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.
He makes no argument, but insists that "anyone with proper reasoning" shares his opinion. This is what allowing a professional holy man to do your thinking looks like.
Anyone with proper reasoning will come to the conclusion that if it is evil to murder a human being...
Is this true? Do you mourn for people executed for capital crimes, jihadists killed fighting U.S. troops, or criminals killed in self-defense? Or are you bending your definition of "murder" to include deaths you personally dislike committed by people you dislike?
Helpful hint: "Murder" is a legal term. It has a specific set of elements which need to be satisfied by law for someone to be termed a murderer. Abortion is specifically excluded in these definitions nationwide and therefore is not murder.
If you want to use "murder" in a moral or theological context, then that's a mere personal opinion which nobody is obligated to believe and "proper reasoning" does not apply.
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.)
The life beginning at conception is explained by the fact that that's when the unique genetic code is created and doesn't ever fundamentally change through a person's life. There's no point after conception where you can say that it isn't a human being.
Pro-life people generally don't follow the belief that liberals tend to have that all life is precious and must be prolonged regardless of any other considerations. Liberals tend to think the life of a pedophile is equal to that of a normal law abiding citizen while somehow also considering an unborn baby to be nothing but a clump of cells.
My point of managing resources more responsibly has a hell of a lot to be unpacked:
1. Education.
Your statement about not needing people from Africa and
Central America makes me think that you think that they are somehow
genetically irredeemable. The truth is that we all have the same fundamental
brain capacity, placidity and have the same fundamental spiritual nature
(though you may not believe that part). The only thing actually wrong here
stems from the subject of education, bad education or lack of education.
2. Energy.
We can support the energy needs of a far higher population once we switch
over to mostly nuclear and fusion power and use electric vehicles that are
charged by those energy sources.
3. Food.
We can switch to sustainable methods of farming instead of monocrops that
deplete the soil and crappy grain-fed feedlot meat that have negative
effects on the environment and are inhumane and unhealthy. The are
methods of greening desert land so that it can hold moisture and support
life for growing food.
4. Other resources.
Space technology is important so that we can extract resources from
space.
Maybe a few hundred scientists and engineers and maybe several thousands > to allocate resources and fabricate a giant missile?
You need all the other jobs to support the lives of the people working on that and there's the gradual development of technology that came before just to even have any hope of having the technology of deflecting asteroids. You also need a large enough pool of people to select people that have aptitude for it and are passionate about it. Besides, there's not much point in preserving life if it can't be enjoyed.
Lots to address here and most all of it is irrelevant to the thread topic about "life beginning at conception being science" while wearing masks to not spread disease is not.
Pro-life people generally don't follow the belief that liberals tend to have that all life is precious and must be prolonged regardless of any other considerations.
Wrong. Terri Schiavo and millions languishing hopelessly in nursing homes due to massive strokes or Alzheimer's are there because of people who believe "life must be prolonged at any cost". The resistance to euthanasia and "death with dignity" comes from the theocratic right, including pro-lifers and religious fundamentalists.
Education.
I never said Africans and Central Americans are genetically irredeemable, but you choose to presume that based on nothing. What is factual is that none of these areas have the requisite educational or infrastructure development which has led to achievements in space exploration, rocketry, or even large-scale industrialization needed to accomplish something as grand as protecting earth from an asteroid strike. These are achievements which are primarily from the U.S., Russia, and Europe who actually do have functioning space programs and large-scale industrialization. That's who would do the work of protecting Earth.
Energy, 3. Food, 4. Other Resources
Reasonable thoughts, but still far off in time. Human population is exponentially increasing between now and when that happens.
You need all the other jobs to support the lives of the people working on that and there's the gradual development of technology that came before just to even have any hope of having the technology of deflecting asteroids. You also need a large enough pool of people to select people that have aptitude for it and are passionate about it. Besides, there's not much point in preserving life if it can't be enjoyed.
An interesting perspective on having more versus less people, but not a direct addressing of the issue of abortion.
I have to wonder how "enjoying life" plays into the decision to force an uneducated drug-using single mother to try and raise a child in poverty. Most pro-lifers seem to think that women can be forced to give birth and, upon seeing a child, will become responsible and industrious. More than likely, the child will be raised with neglect and abuse and - once they reach their teens - will become either a criminal or another irresponsible single parent.
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.
