In this mundane babble abortion thread, I presented an argument refuting the notion that science proves that the biological ‘life’ created at conception gains some sort of moral protection as a result of the conception event. While the argument may be interesting in itself and worth discussion, I’m more interested in what follows once it is accepted. It becomes another philosophical illustration of teleological morality – the principle that morality is made for man and not man for morality (as Jesus might have said if he had seen the true consequences of his teaching).
The trouble I can see with abortion from this teleological standpoint is that its practice may decrease people’s respect and compassion for human life, especially if the fetus develops to the point that it looks and behaves like a baby. I feel that destroying these lives which are so much like the human lives we ordinarily care for must wreak emotional and intellectual havoc on all those involved. It is not too difficult to go from there to the destruction of the people around us – or is it? Can we intellectually compartmentalize the destruction of fetuses and separate it from the destruction of young children or strangers on the street?
Perhaps, but I wouldn’t bet on it. Thoughts?
Here is the argument for reference:
How can science show that such-and-such is a human being when the meaning of ‘human being’ is philosophically under dispute? That meaning is the central subject of philosophical contention between pro-life and pro-choice folks. Pro-life people usually want to say that a particular DNA sequence encapsulated in a single cell can be identified with a human being. Pro-choice people think that to be a human being requires more than just a template encased in a single cell, that it requires the new life, to be fully human, have some (admittedly arbitrary) degree of developmental maturity or interaction with human society. Depending on which definition you start with, science either proves that human life begins at conception or it proves that human life begins at some later date. Actually I argue below that even if you start with the pro-lifer definition it doesn’t prove that ‘life’ begins at conception, because the definition of ‘life’ is also a relevant factor here.
Now consider the difference between the pre-conception and post-conception state of the living matter that is the basis for what will eventually become a fully-developed undisputably human being. Pre-conception, you have a sperm and an egg about to unite. Post-conception they are united.
Biologically, however, there is no great difference between the pre-conception and post-conception states. Before conception, there are two physical cell membranes (the sperm cell wall and the egg cell wall) separating the male and female contributions to the offspring DNA. After conception, the two DNA components are no longer separated and mingle in a single cell, the zygote. That’s all! The only difference conception makes, is the removal of the cell membrane barriers separating the DNA components! This event is no more momentous or defining of human life than the subsequent implantation of the cell, its division and organization into its various embryonic forms, etc. The complex of sperm-and-egg-about-to-unite is materially little different from the complex of sperm-and-egg-after-uniting, the zygote.
To apply this reasoning to your statement above, note that the sperm-and-egg-before-uniting have complete and defining DNA different from both the mother and father. No living person has the exact DNA configuration of this complex. The complex of sperm-and-egg-before-uniting could also be considered ‘alive’ in the sense that it will eventually result in a baby if everything goes right, just as a zygote will.
Now according to the traditional definition of biological life, you need a cell that can grow and reproduce on its own to have a living thing, and this definition the sperm-and-egg-before-uniting admittedly does not meet since it is two cells, incapable of reproducing unless they unite. But why should this biological definition of the word ‘life’ carry so much moral weight? You assign this reproducing cell the label ‘living’ and this complex of two nonreproducing cells the label ‘nonliving’ – what makes the first so morally different from the latter? Do you argue that this sole difference – the single cell’s ability to reproduce – is what makes it a moral subject, while the sperm-and-egg-before-uniting is not? Or does the ‘singularity’ of the zygote make it morally privileged?
I claim to the contrary that there is no reasonable argument to distinguish the event of conception morally; there is no reason that the zygote is a moral subject while the “pre-conceptate” (the sperm-and-egg-before-uniting) is not. Both will eventually be a baby, so there is no reasonable argument to endow the zygote with moral human-beingness and strip the pre-conceptate of moral human-beingness.
Now I know you will never admit that there is no such reasonable argument, because the entire pro-life stance depends on the illusion that science provides this argument. If the event of conception does not distinguish the pre- and post-conceptate morally, then contraception, which prevents the pre-conceptate from becoming a post-conceptate, is just as wrong as taking an abortifacient which prevents the post-conceptate from implanting, which is just as wrong as having a first-trimester abortion, which is just as wrong as late-trimester, etc etc. And if a man masturbates and ejaculates sperm he would have otherwise ejaculated into a woman and caused conception, that would also be wrong. The male and female bodies’ processes of eliminating old sex cells would also be ‘wrong’ processes; and it comes down to the old Monty Python song –
every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great; if a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate!
CONCLUSION:
I can rest assured that you will dismiss this as ridiculous, and I will have done little to upset your religious – I mean your rational scientific – views. Of course a zygote is morally privileged over the pre-conceptate! After all, the zygote is one, while the pre-conceptate is two things. One thing is automatically morally protected (THE RULES state this very clearly) while two things are not. The one thing can reproduce on its own, which further protects it morally (again, cite THE RULES) while two things which separately cannot reproduce (but together can develop into a baby) are automatically not protected morally. One thing has no membrane separating its two DNA components, again priviliging it morally by THE RULES, while the other has the morally-debilitating cell membranes separating the components. You see, since it’s all based on THE RULES everything is quite rational and scientific.
