There are many different debates going on about abortion on this site. The main thing that seems to be the conflicting fact that people cannot agree on is at what stage the entity is a human being. At conception is one of the extreme views. The others expand from that increasing in length of time. Here's the question for you to answer with your beliefs: At What Point Is The Entity Created By Heterosexual Procreation Classified As A New, Unique Human Being? Scientific studies are not required, this is really a matter of belief; but if you have any that you feel would add to the subject matter please, share them.
-
.21% Voted for by DryIce808, -TheLoneWolf-, netnerd183, janadu, Insertnamehere. (12 total)
When the umbilical cord is cut.
-
My Opinion17% Voted for by looking4realtruth, DarkWithTeardrops, RuthArabellaTrasher, Zues, SoldierOfDreams. (10 total)
I answer to the question: "At What Point Is The Entity Created By Heterosexual Procreation Classified As A New, Unique Human Being?" my answer is at conception, when a new, unique, never-before-created diploid cell comes into exsistance upon the merging of the sperm cell and the egg cell.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment: -
I still remind you that a "new, unique, never-before-created diploid cell comes that into exsistance upon the merging of the sperm cell and the egg cell," can still become any cell in the human body. You should drop the science. You yourself have admitted to knowing little. It is way easier to make that new cell into a skin cell than it is into a baby. A healthy baby requires 40 weeks of development. It requires hormones secreted by the mother and implantation. It requires nutrition and waste removal. This by no means occurs at conception. It can, but it can just as easily be aborted. In fact, 30% of all pregnancies are spontaneously aborted naturally. I guess that makes God a baby murderer as well. Now a skin cell, that is far easier for the embryo to do. All the "new, unique, never-before-created diploid cell comes into exsistance upon the merging of the sperm cell and the egg cell" needs to do is be placed in skin tissue and it has the possibility of differentiating into a skin cell. Stop with the diploid cell argument. You always are using science in the wrong places. You can't use science against the scientists. Go back to moral philosophy, you still have a shot there.
-
I never said that it couldn't be transformed into a skin cell. but you still haven't discounted the fact that it's a unique never-been-created before genetic patern, making it UNIQUE. And we are killing it because it is unique human genetic structure.
-
-
Lol, now you are just talking in circles. I have already explained that even though it may be unique, so are billions of immunological cells in your body. Those are COMPLETELY UNIQUE genetic codes. We kill those all the time. I guess it should be illegal to get sick.
-
-
Those cells are coded with our genetic pattern. The ones I'm talking about have never been created before. You still haven't discounted that end of it. There are two qualifications: Unique, and Never-before-created.
-
YES THEY DO. The immunological cells I am talking about are unique and have never been created before. They are new and specific to a certain disease or antibody. Each of those are completely unique from any other cell in the universe.
-
-
A disease or an antibody doesn't have the capability to evolve into a human being. Unless you can show me a study that says otherwise....
-
-
First of all, its not the disease or antibody, its the cell that is specific for them. Second of all, in your previous post you never said anything about the capability of becoming a human. I was just answering your specifics. Like I have said before, you add a new stipulation every single time. Lots of things are more than capable of becoming human adults, but we kill them all the time with little disregard. The U.S. also has the highest infant mortality rate of all industrialized nations. I feel that it is interesting that we make such a politically charged debate about a cluster of cells, but when it comes to a real live human, we as an American society could give a shit less. We are the HIGHEST of industrialized nations in infant morality rate. This is death directly after birth. These parents want to keep their babies and lose them to our system. It is mainly people like you who kill them. People who become absorbed in religiously charged issues that have little to no importance, and forget about real people and real living babies that are dying. This a much more important social and medical issue than abortion and I urge you to start considering it. People have seem to become so absorbed with this abortion debate, which to me seems to be only politics and a destraction. There are real, preventable issues here that need to be addressed.
-
-
Fine. The CELL of a disease or an antibody doesn't have the capability to become a human. Are those infant mortality rates as high as 9 million a year? It's cold, unforgiving numbers. That's why we focus on abortion. And if you can find another issue where I believe over 9 million of what I consider humans are killed each year I'll start a debate about that too.
