HHS guidelines. Life begins when a random man says the woman should be punished for having sex. Life ends for a child when a man says he'd rather have a taxcut than pay for that child's healthcare.

(10-12-2017 03:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 02:13 PM)Paul M Wrote:  It starts at conception. Only dishonest liars don't acknowledge this.

Paul, you do realize that you cannot predict the exact date of conception don't you? It's only an estimate...and it can be off by as much as a month in some cases.

Quote:Conception Dates Are Only Estimates

Conception dates are only considered estimates for several reasons. First of all, even women with regular cycles may not ovulate on day 14 each month. It can vary slightly, anywhere from day 12 to day 16 for a regular woman on a 28-day cycle.

Other reasons conception dates are just estimated include the following:

-Sperm life can be up to three to five days.
-Stress or other life changes can change even regular women's cycles for that month.
-Eggs take 12 to 24 hours to be shed, so the estimated conception date may be off by one day.
-Spotting at implantation can be mistaken for a last missed period, throwing off conception date by as much as a month.

The only completely accurate way of knowing conception date is when infertility treatments, such as artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization treatments have been used.

http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Est...ption_Date

And lastly, which government office is going to be in charge of tracking all women's periods and ovulation dates.

Small government be damned again by conservatives.

FFS, Tom a woman might not be able to know the exact conception date but she can know she has conceived.

That is some of the most intellectually dishonest bull**** I've ever seen you post.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(10-12-2017 04:18 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Fair enough.

I understand completely that everyone has their own ideas, so here's mine.

In simplistic
Female egg: a living cell containing genetic material (X)
Male sperm: a living cell containing genetic material (X or Y)

Upon fertilization the zygote is either XX (girl) or XY (boy).

DISCLAIMER: I know that will freak out some leftist, but we're talking about science, no social justice crap.

Upon fertilization NO additional genetic material is add from this point forward until death.

Upon fertilization the zygote (clump of cells, fetus, baby, pick one) has unique DNA. Note this DNA is human DNA.


ANALYSIS Science confirms that human life begins at fertilization


The "when life begins" debate can be framed certain ways. Oftentimes the pro-choice (aka anti-life) people like to use sentience as the criteria.

The definition of sentient is "able to perceive or feel things."

They tend to use sentient in the sense that the being is aware or has thought. But you could also use the other meaning. Unborn babies react to touch 8 weeks after fertilization. By 20 weeks they can feel pain.

Gotta complete the question set:

(10-12-2017 02:28 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  When, precisely defined and with what criteria used, is it acceptable for a third party to end a human life?

And you are a few steps ahead on the sentience argument, which is my ultimate stance.

(10-12-2017 04:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Why are people pretending like if they can prove that conception is when life begins, that they've won the game?

Life can absolutely be taken away from someone, morally and legally, in certain circumstances. For example, if a person is sentenced to death for a crime they've committed, their life can be taken from them. That is morally and legally correct.

Likewise, just because an unborn baby has life, does not automatically make it immoral and illegal to take away that life. And that is correct.

You're one sick puppy to put forth this comparison. Pure sociopath.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(10-12-2017 05:25 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  HHS guidelines. Life begins when a random man says the woman should be punished for having sex. Life ends for a child when a man says he'd rather have a taxcut than pay for that child's healthcare.

(10-12-2017 05:22 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 04:01 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  It is no more acceptable for a third party to end a human life in the womb than it is to murder a 3 year old child.

Your definition is potentially incomplete. Please expand it if so, or explicitly state that the following is also never ok to terminate a "life" as you have defined it:
- War
- Brain dead
- Capital punishment
- Self-defense
- Abortion from rape
- Abortion from incest
- Abortion from mortality risk to the mother
- "Mercy" abortion for genetic incompatibility with life (some genetic disorders are terminal but will take years before they kill off the person, some genetic disorders are fatal shortly after birth or even during gestation, etc etc).

Goalpost moved.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(10-12-2017 05:36 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Goalpost moved.

So you consider consistency across all circumstances moving the goal posts? Of course it's much easier to pan something you disagree with than face your own hypocrisy and ideological flaws.

(10-12-2017 05:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 05:36 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Goalpost moved.

So you consider consistency across all circumstances moving the goal posts? Of course it's much easier to pan something you disagree with than face your own hypocrisy and ideological flaws.

An unborn child is innocent. Pretty simple concept.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(10-12-2017 04:48 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 04:18 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 02:28 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 02:13 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Only dishonest liars don't acknowledge this.