So long as you’re nice and play by THE RULES, God – I mean THE RULES – won’t smite you, and you’ll be morally justified, right as rain. For man was made for morality, not morality for man – thus sayeth C. S. Lewis.
It’s not about God or religion or anything.
It’s about whether or not people have the right to kill eachother, and if so, then how? It’s same with war crimes laws. They try to partially sanction their own murderous and degenorated methodologies.
There is no dispute about what is and isn’t a human being – DNA and life science have ended that dispute.
Pro-abortionists would do well to accept the reality of it and not wax so obviously sophistrical under the pretentious guise of “philosophising”.
Irrelevant.
Appeal to "A"uthority is, traditionally illogical.
It doesn’t matter what “Scientists”, “Pro-lifers”, “Anti-abortionists”, “Pro-Choicers” (read: pro-abortionists), “Religious”, etc. say on the matter.
All that matters is what science via the scientific method has proven: that a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception.
Reductively belittle and minimalize the life of the newly created unique individual human being all you wish, but you will not change the reality of that person’s existence.
Of course they do.
If they thought for a moment that the unique individual human being was being killed – murdered – during an abortion, that thought would eat at them miserably.
Thus they have to minimalizingly belittle the beginning of a person’s life – that beginning being at conception – so that they can commit abortion for non-self-defense reasons and not feel like the murderers they truly are.
So they employ arguments of sophistry wherein they use terms like “fully” human (whatever that means ) and “developmental maturity” or “interaction with human society” to rationalize a stage before which such murder is “okay”.
By the way, there is no such valid term as “pro-choice” in the matter. “Pro-choice” is the palatable euphemism for the reality of the perspective: pro-abortion. Pro-abortionists use the “pro-choice” divertive euphemism to hide from others and themselves the horror of their murderous position on the matter.
Wrong.
Science makes observations and comparisons, that’s all.
They don’t “start” with pre-conceptions, in this matter.
Science realized that a process was going on in the womb and observed it.
Science showed that human DNA and being life was present in the newly conceived.
The conclusion that such was the human being in its earliest moments of its life, a life that continues for 9 months in the womb and hopefully scores of years outside the womb, was really a fairly easy and accurate conclusion to make.
Only pro-abortionist sophisters still erroneously think it’s a matter of conjecture.
I’m sorry, Aporia, but from a scientific perspective there is no “debate” about what is or isn’t life.
Life science has a scientifically universally accepted set of criteria to determine if an entity is a singular living entity.
The newly conceived unique individual human being satisfies all of that criteria, and that has been known for many decades and is considered a given at this point.
That the newly conceived human being is alive, a singular living entity, is simply not a matter for rational conjecture.
Your minimalizing belittlement is in error.
A human being is a human being from the moment of conception.
There is no such state as “fully-developed” with regard to being a human being.
That pro-abortion sophisters “dispute” the realities of the matter is meaningless … with respect to reality.
True enough.
False by reason of sophistry.
After the sperm and egg unite they cease to be either.
They are then a conception, a unique individual human being.
All development states subsequently accurately applied have no further reference to either sperm or egg.
Wrong.
The sperm and egg each have half the chromosomes of the parent and neither sperm or egg is, from the scientific perspective, a human being.
But when conception occurs, the chromosomes of the sperm and egg combine to create a complete set of human being chromosomes in a living entity state that is a human being.
Big, big difference, Aporia.
Wrong.
As I pointed out above, the initial uniting we know as conception creates a unique human being entity that has more than “mingled” sperm and egg half-set DNA.
The DNA is now complete – a full 46 chromosomes in a singular living entity.
The fact that such occurs in the single cell before first division in the earliest moments of that person’s life means that whatever stage you use to discribe the newly conceived with reference to number of cells and substantive function – including zygote – you’re still referring to a human being.
We all start out at one cell that then divides into two … etc.
That “start out” single cell conceived is a human being.
You can over-analyze until the cows come home, Aporia, but you won’t change the reality that once conception is complete in the single cell before the first cell division, you have a unique individual living human being.
Being picky picky about the tiny moments of time the conception takes, when you consider the big picture of the topic of abortion, is really just pro-abortionists’ sophistry.
Wrong, with respect to relevant precision.
The sperm is a separate entity from the egg before uniting.
The egg is a separate entity from the sperm before uniting.
There is no such thing as “sperm-and-egg-before-uniting”.
In relevant addition, the DNA of both the sperm and egg is not complete, each containing only 23 chromosomes. When conception occurs the newly conceived single-cell human being contains the full defining completement of 46 human chromosomes.
That the DNA of the sperm and egg is “different” from the DNA of the father and mother respectively is a meaningless given in the matter.