-
-
You really are something. You think because you post a statistic I am just going to believe you. Take a look. Here are the official statistics: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html Its funny, if you go to official websites like this, you will get real statistics. If you go to anti-abortion websites like you go to, you can find number as high as this: http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html What they don't tell you is that this is worldwide and probably not even correct. You, my friend are an asshole though. I have the right to say that. Because 9 million a year is so stupid of a number that you would have to have a negative IQ to believe it. If you are counting any other nation than the U.S., than please stop. We have no control over other nations. Hopefully you did not honestly believe that to be a U.S. statistic did you? Getting to the official statistics and real numbers, if you look at the trends, they are going down as well. People have been having less abortions every year. You can form your own theories on why that is the case, but I feel it is due to increasing education about sex in the youth of the U.S.. Would you like to know what the infant mortality rate is for the U.S.? For every 1000 live births, 8 will die. In some nations its as high as 200 per 1000. That means 20% of their live births die within the first year. Back to the U.S., we are DEAD last of all industrialized nations. These are actual live babies that the parents want to keep. Its a lot more devastating, than a cluster of cells that were sucked out of a coked out mother. Did you know that there are woman who still smoke all the way through pregnancy? Should we allow them to keep their infant? If she neglected it all the way through its development, how great of a mother can she possibly be? How about the mother, who in the possible future of no legal abortions? Who is going to stop her from drowning the baby in alcohol? Would that be illegal? Fetal alcohol syndrome is a horrible thing to witness. I welcome you to look it up. Things are more complex then you make them out to be. Policy was decided based on these considerations. Not everyone who is pro-choice sees abortions positivly. In fact, most people think they are horrible. But, think of what people will do to themselves if abortion is not legal? Think of the under the counter abortions with knitting needles and clothes hangers. Think about the woman who would neglect the care of the fetus, because they do not want it anyways?
-
-
Fine. I'll admit it. I heard that statistic from someone else on this site and didn't even think to look it up before I spat it out again. To me it seemed plausible. Based on how much people fuck nowadays and how loose people's morals are 9 million wouldn't surprise me. We have around 290 million people in the US. That means about 3.1% of the US population is getting an abortion every year. According to (http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/uspopperspec/uspopperspec.html), 39 million US women are fertile, sexually active, and do not want to get pregnant. That's 13% of the US population. Not exactly implausible. But you are right and it's totally my fault and I'm sorry. So it's actually closer to 1.1 million. Even though it's not on there if it kept on decreasing the same rate that's about where it would end up. That's the number of legal abortions anyways. Also, why are there sources from England and Wales and Canada if these are US stats? And I don't think we should just make abortion illegal; i think we should make the penalty for it the same as is for a homicide. That might make those people out there who are happily fucking away because they know they can always fall back on abortions think twice. Children are our future. Without them we have nothing. Anyone who could neglect a child like that or neglect their pre-natal care or anything of that sort should be thrown in jail and their child taken away. As for the infant mortality rate, since you're you, you must have a website to back yourself up. I'd like to see it please. Actually, one of the reasons I focus on abortion instead of infant death syndrome is because abortion is a hot issue right now. Try to talk to someone about IDS and they'll be like "huh?". Everyone knows what abortion is and since it's already an issue it's the perfect time to pass some legislation on it making it illegal.
-
-
First of all, if you look at the trends, it is near 500,000 a year. But I am trying to go beyond disproving your posts and I am really trying to reach you. You are totally ignoring the complexities behind abortion. You are stating things as if they are black and white, when they are really a shade of gray. Abortion is a socio-economic issue more than anything else. So is infant mortality rate. This is not the same thing as SIDS. SIDS is sudden infant death syndrome. That is completely different. What I am talking about focuses more on premature birth and NICUs. Getting back to abortion. It is not that simple. It used to be illegal. Take some time to look up what used to happen when it was illegal. It was horrible. You want my statistics on infant mortality? It would be just as easy for you to look it up and actually learn something, but here you go: Here is an etiological explanation of it and some statistics: http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Health2/World_Health1.htm This is a list of all nations; the U.S. is dead last of industrialized nations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate Finally, here is an interesting article I hope you will read: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/now/dec10/apha_infant.html That is all for now, but if you want more statistics and more validity, feel free to ask.
-
-
Thanx
-
-
So... now what do you think?
-
-
I still think that abortion is destroying a life and committing murder. You haven't changed my views on it.
-
-
After how you responded on the gay post with, "I don't want my kids around you people," I don't think I want to even hold a debate with you anymore on anything. Its a waste of time to talk to an idiot. I thought you were smarter than that.
-
-
At least this "idiot" doesn't degenerate to name calling. Also, if you don't want to hold a debate with me anymore, then don't.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bebes
I think that a baby is a baby at contriception.. this is because at contriception an new embyro is inside your body anjd one that isnt a part of yourself directly.. surely this would mean that if it is not reghonised as you it would techniquely be alien.. (not alien as in little green thing).. we know it is not 'alien' so therefore it is human and a very very veryyyyyyy young one.. very young humans are called BABIES.. -
-
No...