Okay, I'll bite.

Let's start on the same playing field, though, because I detest slippery definitions which are so common when discussing this.

First: What is a human life? When do you say it begins? When, precisely defined and with what criteria used, is it acceptable for a third party to end a human life?

Fair enough.

I understand completely that everyone has their own ideas, so here's mine.

In simplistic
Female egg: a living cell containing genetic material (X)
Male sperm: a living cell containing genetic material (X or Y)

Upon fertilization the zygote is either XX (girl) or XY (boy).

DISCLAIMER: I know that will freak out some leftist, but we're talking about science, no social justice crap.

Upon fertilization NO additional genetic material is add from this point forward until death.

Upon fertilization the zygote (clump of cells, fetus, baby, pick one) has unique DNA. Note this DNA is human DNA.


ANALYSIS Science confirms that human life begins at fertilization


The "when life begins" debate can be framed certain ways. Oftentimes the pro-choice (aka anti-life) people like to use sentience as the criteria.

The definition of sentient is "able to perceive or feel things."

They tend to use sentient in the sense that the being is aware or has thought. But you could also use the other meaning. Unborn babies react to touch 8 weeks after fertilization. By 20 weeks they can feel pain.

To speak to the "sentience" argument, I would ask at what point does a comatose patient lose their humanity?

"A clump of homo-sapiens cells that is aware of it's surroundings/existence, or has been in the past __ Months/Years shall be defined as human life", seems a bit clunky.

There is nothing less understood than the human brain. I had a grandfather who had a stroke. He was bedridden for a year and a half before he passed. He could grunt and there were times he was angry, but nobody could tell you if he had any more understanding than an animal. Or maybe he was all there and incredibly frustrated because he couldn't communicate.

We got a call on my wife's Father at midnight on a Christmas Day, waking us up to ask us to approve a DNR order. He had a stroke that day. We were 800 miles away. We refused, wanting to talk to someone other than an orderly over the phone. When we got there they told us he was a vegetable and had no cognition. Yet when his sister came to visit, he teared up. He knew what was going on. The doctors had no clue. Now we did give the DNR a couple weeks later (he was resuscitated several times-the heart wasn't going to last), but not until after everyone had a chance to say goodbye.

(10-12-2017 04:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Why are people pretending like if they can prove that conception is when life begins, that they've won the game?

Life can absolutely be taken away from someone, morally and legally, in certain circumstances. For example, if a person is sentenced to death for a crime they've committed, their life can be taken from them. That is morally and legally correct.

Likewise, just because an unborn baby has life, does not automatically make it immoral and illegal to take away that life. And that is correct.

It is immoral. Just not illegal.

(10-12-2017 05:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 05:36 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Goalpost moved.

So you consider consistency across all circumstances moving the goal posts? Of course it's much easier to pan something you disagree with than face your own hypocrisy and ideological flaws.

So, then your stance is the following should be illegal period, correct?

- Brain dead
- Abortion from rape
- Abortion from incest
- Abortion from mortality risk to the mother
- "Mercy" abortion for genetic incompatibility with life (some genetic disorders are terminal but will take years before they kill off the person, some genetic disorders are fatal shortly after birth or even during gestation, etc etc).

If any of these should be legal ... at what point does the person who is going to die transition from innocent to not innocent?

If indeed all of them should be illegal ... are you sure that's your final stance? Because I consider it cruel, unusual, and even sadistic to force a mother to carry a baby that is genetically incompatible with life to term.

(10-12-2017 05:54 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 05:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 05:36 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Goalpost moved.

So you consider consistency across all circumstances moving the goal posts? Of course it's much easier to pan something you disagree with than face your own hypocrisy and ideological flaws.

So, then your stance is the following should be illegal period, correct?

- Brain dead
- Abortion from rape
- Abortion from incest
- Abortion from mortality risk to the mother
- "Mercy" abortion for genetic incompatibility with life (some genetic disorders are terminal but will take years before they kill off the person, some genetic disorders are fatal shortly after birth or even during gestation, etc etc).

If any of these should be legal ... at what point does the person who is going to die transition from innocent to not innocent?

If indeed all of them should be legal ... are you sure that's your final stance? Because I consider it cruel, unusual, and even sadistic to force a mother to carry a baby that is genetically incompatible with life to term.

Health of the Mother is a form of self defense.
Rape and Incest are really tough questions if you believe that an unborn child should have rights.
Terminal disorders are really tough questions as well if it is not a case of being unviable, but merely a case that they won't live to adulthood.