Your “sperm-and-egg-before-uniting” is not a “complex”.
It’s merely a meaningless construction for use in your sophistry, completely irrelevant in the matter.
Again, pure sophistry.
Also, again, that something is “alive” is not at issue here.
We all know that the sperm and egg are living cells.
What is at issue here is if the entity that is alive is a human being.
We know, scientifically, that a sperm is not a human being.
We know, scientifically, that an egg is not a human being.
Your “eventually” sophistry is, again, merely that.
What is relevant is that the single-cell conception is a living human being.
That’s scientific reality, and not a matter for rational conjecture.
Today, we modern intelligent people appeal to science and the scientific method for presenting facts.
We don’t appeal to religion, and we don’t appeal to the polarized opposite in the matter: pro-abortionists’ sophistry, the kind that you are displaying in spades.
First of all, you are wrong again by means of both omission and stipulation.
There are several items in the criteria to classify an entity as being alive.
“A cell that can grow and reporduce on its own” is both lacking in a number of criteria and inexact with regard to determining if an entity is alive.
The rest of your statement here is mere irrelevant filler for the sophistry.
Well, to put the discussion back into its relevant context, if abortion is killing an entity, then, to be killed, that entity had to have been alive at the time.
Since human beings are alive at the time, the other thing to determine is that if the living entity being killed is a human being.
Since abortion, by definition, is the aborting of the life of the newly and subsequently conceived unique individual human being, then if the taking of that life was premeditated and for non-self-defense reasons, then that killing is a murder and murder is a very morally weighty subject.
Again, you make another pro-abortionists’ sophistry error.
Science has assigned the conception to be a singular living entity, not me.
And, science also has assigned the sperm and egg as being alive but not a singular living entity that a human being is.
Maybe it’s you, arguing amonst your self(s), that appears hung up on this “life” thing.
The issue does not hinge on when “life” to some degee begins or is.
The issue hinges on when a singular living entity that is a human being begins and is … and that “when” is at conception.
All references to your “complex” sophistry aside, the moral difference is that a sperm and an egg are not a singular living entity human being.
A single-celled conception is a singular living entity human being.
And thus, aborting that human being is killing that human being.
And doing so pre-meditatively for non-self-defense reasons satisfies the foundational sociological definition of murder.
That’s what makes the moral difference, Aporia.
Surely you can see that, right?
No, that’s your sophistrical imagination of my position on the matter.
I’ve already presented what truly makes the matter a moral subject: that abortion is always the killing of a unique individual human being.
Because the right to life applies to all human beings, no matter how old they are and at what stage of development (zygote, fetus, baby, child, teenager, young adult, etc.) a human being is thereby morally privileged with respect to that paramount right: the right to life.
You can “argue” all you wish.
But DNA and life science via the scientific method has decidedly defeated your argument.
There is a begining to a unique individual human being’s life, according to science: conception.
Thus, as I’ve explained above, morality with respect to that person’s life has then entered the picture at conception.
Being a human being, Aporia, is everything in the matter.
Irrelevant and immaterial.
“Becoming” a human being is irrelevant to the matter. Being a human being is what matters.
A sperm and egg before uniting isn’t a human being.
A conception is a human being.
Eventually becoming a baby, a baby being merely a stage in a human being’s development (that human being having been a human being long before the baby stage), is irrelevant to being a human being, and being a human being is all that morally matters in the matter.
Whether your argument was reasonable or not is irrelevant.
It was obviously erroneous, as I’ve pointed out. That’s all that matters for refuting it.
And the only person operating under illusion in this conversation is you, the illusion that a unique individual human being does “not” begin to live at the moment of conception.
I’m afraid, Aporia, that science is not illusion, and scientific fact is the single support for my argument.
Your argument is based solely on what you “wish” things were … so that you could rationalize your support for murderous abortion.
But, as DNA and life science presented long ago, it does distinguish between the two.
The latter is a unique living individual human being.
And thus the morality enters the matter there.
Again, you are in error.
There is no such “complex” as a “pre-conceptate” – keep in mind that such is a sophistrical concoction of your pro-abortionist’s mind.
Also, contraception can function not only to prevent a sperm and egg from uniting in conception, but also functions to prevent the newly conceived from attaching to the uterine wall – preventing impregnation – and thus, when it does, it functions as an abortificant.
True, only if not in self-defense of the mother’s very life.
And it is true also because in all of these cases a unique individual living human being is being killed premeditatively: murdered.
Wrong.
It is not morally wrong in the vein of this matter.
Such would not be the killing of a unique individual human being.
Remember, your sophistrical construct of “sperm-and-egg-before-uniting” is simply that: a non-entity fantasy you manufacture for the purpose of your sophistrical avoidance of the truth, that truth being that abortion kills a unique living individual human being, always.
When people construct sophistry as you have done here, that usually means they are emotionally vested in avoidance of the truth of the matter their sophistry is “designed” to protect them from.