Conception does not produce a self-sustaining life form. A zygote or an embryo is, in a sense, a parasite, living off the mother and being unable to live on its own for quite a bit of time (usually sometime around 28 weeks). I could not abort my own offspring, but I will not limit someone else's rights. Roe v. Wade established first term abortions are legal. This is OK with me, doesn't affect me. I do agree with President Bush asking for (and getting) a ban on partial birth abortions (which I consider murder). My two cents...
-
-
DarkWithTeardrops, you have posted this idiotic statement over and over again. I at first thought you were kidding. Now, I realize, you are just ignorant. The word 'contriception' and 'conception' are completely different. Contriception spelt (contraception) is a way to prevent babies. Conception is fertilization. This is not something I should have to explain to someone in an abortion debate.
-
Funny, DryIce808, how you attacked DarkWithTeardrops SPELLING and not their ARGUMENT. We all know that they meant conception. Quit nitpicking and confront them.
-
I think that argument was a total waste of time. DryIce, you knew what looking4realtruth meant. You just had to be right.
-
Maybe you guys should re-read what DryIce had to say. I thought his argument was of the highest calibre I've seen on this site, and well articulated.
-
-
This coming from the individual who called me a baby? Shocking.
-
-
Those studies on hormones only prove that they influence gender (masculinity and femininity) NOT sexual orientation.
-
I agree with ads
-
-
From it's conception.14% Voted for by Black Velvet Rose, Sarah957, RuthArabellaTrasher, BrandonHerron270, Makessenseright. (8 total)
From the moment of conception - period.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
Periods or conception? Two very different things!!
-
I agree
If you have an abortion you are no better than a murderer!
-
-
.....8% Voted for by EternalEyes, star-filled-sky, la petite sirene, BrandonHerron270, Makessenseright.
No matter how the baby will end up without an abortion, it was meant to live, unless, of course, it dies in the womb for various causes. But think about this - A child BECOMES a child once is is out of the womb, but it is already meant to live in the future. So if you destroy a fetus in the present, you're killing a baby in the future. Get my drift?
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
No, not at all. If I use a condom I'm stopping a future conception. If I tell my prospective lover that I'm not ready yet, I'm destroying a future child. If I'm in bed with my wife and she tells me she's too tired that night and we miss the proper ovulation period, she stopped the stopped the baby in the future of being conceived. If it was MEANT to live beyond all else, wouldn't it simply live in spite of attempted abortions? If anything the "meant to be" argument only supports abortions. It is better to debate on ethical measures than mystical possiblities.
-
If you use a condom a diploid cell was never formed therefore a fetus was never formed. The same goes for your "in bed with wife" argument. As for your twist on the meant to live philosophy, yeah, a fetus is going to continue to grow and develop into a baby while it's ina garbage can with it's brains in another garbage can. I'd like to see a babay thats survived an abortion too.
-
-
What's the difference between the "potential life" of a sperm or egg and the "potential life" of a fetus and earlier forms of development? I think it's a very gray area that I'm not comfortable in deciding fully yet, but to say that once conceived it's the same thing as a fully grown baby is a bit ridiculous. "As for your twist on the meant to live philosophy," You're right. It wouldn't live. So therefore it wasn't "meant to live" in some higher sense as EternalEyes suggested. I'm not saying this proves it's right, only that implying that if everything that exists has a purpose is a horrible idea because then all murders and destructions could be justified by saying "Well, obviously they weren't meant to live anymore." "while it’s ina garbage can with it’s brains in another garbage can" I don't believe they perform abortions like this anymore and that the latest stage you can perform one you wouldn't even be able to see the fetus without special instruments. If it even is a fetus. I'm actually not up to date on the current abortion laws in the US, but I know partial is (thankfully) illegal. How do you feel about things like the "morning after" pill, where there is absolutely no trace of a fetus?
-
-
I feel that a human being is created at conception, when the genetic codes of two individuals combine to create a new unique code. The difference between a sperm and an egg cell and a fetus is that a sperm or an egg cell cannot develop into a human being on it's own.
-
"when the genetic codes of two individuals combine to create a new unique code" That's actually the most reasonable explanation I have ever heard for the "at conception" argument. You should try and spread that around to other people who have no reason other than being told so. I'll have to think on that one for a while. "The difference between a sperm and an egg cell and a fetus is that a sperm or an egg cell cannot develop into a human being on it’s own" Well, neither can a conceived egg or a fetus. It needs to be nurtured inside the womb (or maybe some super laboratory) or it will not develop on it's own.