(10-12-2017 05:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  Health of the Mother is a form of self defense.
Rape and Incest are really tough questions if you believe that an unborn child should have rights.
Terminal disorders are really tough questions as well if it is not a case of being unviable, but merely a case that they won't live to adulthood.

Now see you're a neoconservative and I'm a libertarian. We differ on our stances on abortion I suspect. But your concession there is INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. That raw bit of honesty is the middle ground we all need to recognize and state is there. Because these ARE hard issues to sort through. They are morally, ethically, and legally challenging and murky. And everybody is walking around like their f'n black and white interpretation is the only thing that can possibly exist.

(10-12-2017 06:00 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 05:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  Health of the Mother is a form of self defense.
Rape and Incest are really tough questions if you believe that an unborn child should have rights.
Terminal disorders are really tough questions as well if it is not a case of being unviable, but merely a case that they won't live to adulthood.

Now see you're a neoconservative and I'm a libertarian. We differ on our stances on abortion I suspect. But your concession there is INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. That raw bit of honesty is the middle ground we all need to recognize and state is there. Because these ARE hard issues to sort through. They are morally, ethically, and legally challenging and murky. And everybody is walking around like their f'n black and white interpretation is the only thing that can possibly exist.

I think abortion is morally wrong unless the Mother is at risk or if the fetus is not viable to term.

As for legality, I'm pragmatic. I don't see how we can make it illegal until we have some consensus on when unborn children should have rights, ie when it "has a soul" or "humanity." We would just elect a bunch of Kevorkian Democrats who would make abortion free on demand anytime. I do think it should be illegal to abort viable unborn children. Certain methods should be illegal. And taxpayers shouldn't be funding the mass murderers at Planned Parenthood.

I believe the pro life people should continue doing what most of them have been doing the last couple of decades-changing minds, not laws.

Life clearly begins at conception. I believe all unborn children should have the right to life.

At the same time, I also know that 1/3 of first pregnancies spontaneously abort (so you never tell anyone during the first trimester). That is a lot of unborn children that never make it. That is a complication to the religious based arguments.

(10-12-2017 05:22 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 04:01 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  It is no more acceptable for a third party to end a human life in the womb than it is to murder a 3 year old child.

Your definition is potentially incomplete. Please expand it if so, or explicitly state that the following is also never ok to terminate a "life" as you have defined it:
- War
- Brain dead
- Capital punishment
- Self-defense
- Abortion from rape
- Abortion from incest
- Abortion from mortality risk to the mother
- "Mercy" abortion for genetic incompatibility with life (some genetic disorders are terminal but will take years before they kill off the person, some genetic disorders are fatal shortly after birth or even during gestation, etc etc).

Fair points.

War - participants generally know that death is a possible outcome and have made a choice of their free will (generally speaking, in sure many in third world countries continue to be conscripted).

Brain-dead - this is sticky. In most cases you don't hear of people waking up, but the handful of cases where people not only wake up, but also claim to remember everything make me lean towards saying no unless the individual has left consent in a living will.

Capital punishment - I'm generally in favor. If the evidence is without question then I have no problem with it. Again, an individual made a decision that lead to the outcome.

Self-defense - preservation of self. No defense needed. It's absolutely okay to do any and all necessary to protect youself or another that cannot defend themselves.

Abortion from rape/incest - the trickiest one to me. Forcing a woman to carry a child conceived in that manner could be considered cruel. I suppose this one should be left up to the mother.

Abortion for mortal risk to mother - Another sticky one. Hopefully one day medicine will solve this issue. I know a couple women who were told it would be potentially fatal for them to continue a pregnancy. They each made the decision to continue the pregnancy almost immediately.

Mercy abortion - every life is unique and special. Whether it lasts months or years, not body knows what impact that life may have to n the world. My wife had a miscarriage a couple months ago. Most miscarriages are a result of a genetic disorder or 'malfunction'. Point being, nature will sort itself out more often than not.


I deliberately compared killing an unborn child to a 3 year old because a 3 year old has yet to experience or make conscious choices that could lead to death or the death of another. That all be eliminates the comparisons to war, capital punishment, or self defense.

There will always be situations that fall into grey areas.

(10-12-2017 05:25 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  HHS guidelines. Life begins when a random man says the woman should be punished for having sex. Life ends for a child when a man says he'd rather have a taxcut than pay for that child's healthcare.

Your statement has nothing to do with science.

By the way, using one category to dramatically appeal to emotion is fine. But actual data says your example happens nearly, well, never when it comes to reasons for abortion.