You appear to miss the absurdity of your argument.
It has boiled down to a quote of Monty Python for you.
Obviously you are simply arguing erroneously within yourself.
Pretty much.
But you knew that would be the case.
Not because of anything about me or my position.
But because your argument is as obviously erroneous as saying the earth is flat or calling a cat a dog.
I submit that you need to make the matter erroneously about religion.
For you, the obvious irrelevancy of religion in the matter can be easily presented and, thus, you imagine “your” argument therefore “wins”.
Sadly, you miss the fact that disproving religion’s relevance does not prove your sophistry.
By the way, your implication that I am religious is false. I am of no religion – not Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc., etc. – none at all.
But my perspective is indeed based upon the findings of the scientific method which no rational argument has yet to refute.
You may wish to keep that fact in mind.
Restating your sophistry was really unnecessary, as I’ve already refuted it.
But I do find it interesting, your repeated reference to “THE RULES”.
I’m beginning to think you have a problem with following morals and ethics of working and playing well with others in society.
Such is typically a liberal dysfunction, and I can’t help but wonder if you are a liberal (or a libertarian – same thing in this case).
Though conservatives have their dysfunctions (and, by the way, I’m not a conservative or any of the aforementioned), the one your presentation suggests is typical of liberal pro-abortionists.
Does that shoe fit?
And now that you’ve completely diverged from the topic at hand … and thereby revealed your real issues that are simply the issues of someone who has had run-ins with religion and religious people … I now know part of what motivates your presentation, which I’ll keep in mind for the next time … your motivation that has nothing to do with the facts of the particulars of the matter.
Considering your previous argument, my thoughts are that you’re latest comments on the matter here are doubletalk that is integratively linked to your previous “argument”.
==================
First, I think, we need to define what is life? Is the beginning of life, activity, as seen by the fertilization of the egg by the sperm, or is it breath (air) that starts life. You modern intelligent scientific people, say that life begins at conception. Let us examine the fetus inside the womb. Its existence is dependent on the mother. You can start activity in the test tube, but it needs an environment, the mother’s womb, the mother does everything for the fetus. Only when it is delivered and with its first cry, air is pumped into its lungs and life begins. You are only examining the material part of life, how about the immaterial part? I think science agrees with the bible that God or nature breathed into its nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being. Only when the baby is delivered and cry for the first time does it become a living being. When the material and the immaterial parts of man unite. Beautiful law. The union of the physical body and breath. if it does not cry, it does not live, we have a stillborn baby.
[/quote]
==================
First, I think, we need to define what is life? Is the beginning of life, activity, as seen by the fertilization of the egg by the sperm, or is it breath (air) that starts life. You modern intelligent scientific people, say that life begins at conception. Let us examine the fetus inside the womb. Its existence is dependent on the mother. You can start activity in the test tube, but it needs an environment, the mother’s womb, the mother does everything for the fetus. Only when it is delivered and with its first cry, air is pumped into its lungs and life begins. You are only examining the material part of life, how about the immaterial part? I think science agrees with the bible that God or nature breathed into its nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being. Only when the baby is delivered and cry for the first time does it become a living being. When the material and the immaterial parts of man unite. Beautiful law. The union of the physical body and breath. if it does not cry, it does not live, we have a stillborn baby.
Such definining has already been done by that which is qualified to do so, life science, using the scientific method.
And, the issue isn’t what is “life”. The issue is what is a singular living entity, a being.
Life science has a set of scientific universally accepted criteria for determining if an entity is a singular living entity, a being.
And the newly conceived single-celled entity meets all of the criteria for being a living being.
Ours is simply to accept the reality of what science has accurately presented.
Acceptance is really for the best.
It doesn’t matter what you “see” or don’t “see”.
Being seen by you is irrelevant as to whether that which is or isn’t seen is a living being.
Science using the scientific method has presented beyond rational conjecture that a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception.
It’s a done deal now, Justly.
Your idiosyncratic pro-abortionist sophistry has been rendered meaninglessly irrelevant.
Wrong, with respect to relevant precision.
We say that a unique individual human being begins to live that singular entity’s life at the moment of conception.
This matter isn’t about forms of “life”.
It is about a human being’s beginning, which is at the moment of conception.
Irrelevant.
So is an infant’s existence dependent upon the mother.
Would you advocate murdering infants for reasons of economic and social convenience?
I hope not.
Zygote, fetus, infant, todler, child, pre-teen, teenager, young adult, etc. are merely names for the development stages of a living human being.
It doesn’t matter the degree of dependency on any other particular entity at any stage of development.
What alone matters is if the entity is a unqiue individual human being, which the entity is from the moment of conception, the beginning of that person’s life.
This is, of course, according to science.
You would probably need to respect science and the scientific method to embrace this reality.
Again, irrelevant with respect to being a unique and living individual human being.