-
Yes, but even with nurturing, a sperm or egg cell doesn't have the capability to become a person. A concieved egg or fetus does.
-
Sure it does. It just needs the proper supplies and oppurtunities, just like the developing conceived egg.
-
No, a sperm cell or unfertilized egg CANNOT grow into a human being. It is not a unique entity. It has the same genentic code as the mother/father.
-
"No, a sperm cell or unfertilized egg CANNOT grow into a human being" On it's own, of course not. But "It just needs the proper supplies and oppurtunities".
-
No, it needs another human carrying an opposite cell. Without the other cell, it CANNOT form into a human being. A diploid cell is already a unique genetic code. A sperm or egg cell is not.
-
"No, it needs another human carrying an opposite cell" AKA "he proper supplies and oppurtunities". "Without the other cell, it CANNOT form into a human" Without a lot of things. "A diploid cell is already a unique genetic code. A sperm or egg cell is not." Well of course it is. That's why your brothers and sisters aren't identical. That's why fraternal twins aren't identical and sometimes are even different genders.
-
With a diploid cell, a new organism has already been formed. With a sperm or an egg cell, there's only half of the genetic material needed to create a human. A diploid cell has all genetic material required to make a unique human being. RANT: YOU CAN'T MAKE A TEST TUBE BABY WITH JUST A DAMN SPERM CELL DUH. YOU NEED AN EGG CELL. IF YOU IMPLANTED AN UNFERTILIZED EGG CELL INTO A WOMAN A NEW BEING WILL NOT GROW INSIDE OF HER. INPUT A DIPLOID CELL AND YOU HAVE AN ORGANISM WITH THE CAPABILITY OF BECOMING A HUMAN.
-
When did we decide that when you can start making a test tube baby, it is a now a human? Yeah, you can't have a baby without a fetus, a fetus without a diploid cell, a diploid cell without a conceived egg, a conceived egg without a period and an erect/ejaculated penis...It's all a list of supplies that go up to the baby stage.
-
I refuse to argue with you over this any longer. People who read this will understand what I mean and will think you're an idiot for arguing that a diploid cell and a sperm or egg cell are the same thing.
-
-
I’m going to agree with Weydon on this one. I think you are too caught up with your small amount of knowledge in basic biology to see the big picture here. YES, a diploid cell IS different from either haploid cell in the fact that it has a different genetic code. So what! So does a skin cell. Guess what, you have an enormous array immunological cells in your body with different genetic codes, does that make them seperate organisms? Absolutly not. All cells need to be in the proper environment to mature into what they are supposed to mature into. If you take that embryo that you so proudly proclaim to be a fucking baby and put it next to some scrotum cells, guess what, you no longer have a baby, you have a cell that just differentiated into a scrotum cell. Idiot.
-
-
Do every single one of those diploid cells that you're talking about have a UNIQUE genetic pattern that's different from all the others and which has NEVER BEEN CREATED BEFORE? As far as I know, (and I'm aware of how lowly I am in the area of biology), those diploid cells are all coded with OUR unique genetic pattern. As for your scrotum cell rant, prove it. Since you claim to be such an advanced student of medicine and anatomy, it should be no problem for you. And I totally agree. That diploid cell created through sex only needs "to be in the proper environment to mature into what they are supposed to mature into." 100% agree.
-
-
I hope you did not say "prove it," thinking that I just make assertions without any knowledge behind them. If you did, then that wasn't a good idea. Here it goes: A fertilized egg is also an embryonic stem cell. This is a pluripotent cell, meaning, it has the possibility of becoming any cell in the human body. It COULD become a human being, but it could also differentiate into a liver cell, a heart cell, a spleen cell, a lung cell, and even a scrotum skin cell. Your knowledge of biology is low, because to ask me to prove something like this shows you have no concept of stem cells. There is no need for me to prove how this works. Stem cell research has already proven it. I can send you several links about people who are doing this all the time as their JOB. Some are even in the United States doing it. It is a very powerful but controversal way to heal diseases. It has the possibility of treating blindness, cancer, perminant nerve damage, Parkinsons disease, and a wide array of other things. It works by inserting the stem cells (diploid cells you so proudly proclaim as human beings) into those specific tissues. The stem cells will then differentiate into neighboring cells. These new, healthy, cells can then be multiplied and used to treat the above or other diseases. Is that significant proof or do you want the links? And another thing, The only way that cell turns into a baby is with the right combination of hormones secreted by the mother or lab technician. Plus the external environment needs to be correct as well. An embryo grown in a lab can only go so far. It needs to implant on the uterine wall and continue to recieve hormone treatments. Taken out of this environment and deprived of hormones, that cell is no longer even a future baby, its just a pluripotent cell. You may as well call it a scrotum cell, because without those hormones, it has a far better chance becoming a scrotum cell than a baby.
