I am curious how "pro-lifers" get around the idea that most life on this planet involves no conception.
First, most life on this planet is produced asexually, from bacteria to plants to fungi.
Second, there's the problem of parthenogenesis, where embryos are fertilized without sperm. Some fish, amphibians, scorpions, and bees reproduce this way. Could a "pro-lifer" seriously look at a fish or bee and say "it's not alive because it wasn't conceived".
Third, a definition of life beginnings would need to include all life, not just humans. So "life begins at conception" is not a scientific belief, but a theocratic one.
Get bent loser. I only have one political opinion that is based on my faith and it isn’t abortion. Anyone with proper reasoning will come to the conclusion that if it is evil to murder a human being then it is evil to hire a doctor to murder a new human being that you have created inside of you.
I can't imagine living a life where my brain shuts down because a theocrat has told me what to think already, especially a theocrat who may have been dead for hundreds or thousands of years. Yet, somehow, this behavior is viewed as "moral" or "virtuous".
Third, a definition of life beginnings would need to include all life, not just humans. So "life begins at conception" is not a scientific belief, but a theocratic one.
Exactly. The sperm and egg came from living bodies that created them. Life begins from life. Life doesn't not begin at conception, it continues at conception. If life "beings' at conception, then that must be there was no life before it. So were the father/mother not alive?
It's an argument via "I like my definition", definitional arguments are not science, they are moral arguments. There are good reasons to be prolife, but this is not one of them.
We mostly only care about human life and individual human life (we also very much care about entire species continuing to exist that we eat or that keep the ecosystem working). We don't feel bad for eating animals because we're the most evolved species and require animal nutrition for optimal health.
We are the only ones that will potentially be capable of deflecting the next asteroid. We should manage our resources more responsibly and expand out into space. Restricting our population or killing our own is contrary to that cause.
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with life beginning at conception, but a belief in swelling human numbers. I was talking strictly about the anti-scientific belief of "life beginning at conception". That said, I can see some questionable logic in your reply.
Restricting our population may actually be beneficial for the ecosystem and managing resources, if that's your cause. This is the mainstream belief of environmentalists when asked.
Also, exactly how many people would be involved in deflecting an asteroid? Maybe a few hundred scientists and engineers and maybe several thousands to allocate resources and fabricate a giant missile? Earth having 10 billion people or six billion people isn't really relevant here. Surely you won't need anyone in Africa or Central America to do this. (Unless you believe in predestination at birth, where more people would be helpful.)
I have never suggested equivalency or non-equivalency between one type of life or another. I also love a good medium rare steak, so no on both counts.
My original point was strictly about the dubious science behind a common theocratic definition of life's beginning. People who want to claim "life begins at conception" need to reconcile how the majority of living things were never conceived, including certain fish or insects which are plainly observable by the common person as living. You are welcome to believe otherwise, but are grossly mistaken to think your view is scientific.
So if your argument is that they are mostly asleep, why can’t we just give people we just put people that are a burden to their mothers into a medically induced coma and then murder them?
Why the rush to get it done before birth? Why not let them be born, then just kill them off after a few years?
Let's say if it's not working out by kindergarden, at that point you poison them or dismember them.
I am curious how "pro-lifers" get around the idea that most life on this planet involves no conception.
First, most life on this planet is produced asexually, from bacteria to plants to fungi.
Second, there's the problem of parthenogenesis, where embryos are fertilized without sperm. Some fish, amphibians, scorpions, and bees reproduce this way. Could a "pro-lifer" seriously look at a fish or bee and say "it's not alive because it wasn't conceived".
Third, a definition of life beginnings would need to include all life, not just humans. So "life begins at conception" is not a scientific belief, but a theocratic one.
^^Wow check out this enlightened atheist!!
Get bent loser. I only have one political opinion that is based on my faith and it isn’t abortion. Anyone with proper reasoning will come to the conclusion that if it is evil to murder a human being then it is evil to hire a doctor to murder a new human being that you have created inside of you.
I can't imagine living a life where my brain shuts down because a theocrat has told me what to think already, especially a theocrat who may have been dead for hundreds or thousands of years. Yet, somehow, this behavior is viewed as "moral" or "virtuous".
Exactly. The sperm and egg came from living bodies that created them. Life begins from life. Life doesn't not begin at conception, it continues at conception. If life "beings' at conception, then that must be there was no life before it. So were the father/mother not alive?
It's an argument via "I like my definition", definitional arguments are not science, they are moral arguments. There are good reasons to be prolife, but this is not one of them.
We mostly only care about human life and individual human life (we also very much care about entire species continuing to exist that we eat or that keep the ecosystem working). We don't feel bad for eating animals because we're the most evolved species and require animal nutrition for optimal health.
We are the only ones that will potentially be capable of deflecting the next asteroid. We should manage our resources more responsibly and expand out into space. Restricting our population or killing our own is contrary to that cause.
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with life beginning at conception, but a belief in swelling human numbers. I was talking strictly about the anti-scientific belief of "life beginning at conception". That said, I can see some questionable logic in your reply.
Restricting our population may actually be beneficial for the ecosystem and managing resources, if that's your cause. This is the mainstream belief of environmentalists when asked.
Also, exactly how many people would be involved in deflecting an asteroid? Maybe a few hundred scientists and engineers and maybe several thousands to allocate resources and fabricate a giant missile? Earth having 10 billion people or six billion people isn't really relevant here. Surely you won't need anyone in Africa or Central America to do this. (Unless you believe in predestination at birth, where more people would be helpful.)
You can’t tell the difference in the significance of human life vs. animal life? Are you one of those insane vegans?
I have never suggested equivalency or non-equivalency between one type of life or another. I also love a good medium rare steak, so no on both counts.
My original point was strictly about the dubious science behind a common theocratic definition of life's beginning. People who want to claim "life begins at conception" need to reconcile how the majority of living things were never conceived, including certain fish or insects which are plainly observable by the common person as living. You are welcome to believe otherwise, but are grossly mistaken to think your view is scientific.
How do you measure sentience?
The science is clear the fetus responds to stress and responds to pain.
Every watch a video of a child in the womb squirming to get away from the doctors instruments?
Scalia was asleep. Didn't make it OK to kill him.
Alright I'm done for now. For the record, I like you and none of the downvotes were from me.
So if your argument is that they are mostly asleep, why can’t we just give people we just put people that are a burden to their mothers into a medically induced coma and then murder them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07rqR52dvCE (Trump: I am pro-life, period)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j6g_IZc04A (Former Planned Parenthood Director Exposes Abortion Lies! (Abby Johnson Uncut) | Louder With Crowder)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCSZYJywQPM (I’m Pro-Life | Change My Mind)
I knew you probably knew that about Trump, but it fits with the other 2 videos that also give a pretty good logical explanation of why.