The planet Earth does everything for dependent-on human being’s at all stages, even if we could create a conception in outer space.
“Your” dependency test is not supported by life science.
Wrong.
According to DNA and life science, a unique individual human being begins to live that being’s life at the moment of conception.
Birth is not when a person’s life begins.
Your “at birth” sophistry is simply something you idiosyncratically employ so that you can rationalize your pro-abortion perspective.
Your sophistry is in conflict with modern science.
There is no immaterial part of life.
There is no “soul” that is a before and/or after life fairy spirit.
God manifests our lives in all of God’s materials.
Your appeal to the “immaterial” allows you to fantasize idiosyncratically any “invisible” excuse that you wish for murdering the newly conceived individual human being.
That is sad, both with respect to your ability to courageously face reality, and for the newly conceived people your perspective helps to murder.
No, science using the scientific method says no such thing. You are simply fantasizing to suit your pre-conceived ideology.
"S"cientists acting apart from science may succumb to their ideological utilitarianism for the sake of avoiding expensive child support and so trump up “opinions” that allow them to rationalize abortion for the sake of economic and social convenience, but such flies in the face of science and the scientific method.
Besides, appeal to "A"uthority is a traditional logical fallacy.
Again, DNA and life science utilizing the scientific method of discovery has determined that your assertion here is false.
Because a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception, when and where there is no breathing of air by that singular living entity, the breathing of air, according to DNA and life science, is not a requirement for a human being to be alive.
Pure sophistry.
For pro-abortionists.
Fortunately, that with true authority to make such “law” – DNA and life science utilizing the scientific method of discovery – doesn’t recognize your sophister’s “law”.
To each pro-abortion sophister his own.
Rationalizing is not without a degree of fantastical creativity to accomplish its goal: avoidance of the truth.
Such mental masturbation does, however, fail miserably … in the heart.
Fascinating metaphor.
When was the last time you cried?
Do you not feel totally alive if you don’t cry?
Hmmm … …
As for stillborn’s, if the process of dying occurred prior to birth, then “stillborn at birth” can be the result.
Your fantasy that a stillborn baby was “never” alive is simply and obviously absurd.
If the general population only realized how much time we waste on arguing about things that shouldn’t take up so much of our time and brainpower, the wisest and most intelligent could spend their time thinking about and discussing things that are actually relevant to the survival of our species, and benefit mankind.
I certainly haven’t researched the life science side of what scientists have determined qualifies as “life,” but I really don’t see how it’s relevant.
Life is an idea that was created by mankind. Of course, we are more partial to searching for a definition of what life is, considering we are “alive,” and there are obviously beings on this planet that are different than the inanimate objects strewn about.
Determining what classifies scientifically as “life,” should have no effect on the abortion debate. Scientists have recently also declassified Pluto as a planet with the new standards of a planet they have set in place, but it has no relevance regarding what Pluto is, a giant rock floating out in space. Adding a classification to what “life” is doesn’t change the subjectivity of whether or not it is considered “right” or “wrong.”
No matter what science classifies as “life,” it is still just molecules and atoms interacting with one another. Molecules of “living” things have different properties than the molecules of what we consider inanimate objects, just as the molecules of dark matter are certainly different than the molecules of inanimate objects on this planet, but to argue there is an actual point where these molecules take on the properties to qualify for what life is, and that a valid argument can be made regarding whether “murdering” such an entity would have a negative effect on mankind, would require faith, not reason or logic.
Translation: “Please don’t do anything that would remotely convince me that abortion is always the killing of a unique individual human being – I’ve been advocating abortion for so long … and I just don’t want to know!”
Of course, if your government suddenly started arbitrarily deciding via sophistrical appeal to pre-conceived ideology who among adult post-natals was fairly "life"less and expendible, I’m sure you’d “suddenly” see the relevance of it.
Here in your country you’re probably well protected via appeal to the foundational paramount right to life.
In some other countries, they’d die trying to get such security.
Until you’re the one at risk, I doubt you’ll grasp the relevance that the accurate designation of singular living entity bestows upon the newly conceived.
Viva la science!
Hopefully no one will get an “idea” that you’re not alive … or that your life isn’t worth much.
Such obvious sophistry you spew.
I hope you’re careful not to step on a rock and kill it.
Of course not, from your pro-abortionist’s perspective.
Why make it difficult for you to abort by muddying up the matter with the fact that premeditated abortion for non-self-defense reasons is murder?!
Sorry, D0rkyd00d, but the matter of abortion wouldn’t be the justifiably valid issue that it is if there was reasonable doubt that the newly conceived was not a unique individual human singular living entity being.
The fact that the newly conceived is obviously just that is why the matter is so contentious.
You can’t go around killing unique individual human singular living entity beings, as to do so is to commit the foundational sociological act of murder.
Now I know that you pro-abortionists like to deny the reality of the newly conceived’s signular living entity status with sophistrical appeals to “what is ‘life’”, but you’re only arguing amongst yourselves.