-
-
I did not say prove it just for effect. I knew it was possible and I am aware of the methods used in stem cell research. There's two sides to that too but I'm not going to get into that ether. And thank you for being big enough to admit that "It COULD become a human being". And I stand by my case that since it's a unique genetic pattern of a human, we are killing a unique "thing" that has the capability, like you said, of becoming a unique never-before-created human being. Do all those diploid cells have that capability? Of becoming a unique, never before-created genetic pattern? If not, then you can't compare them.
-
-
Why would you ask me to prove it then??? Your most recent reply is quite a stretch. Just what exactly now is your point now? Because the cell has a chance to become a human, it is immoral to kill it? Like Weydon has said all long, sperm and egg have the possibility to become human beings as well. Every time a woman menstruates she is killing an ovum that could have become a human if she had sex. These things are great stretches, just as your point is as well. As far as your, "becoming a new never before-created genetic pattern" statement, embryos do not BECOME a new pattern. Once created, they already have this new pattern. The same with immunological cells. Once created, they have a unique genome.
-
-
Exactly. Once created, they have a unique genome. That genome is the pattern for a specific individual. It is the start of that organism's existance. To cut off that process at any point would be murder. Unless it was done in self-defense.
-
-
You keep adding stipulations onto your theorem. It has been changed every single time I have responded. This argument is done, primarily because you are relentless. Every time I prove one of your statements wrong, you add something knew for me to prove. WHY DON'T YOU PROVE YOURSELF RIGHT FOR ONCE? The burden of proof is on the hypothesizer. If you are going to formulate a hypothesis, it is your job to prove that assertion. Give me your proof, and it cannot include the existance of god. That is not science.
-
-
As a matter of fact, the first beliefs regarding abortion thought it morally wrong and that is WAS murder. And even though it's now legal, I have heard NO HYPOTHESISES FROM ANYONE AS TO WHY IT WAS MADE LEGAL OR WHY IT SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE. YOU PEOPLE NEVER PROVED IT WAS RIGHT. THE BURDEN IS ON YOU TO PROVE IT IS RIGHT NOW THAT WE ARE CASTING ASIDE YOUR UNPROVEN BELIEFS REGARDING ABORTION. And the whole point of this site is to mold and shape your beliefs by exposing them to others. There is nothing wrong with modifying my beliefs. Beliefs constantly change. Shouldn't our moral views of the world reflect this? And since you have failed to come up with an argument against it, I assume you have none.
-
-
I am just tired of making new arguments, and instead of you conceding that I am right, you just tweak your point of view. You keep making me have to prove you wrong. I've done it several times. I would like you for once to prove yourself RIGHT.
-
-
It doesn't work that way. My point of view changes with the obstacles I face. Keep putting them up and I'll keep going around them. And I'll never concede that you're right. And since I doubt you'll concede that I am, I agree we should close this debate.
-
-
Perhaps... I think we both knew this was a dead end at the start.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Most concrete argument I've ever heard.
-
/
-
Too bad there's only one problem. No, you can't "take that embryo that you so proudly proclaim to be a fucking baby and put it next to some scrotum cells", and wind up with, "a cell that just differentiated into a scrotum cell", because the genetic codes are different. You're just wasting your time arguing semantics to prove you're right. And it's, frankly, annoying.
-
-
-
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Weydon
February 11, 2006
February 11, 2006
Weydon
February 12, 2006
February 13, 2006
Weydon
February 13, 2006
February 14, 2006
Weydon
February 15, 2006
Edit | Reply
February 11, 2006
Edit | Reply
February 11, 2006
its a baby when concived!(sp?)
its a baby when concived!(sp?)February 11, 2006
Edit | Reply
February 12, 2006
Edit | Reply
February 14, 2006
Edit | Reply
February 16, 2006
Edit | Reply
February 24, 2006
Edit | Reply
February 24, 2006
Edit | Reply
February 26, 2006
Edit | Reply
March 14, 2006
Edit | Reply
ExpensiveThinker
March 31, 2006
Edit | Reply
Weydon
April 11, 2006
Edit | Reply
Energizer Bunny
April 28, 2006
Edit | Reply
d1darkmasr
its a baby when concived!(sp?) -------------------------------------------------- I 100% agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Xelgaroth
July 17, 2007
October 31, 2007
Edit | Reply
October 31, 2007
Edit | Reply
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free