Well if you can’t figure out that people obviously are referring to human life when they say “life begins at conception” then Idk what to tell you. It’s always used in the context of abortion and therefore is always meant in the context of human life.
You are obviously right that a lot of things produce asexually, but it is obvious that pro-lifers are not talking about those things. It shouldn’t be that hard for you to understand that.
The very topic of this thread calls "life beginning at conception" a scientific concept. It is not. That's my point and you don't seem to comprehend it. A definition of life which applies to humans and nothing else is not scientific.
If pro-lifers want to hold any set of beliefs, they are within their rights. But, let me bold this for emphasis: Life beginning at conception is not a scientific belief but a theological one.
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.
Seriously! Get these eugenicist fucks outta here!
He makes no argument, but insists that "anyone with proper reasoning" shares his opinion. This is what allowing a professional holy man to do your thinking looks like.
Wtf is wrong with you? You seem deranged.
Eugenicist trash human, you are
Is this true? Do you mourn for people executed for capital crimes, jihadists killed fighting U.S. troops, or criminals killed in self-defense? Or are you bending your definition of "murder" to include deaths you personally dislike committed by people you dislike?
Helpful hint: "Murder" is a legal term. It has a specific set of elements which need to be satisfied by law for someone to be termed a murderer. Abortion is specifically excluded in these definitions nationwide and therefore is not murder.
If you want to use "murder" in a moral or theological context, then that's a mere personal opinion which nobody is obligated to believe and "proper reasoning" does not apply.
When people are executed or killed in self defense it is not murder. So no I don’t mourn them.
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.)
The life beginning at conception is explained by the fact that that's when the unique genetic code is created and doesn't ever fundamentally change through a person's life. There's no point after conception where you can say that it isn't a human being.
Pro-life people generally don't follow the belief that liberals tend to have that all life is precious and must be prolonged regardless of any other considerations. Liberals tend to think the life of a pedophile is equal to that of a normal law abiding citizen while somehow also considering an unborn baby to be nothing but a clump of cells.
My point of managing resources more responsibly has a hell of a lot to be unpacked:
You need all the other jobs to support the lives of the people working on that and there's the gradual development of technology that came before just to even have any hope of having the technology of deflecting asteroids. You also need a large enough pool of people to select people that have aptitude for it and are passionate about it. Besides, there's not much point in preserving life if it can't be enjoyed.
Lots to address here and most all of it is irrelevant to the thread topic about "life beginning at conception being science" while wearing masks to not spread disease is not.
Wrong. Terri Schiavo and millions languishing hopelessly in nursing homes due to massive strokes or Alzheimer's are there because of people who believe "life must be prolonged at any cost". The resistance to euthanasia and "death with dignity" comes from the theocratic right, including pro-lifers and religious fundamentalists.
I never said Africans and Central Americans are genetically irredeemable, but you choose to presume that based on nothing. What is factual is that none of these areas have the requisite educational or infrastructure development which has led to achievements in space exploration, rocketry, or even large-scale industrialization needed to accomplish something as grand as protecting earth from an asteroid strike. These are achievements which are primarily from the U.S., Russia, and Europe who actually do have functioning space programs and large-scale industrialization. That's who would do the work of protecting Earth.
Reasonable thoughts, but still far off in time. Human population is exponentially increasing between now and when that happens.
An interesting perspective on having more versus less people, but not a direct addressing of the issue of abortion.
I have to wonder how "enjoying life" plays into the decision to force an uneducated drug-using single mother to try and raise a child in poverty. Most pro-lifers seem to think that women can be forced to give birth and, upon seeing a child, will become responsible and industrious. More than likely, the child will be raised with neglect and abuse and - once they reach their teens - will become either a criminal or another irresponsible single parent.
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.
Well if you can’t figure out that people obviously are referring to human life when they say “life begins at conception” then Idk what to tell you. It’s always used in the context of abortion and therefore is always meant in the context of human life.
You are obviously right that a lot of things produce asexually, but it is obvious that pro-lifers are not talking about those things. It shouldn’t be that hard for you to understand that.
The very topic of this thread calls "life beginning at conception" a scientific concept. It is not. That's my point and you don't seem to comprehend it. A definition of life which applies to humans and nothing else is not scientific.
If pro-lifers want to hold any set of beliefs, they are within their rights. But, let me bold this for emphasis: Life beginning at conception is not a scientific belief but a theological one.