DNA and life sciences have already declared unconjecturably on the matter that a unique individual human being begins to live that person’s life at the moment of conception.
That’s a done deal, now, and is only becoming more and more substantiated as modern civilization progresses.
I see, from your perspective all science is now considered mere conjecture and meaningless, just because “what is a planet” has been changed to improve precision.
You’ve got to be kidding.
Next thing you know you’ll be saying that a cat is a dog and needs to be “reclassified”.
Until the hell freezes over when life science changes its criteria for determining if an entity is a singular living entity, that criteria remains as the formality declaration about what we all know in our heart to be true: that a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception.
Trust your heart’s common-to-all awareness on the matter, and leave your mind’s sophistry out of the matter.
Translation: “I want abortion on demand, for whatever reason of social or economic convenience, and I just don’t want to know that I’m murdering a unique individual human being who will never live again.”
All mind and no heart indeed presents a sad erroneous perspective.
The sophistrical mental masturbation of pro-abortionists is so obvious.
I just wonder when they will get tired of foolishly playing with themselves.
The heart is swayed by emotion, and emotion has no place in logic.
It seems from your post that you feel the morals of those who support abortion are nearly non-existent, and I would like to clarify my own beliefs.
I would never harm anybody. I have never been in a fight, I have never murdered anybody, I don’t abuse animals or children. I don’t lie, cheat, or steal. I do as much in my power to help my fellow man.
What I don’t feel, however, is that murdering a thirty four year old man who has a wife, two kids, a great job, who donates to charity and is overall an outstanding citizen is anywhere close to the same thing as “murdering” a microscopic entity that will inevitably be birthed a human being. The consequences for both are extremely different. One would devastate several lives and disrupt society on an economic and industrial level, amongst other things. The other has no consequence that would negatively impact society.
I compare the morality of an event on how it would affect an individual, our society, and the impacts and implications it would have on the ongoing progression and evolution of our race. If we could kill millions of humans in the earliest stages of “life” in order to use those cells to help the millions who suffer and are afflicted with life threatening, excruciatingly painful diseases, then it should be done. If we can give a mother who has no way of supporting a child after she is raped an option to continue living her life before such a tragic event, if she chooses, it should be done.
Where did you find that? It is certainly not science. Please stop pretending that you have any idea what science is or what science has to say on any subject. You are obviously scientifically ignorant. Either philosophize or honestly admit that your opinion is based on your gut feelings. Because that is all you have as a basis of your argument. Honestly.
Even if Science DID prove that (which it doesn’t) then all we’ve done is clarify that science shows what is and is not a “life”. This says absolutely nothing for the morality of abortion. Did I miss an argument somewhere?
Alright then, if there is no immaterial part of life, if there is no soul, then please materialize scientifically your memory? your mind? your imagination? When God manifests our lives only materially, then, is your mind separate from your body? Body without mind? is a without life. Mind and life go together. For don’t the fertilized egg know which cells to form the skin, the eyes, the different organs, etc. Isn’t that intelligence of the mind when cell division occurs?
While I agree mind and life go together, I don’t think it’s in any way more magical than electrical impulses pumping through the brain, a process that has taken thousands of millions of years to develop.
Even if it were true that the heart is swayed/ruled by emotion, logic is merely a function of the abstract and linguistic center in the left cerebral hemisphere of western 'man. That’s a pretty small area of the brain to use in dealing with such a globally affecting topic like murderous abortion whose aspects greatly transcend that small neurocluster comparative to the entire brain which is affected by the matter.
But, you are essentially in error.
Emotion has both a feeling and a thinking component.
Memory and emotion are connected in the limbic system that has both a left hemispheric (the mind, where we think) and a right hemispheric (the soul, where we feel) component.
The heart, the thalamic and hypothalamic nexus regions that sit on top of the brainstem like the flame of a torch, takes input from both cerebral-limbic hemispheres, passes that input through its common-to-all and personally unique axioms and makes good decisions for both that person and those in that person’s life.
The problem is when the heart isn’t in charge of a person’s life (like in the overwhelming vast majority).
The problem is when the mind is in charge, as in that case the soul and heart are often seldom “used”.
Such mentally centered people often erroneously think things like the heart is the seat of emotion and other mind-errant pre-conceptions of the like and their mind assigns qualities of “bad” to those other entities.
Those who support murderous abortion behave in an unethical and immoral manner.
Whether they have superegoistic morals that are shut out by their strong ego and whether they are moral on other matters isn’t something I was feeling at all in this matter.
My guess is that by the word “beliefs” you mean “strong thoughts”.
Go ahead, be my guest.
If you advocate abortion for non-self-defense reasons of social or economic convenience, you harm everyone who receives your advocation, not to mention the aborted person your advocation murdered.
Ignorance is no excuse for the outcome.