Here's a thought, though. Instead of killing the baby, why not sentence a guy guilty of rape to, say, life in prison with zero chance of parole. That way we might just see even fewer of these nearly nonexistent cases you mention.

(10-12-2017 03:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 02:13 PM)Paul M Wrote:  It starts at conception. Only dishonest liars don't acknowledge this.

Paul, you do realize that you cannot predict the exact date of conception don't you? It's only an estimate...and it can be off by as much as a month in some cases.

Quote:Conception Dates Are Only Estimates

Conception dates are only considered estimates for several reasons. First of all, even women with regular cycles may not ovulate on day 14 each month. It can vary slightly, anywhere from day 12 to day 16 for a regular woman on a 28-day cycle.

Other reasons conception dates are just estimated include the following:

-Sperm life can be up to three to five days.
-Stress or other life changes can change even regular women's cycles for that month.
-Eggs take 12 to 24 hours to be shed, so the estimated conception date may be off by one day.
-Spotting at implantation can be mistaken for a last missed period, throwing off conception date by as much as a month.

The only completely accurate way of knowing conception date is when infertility treatments, such as artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization treatments have been used.

http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Est...ption_Date

And lastly, which government office is going to be in charge of tracking all women's periods and ovulation dates.

Small government be damned again by conservatives.

Moot point. If an abortion is performed, conception happened, be it on day 8, day 15, or day 45.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(10-12-2017 04:57 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 04:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Why are people pretending like if they can prove that conception is when life begins, that they've won the game?

Life can absolutely be taken away from someone, morally and legally, in certain circumstances. For example, if a person is sentenced to death for a crime they've committed, their life can be taken from them. That is morally and legally correct.

Likewise, just because an unborn baby has life, does not automatically prevent it from being morally and legally correct to take that life away, in certain circumstances. And that is correct. Then, it's simply for the courts to decide those circumstances.

No one is trying to prove that "life" begins at conception, but instead that "human life" begins at conception. If a unique human's life begins at conception, then there should be some pretty well grounded reasons for ending it. Many would argue that inconveniencing a woman with another mouth to feed is a good enough reason.

In addition, the most common argument I hear in favor of abortion is that at some arbitrary point during gestation, it's "just a clump of cells".

I think there are many that would disagree with what you've listed as being "morally" correct.

Yes there should be well grounded reasons. And there are.

The “common” argument you cite is actually irrelevant. We can grant that a fertilized human egg is human life, and then simply conclude that it’s moral and legal to take away that human life.

(10-12-2017 04:58 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 04:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Why are people pretending like if they can prove that conception is when life begins, that they've won the game?

Life can absolutely be taken away from someone, morally and legally, in certain circumstances. For example, if a person is sentenced to death for a crime they've committed, their life can be taken from them. That is morally and legally correct.

Likewise, just because an unborn baby has life, does not automatically make it immoral and illegal to take away that life. And that is correct.

The person who was sentenced to death for a crime has committed an act against humanity.

An unborn baby is not guilty of any crime.

Legal does not necessarily = moral.

Agreed that the fertilized egg is not guilty of a crime. The reason I brought that up is that it disproves the broadest claim that human life should never be taken away. I’ve proven it can, and even should in some circumstances.

That said, it can still be morally and legally correct to take away life, in certain circumstances.

(10-12-2017 05:33 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 04:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Why are people pretending like if they can prove that conception is when life begins, that they've won the game?

Life can absolutely be taken away from someone, morally and legally, in certain circumstances. For example, if a person is sentenced to death for a crime they've committed, their life can be taken from them. That is morally and legally correct.

Likewise, just because an unborn baby has life, does not automatically make it immoral and illegal to take away that life. And that is correct.

You're one sick puppy to put forth this comparison. Pure sociopath.

Love seeing this post. It validates everything I said, because it shows you weren’t able to think of an actual counter argument. You either lack the mental ability to do it, or you were being lazy. Either way

(10-12-2017 05:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 04:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Why are people pretending like if they can prove that conception is when life begins, that they've won the game?

Life can absolutely be taken away from someone, morally and legally, in certain circumstances. For example, if a person is sentenced to death for a crime they've committed, their life can be taken from them. That is morally and legally correct.

Likewise, just because an unborn baby has life, does not automatically make it immoral and illegal to take away that life. And that is correct.

It is immoral. Just not illegal.

It’s immoral to take the morning after pill? You know that’s absurd.

What has an unborn baby done to deserve having it's life taken away