of mine if you believe something that I think makes you immoral? that doesnt mean im not going to try to find holes in your logic and point them out though. think whatever you want, but if i think your wrong im going to try to convince you of that. (and if your going to try to kill something that i consider a person...)

 

 

 

(reading over this post i think it may cause some confusion. im pro choice, up till the third trimester. you had 6 months to get it done, now you have a kid in you instead of a sack of cells, deal with it : P)

[reverse]

To me life starts the second the sperm penetrates the outer casing of the egg.

 

Because without intervention there is every likelihood that a human being will develop.

 

I can see both sides of this argument,

but in my thoughts this exact moment counts most

[mustang292]

I believe Life began simply with the combination of probably only 2-4 different chemicals combining under the right temperatures. Sometimes it is not as complicated as we may want it to be. Even Sperm is alive.

[Cadmus]

I personally make a distinction between justification and necessity so I don't fall into the trap of tailoring my morality to suit my needs.

So basically you are saying that you are pro choice, as long as people admit their reasoning and are willing to accept the consequences of their actions? If this is a correct understanding of your meaning, then I have absolutely no problem with it.

[Cadmus]

whoa! we agree on something

A first. Perhaps we should memorialize this somehow.

 

now we disagree again. if a person wants to end a human life, at a point where i consider the thing to have rights, and the best reason they have is "because its a tuesday" then i think its my moral obligation to step it. starting with trying to talk some sense into them, and then depending on the circumstances maybe taking further measures.

So you feel that people who take private actions should pass your morality test, or else you feel that you have the right to intervene. Perhaps someday someone will intervene in your actions and take legal control of your actions because they disapprove, and you will change your attitude.

 

i think taking any life for trivial reasons is morally wrong,

To me, the concept of morally wrong is so incredibly subjective as to have no objective meaning at all.

 

if you want my opinion, yes, i do think you should be more critical of abortion than you seem to be, but that is not something i am going to tell you to do. what business is it of mine if you believe something that I think makes you immoral?

Good for you. I am immoral because I do not attempt to take control of other people's lives. Meanthile, it is that very action that I consider makes you immoral. We are at an impass.

 

that doesnt mean im not going to try to find holes in your logic and point them out though.

I don't understand what logic has to do with this at all.

 

think whatever you want, but if i think your wrong im going to try to convince you of that. (and if your going to try to kill something that i consider a person...)

Sorry, but it will never happen that I personally have an abortion, just as with all males on the planet, so that I will ever try to kill something that you consider a person (at least by means of abortion).

[Cadmus]

To me life starts the second the sperm penetrates the outer casing of the egg.

 

in my thoughts this exact moment counts most

Counts for what?

[reverse]

Counts for what?

 

a threshold ,

 

or defining moment,

 

between "about to be life" and " life ".

 

conversly the moment of dath in old age as the last breath is taken.

 

a threshold, the defining moment between "life" and "no longer alive".

 

alpha and omega.

 

first we were not.

then we are.

then we are not once again.

 

funny thing is that either side of the narrow window if life, runs oblivion for eternity.

[reverse]

This is a dumb idea but I like it because it’s so obscure.

 

All the little children’s souls are waiting about in the clouds somewhere,

waiting for their chance to be born.

Patiently passing time, year after year, lounging about or something,

looking down crossing their little fingers each time a couple get together.

 

I know it’s unbelievably pathetic but somehow I like the image.

[jdurg]

(reading over this post i think it may cause some confusion. im pro choice, up till the third trimester. you had 6 months to get it done, now you have a kid in you instead of a sack of cells, deal with it : P)

 

I agree with you 100% there.

[Callipygous]

So you feel that people who take private actions should pass your morality test, or else you feel that you have the right to intervene. Perhaps someday someone will intervene in your actions and take legal control of your actions because they disapprove, and you will change your attitude.

 

i think i should intervene if i see someone being raped too. does that make me a bad person? what if i see a mother suffocating her child right after birth? would i be a bad, intrusive person for stopping that?

 

To me, the concept of morally wrong is so incredibly subjective as to have no objective meaning at all.

 

while it is different for each person, the only thing you can do is what you see as right. if you have beliefs about what is right and what is wrong, but you do nothing to support them you might as well not have beliefs at all.

 

Good for you. I am immoral because I do not attempt to take control of other people's lives. Meanthile, it is that very action that I consider makes you immoral. We are at an impass.

 

its not taking control of someone elses life. its protecting another life from that person.

 

I don't understand what logic has to do with this at all.

 

i dont know about you, or anyone else, but in my mind logic has to do with everything.

 

Sorry, but it will never happen that I personally have an abortion, just as with all males on the planet, so that I will ever try to kill something that you consider a person (at least by means of abortion).

 

once again, showing your complete inablity to distinguish anything but the most literal meaning... "you" in that statement should be taken to mean anyone committing the act.

[Cadmus]

i think i should intervene if i see someone being raped too. does that make me a bad person? what if i see a mother suffocating her child right after birth? would i be a bad, intrusive person for stopping that?

Some actions are clear cut. Others are not. Your examples ignore that fact. I think that you would be a bad person if you attempted to force a person to behave in a way that is coincident with your morals and opposed to hers. Abortion is not a clear cut issue.

 

while it is different for each person, the only thing you can do is what you see as right. if you have beliefs about what is right and what is wrong, but you do nothing to support them you might as well not have beliefs at all.

You think that if someone does not understand your words, then it is completely that other person's fault. Yet your words tend to be sloppy sometimes. You use the pronoun "you", and you pretend that all of us known that you don't mean what you say. What you really mean is you yourself, not me or anyone else. Why not just say what you mean, instead of forcing everyone to just know what you mean.

 

its not taking control of someone elses life. its protecting another life from that person.

COMPLETELY INCORRECT, in my opinion.

 

i dont know about you, or anyone else, but in my mind logic has to do with everything.

I disagree. What does logic have to do with when a woman decides that the life inside of her deserves it to have its rights supercede those of her own?

 

once again, showing your complete inablity to distinguish anything but the most literal meaning... "you" in that statement should be taken to mean anyone committing the act.

Once again you blame me for the lack of clarity of your words. Why not imporve the quality of your words, rather than placing the blame on others for your words.