Regardless, many people are indeed innocently ignorant that a unique individual human being begins to live that person’s life at the moment of conception and that abortion is the taking of a person’s life.
But many also are aware of that and, for whatever reasons, they still advocate murderous abortion.
Some, like a few who have posted in this thread, make up sophistric BS to rationalize their murderous behavior so that they don’t have to feel the horror of their behavior.
Irrelevant … although if you have never been in a fight, I question whether you had the courage to stand up for yourself and others close to you when you were bullied, etc.
Never having been in a fight is not necessarily a good thing.
If you have committed abortion for non-self-defense reasons of social or economic convenience etc. then you have indeed committed murder.
If you have advocated such, then you are an accessory to murder when the results of your advocation resulted in murderous abortion.
Keep in mind, that murder is foundationally a sociological term, not a legal term. It only becomes referenced in law when we stipulate that a particular type of murder is to be considered unlawful complete with proscribed penalties.
Murder is murder, regardless of whether it is unlawful.
And, it is immoral, always.
Due to your obvious pro-abortion perspective, I question your accuracy on some of these.
Perhaps your lack of appropriate feeling is due, in part, to your sophistrically suppressed lack of accurate awareness as to what you are talking about regarding the murdered human being.
You use the words “a microscopic entity that will inevitably be birthed a human being” in a manner and for the purpose of minimalizingly belittling the huge reality that you are actually referring to a living human being who has been such since the moment of conception.
If you were not mentally blocked by fear from accepting the truth of it, you might feel differently.
Regardless, your comparison is evidence of your bias called ageism.
You appear to think that people of different ages are more “valuable” and thus have a greater right to life.
For you, it appears that people on the ends of life, near conception and near old age death, are less entitled to the right to life than those in the middle (your 34 year-old).
You thereby exhibit why no 'man should be allowed to idiosyncratically, ideologically decide who lives or dies.
The right to life applies equally to all, no matter how “you” feel.
That must be respected for all, or all are at risk.
Immaterial and irrelevant with respect to the right to life that belongs to all equally.
What you are really doing here is simply contriving another sophistric excuse to commit murderous abortion if you are socially or economically compromised by the newly conceived.
Your sophistry and its motivation are obvious.
Your heartless utilitarian dominant mind perspective is frighteningly similar to that of the NAZIs in Germany under Hitler who also rationalized away their feelings and integrity to conduct deadly experiments on Jews in the name of “medical breakthroughs”.
If some people whom you do not know mean nothing to you to the degree that you would sacrifice them to save those you do know from sufferring you just can’t handle, then I submit that you are so afraid of life, so afraid to let the natural process of death in those you love occur, that you would murder others, other living human beings like the newly conceived, to keep from feeling grief, even if those you would save oppose what you advocate.
There are no expendable human beings – none.
That you think there are makes your perspective in power very, very scary.
Remember … “First they came after the Jews, but I wasn’t a Jew, so I did nothing … … and then they came after me, but there was no one left to do anything to prevent it.”
A word to the wise.
Sadly, the horror of rape cannot be undone once it occurs.
You may think you are lightening the load by abortion, but every time an abortion is committed, there is a woman who is significantly neuropsychologically damaged by the abortion.
If the woman’s life is not directly threatened by the newly conceived, better is to carry the newly conceived human being to term and then let the woman decide. Adoption, might then be preferable to raising the child herself, but it is her decision. And, either way, the rapist must be made to pay child support.
It’s found in every scientific journal and minimum high school text book for the past forty years.
It’s also an obvious reality that is really quite common knowledge … to those who are not mentally blocked to the truth of it by their pro-abortion mindset.
Continue living a convenient childfree life and get rid of this worthless fetus organism I accidently created? “Hell yes” says your average woman. One who cares about their child? A rarity.
Indeed DNA and life science did present that a unique individual human being, a person, begins to live at the moment of conception.
For whatever reason(s) you make it, your statement here is simply wrong.
I detect more pro-abortionist minimalizing belittlement.
Science, using the scientific method presented that the entity created at conception is not only a human, but a being – a singular living entity just like you and me are singular living entities: beings – human beings – people.
You are wrong.
It is the foundation upon which the abortion debate rests: the fact that those aborted are always living human beings – people – and that abortion kills them and that abortion for non-self-defense reasons of social and economic convenience is murder, and murder is always wrong.
Thus this reality says quite a bit, obviously … if you care about right and wrong.
That which you attribute to “immaterial” is simply material that functions in a mystical way from our perspective.
The definition of “soul” that means the religiously described invisible part of us that might have lived before our present life and that might live on after our present life is over, this fairy-like spirit, this zephyr-experienced part of us, is simply a fantasy metaphor for the feeling part of us that is shut down into a barely detectable experience in so many.
The correct realistic definition of “soul” is the right cerebral-limbic hemisphere (the right in western 'man and many others) where we feel.
That’s all it is … that’s all it ever has been.
Sadly, those who have been damaged into a shut-down of their affective feeling ability have been “religiously” making these erroneous conclusions and decisive definitions for a long time, in spite of the truth.
Thank God for modern scientific discovery that refutes religious dogma and fantasy.
If you take the distance of electrical firing in each and every neuron in the adult neurosystem for 90 seconds and place each and every one of those impulse distances end-to-end, the string of impulse distances would stretch from Earth to Pluto, back to the sun, and halfway back to Pluto.
That’s just 90 seconds worth. Pretty amazing.
How is that possible?
Because so many are firing at the same time – so many of these specialized living cells, these “Matrix”-like-forming, “Borg”-like-forming cells are all active together … in social community.
And what other phenomenon is associated with concurrent microcosmic-like activity of so many living specialized entities (neurons) living in such close cooperative proximity, over 20 billion of them? The creation of life at the next holistic level: our sentient experience of our self at the macrocosmic human being level.
The brain’s organization of neuro structures and clusters accounts for our holistic experience of memory (the cerebral-limbic system), the mind (the left cerebral-limbic hemisphere in western 'man) and imagination, the conceptualization complex in the temporal lobes.
I know it’s awesome.
But in no way does that speak to some kind of reality-violating before/after life or fairy-like fantasy “soul”.
The reality of our being and the religious fantasy of “soul” and its afterlife are linked by the fact that in damaged people their resulting dominant mind (the left cerebral-limbic hemisphere) mistakes the soul (the right cerebral-limbic hemisphere) for something that is “barely there”, which it erroneously deludes, thanks to superegoistic erroneous LCD “teaching” for centuries, is some kind of “fairy”.
Because we are constructed of God-material, we as an individual being are a singular living entity composed completely of such material, material we are learning about scientifically.
But, when we disect ourselves, we find that the famous mind-body dualism has a neuropsychological aspect.
The foundational function of the mind (the left cerebral hemisphere in western 'man and others) is to interface with the world outside our skin. The mechanical method it employs to do this is called “thinking”.
The foundational function of the soul (the right cerebral hemisphere in western 'man and others) is to interface with the world inside our skin: our body. The mechanical method it employs to do this is called “feeling”.
When damage occurs to our brain, usually neuropsychological damage we incur through relationship with other dysfunctionally-behaving people in our family-of-origin, the resulting phenomenon is a defensive shift in focus away from our heart (our heart that is the rightful “ruler” of our life and that balances our mind and soul) and toward empowering our mind as our first level of defense against “attack”.
The result of this is that the link between the mind and soul, between thought and feeling, becomes impaired, causing a lessening of experience of feeling.
Because feeling is the primary interface to the body, this feeling-lessening phenomenon causes the mentally centered to be “out of touch” with their body.
And that is how mentally oriented concepts of body “separateness” have made their way into our lexicon.
But as to the materials of both mind and body, you must speak of them more accurately, in apples-to-apples terms.
The mind is simply the name of the left cerebral-limbic hemisphere, the billions of neurons that reside there.
Though we have similar names for collections of cells, even including the localized neurons, in other parts of our body also (“leg”, “arm”, “stomach”, etc.), we are still just comparing regions of the body when we say “leg” vs. “left cerebral-limbic hemisphere”.
Though we have given the left cerebral-limbic hemisphere a nickname - the “mind” – we’ve yet to give the leg or arm or other parts of us a nickname, or maybe I just don’t know off the top of my head at the moment what those nicknames are.
Perhaps you can see from my previous explanation why your apples-to-oranges comparisons here don’t make sense.
If you would compare like-to-like, you may answer your own question.
There is no such thing as a “fertizlied egg”.
Such a term is a pro-abortionist reference, an error in presenting reality that has even crept into the lexicon of some scientists (though not accurately in science itself) and Planned Parenthood doctors.
Such an erroneous term can function to belittle the male involvment and overstate the female involvment in procreation.
The correct scientific term usually applied to a newly conceived person is often the word “zygote”.
But the erroneous slang reference of “fertilizied egg” applied to a newly conceived person is simply agregiously inapplicable, as it conotes the continuing of the “egg” after conception, and the egg simply does not continue after conception and neither does the sperm. A new entity is formed, a singular living entity we know as a human being.
The process of growth in human beings is indeed awesome.
But it’s all material, all of it.
There is no mind, per se, in the newly conceived, as there is no left cerebral-limbic hemisphere in the newly conceived.
Nevertheles, the “intelligence” you speak of in that newly conceived single-cell person is indeed quite awesome, and from the moment of that person’s existence that person experiences the “I am” experience.
In time, hopefully, we will discover more about the awe and wonder of the early growth process in human beings.
Interestingly, microscopic movies of the newly conceived human being reveal that it appears much like a rotating spiral galaxy.
That the quantum pieces look like the relative whole should not surprise anyone.
) and “developmental maturity” or “interaction with human society” to rationalize a stage before which such murder is “okay”. 
