I do not believe human life begins at conception (translation, Revelation, suicide)

[ancient warrior]

Originally Posted by stargazzer

It sounds fancy but there is a problem. The problem is there is no living individual person who is not needing an outside agency in order to continue developing as a person. If the mother walks away from the infant , the infant cannot live and develop. Also the new beings impact from conception on society, in its effect on the mother and consequently in great significance on society.

A person is entirely engaged in developing person-hood in every moment of every day. The becoming in life begins at conception ending in this existence at passing. All within the well known perpetual state of continuing molecular disorder.

In order to fix a moment of person-hood as its self known, all suggestions away from conception ask the obvious phenomenal event in unity at conception, to stand aside for something.

Therefore any argument away from conception requires to bring along something in an event which strikes a rational & critical happening, which at very least compares with the phenomenon of unity in consequence to contrast.. necessary and event-full, in creation itself.

RESPONSE:

>>> If the mother walks away from the infant , the infant cannot live and develop.<<<

Perhaps you overlooked the last sentence in the essay.

"Neither is there good philosophical evidence that the principle of immaterial individuality need be present from the beginning to explain the physical development of the pre-embryo".

A mother does not "walk away" from the pre-embryo within her.

[stargazzer]

Originally Posted by ancient warrior

RESPONSE:

>>> If the mother walks away from the infant , the infant cannot live and develop.<<<

Perhaps you overlooked the last sentence in the essay.

"Neither is there good philosophical evidence that the principle of immaterial individuality need be present from the beginning to explain the physical development of the pre-embryo".

A mother does not "walk away" from the pre-embryo within her.

1) She can walk away by both self destruction in varying or absolute ways and secondly, aborting the pregnancy itself.

2) I'm not so sure the "physical" development of the pre-embryo is exempt from "material" individuality.The individual state of being, begins its being, at conception. How could it not.

3) People need people all the way through for development, theres no escape.

[ancient warrior]

Originally Posted by stargazzer

1) She can walk away by both self destruction in varying or absolute ways and secondly, aborting the pregnancy itself.

2) I'm not so sure the "physical" development of the pre-embryo is exempt from "material" individuality.The individual state of being, begins its being, at conception. How could it not.

3) People need people all the way through for development, theres no escape.

RESPONSE:

Perhaps this example will help. I've grown human tissue cells in cell culture. They each divide forming two 'daughter" cells exact copies of themselves. This process is continued until all the space on the petri dish is covered.

Each of these cells contain the complete genome (the DNA) of the parent cell. If a cell nucleus were to be implanted in an appropriate uterus, an newborn would result, a clone of the parent. (This was done in the case of Dolly the Lamb.(see Wikipedia)

But it would be a mistake to call these living, human, reproducing cells human persons until they became a human fetus.

[stargazzer]

Originally Posted by ancient warrior

RESPONSE:

Perhaps this example will help. I've grown human tissue cells in cell culture. They each divide forming two 'daughter" cells exact copies of themselves. This process is continued until all the space on the petri dish is covered.

Each of these cells contain the complete genome (the DNA) of the parent cell. If a cell nucleus were to be implanted in an appropriate uterus, an newborn would result, a clone of the parent. (This was done in the case of Dolly the Lamb.(see Wikipedia)

But it would be a mistake to call these living, human, reproducing cells human persons until they became a human fetus.

All the conditions achieve in this example is an infringement on development, and therefore is without any reasonable access to development, and therefore is without help for above suggestion. ( I think off topic AW plus not to say I'm going against my thinking but find some trouble arguing hikers initial idea in an outright absolute way. IOW for myself there seems to be more hazy room in hikers neck of the woods, in exact, fully absolute ways.

[rifleman]

Yikes! I'm pretty sure I've just landed in an alien world, and I sure don't speak the language as written directly above by stargazzer! Yikes again!

Anyhow, as I stated elsewhere, a human does not become so at conception, and certainly not until it is taught, partially through it's inherited genome but mostly by it's association with others of its species.

A human raised by wolves (* a common fairy tale, but there have been cases of humans influenced by species other than humans) would tend, obviously, towards non-human behaviors and reactions, and is thus behaviorally quite different.

Ergo: no God required, only repetitive experiences coupled with the biochemical/neuronal ability to absorb memories and behavioral engrams. Proven time and again in objective and documented laboratory experiments.

[stargazzer]

I'm not sure if the DNA with the wolf example and all regular toddler's DNA are any different, I thought the DNA was in order at conception, maybe I'm wrong about this....anyway its popular to pick things out of a hat these days and ask the unity event at conception to stand aside....I'm sorry but I can't be bothered with the argumentative in the nature of the subject and find it repetitious.

[hiker45]

Originally Posted by stargazzer

I'm sorry but I can't be bothered with the argumentative in the nature of the subject and find it repetitious.

For someone who "can't be bothered", you sure have posted a lot under this thread.

[stargazzer]

Originally Posted by hiker45

For someone who "can't be bothered", you sure have posted a lot under this thread.

don't mind talking about about things but can't be bothered with the always seen argle-bargle in this topic.

[SeekerSA]

This old argument does get mundane.

LIFE does not begin at conception. The origin of life of a human however does.

LIFE begins post birth and even then it is very fragile and needs the support of its mother (and father) for quite some time. Even when sentience kicks in at age 3 or so, a child still does not have the wherewithal to fend for itself. Only once it reaches adulthood does it become capable of fending for itself and by adulthood I mean 12ish.

If the prolife stance of beginning at conception were mandated into law, then miscarriages would need to be examined for wrongful doings on the part of the expectant mother and/or funerals held for the not yet born foetus. Good luck finding a pastor or priest that would conduct such a funeral. Even clergy officially recognise that life begins at birth and so too the secular laws. This is why you have infanticide laws to protect the young and killing wilfully or accidentally will result in a criminal investigation and charges being applied if found to be suspect like murder or manslaughter.

If every conception resulted in a live birth then this argument of mine would be moot. We all know that this is not the case and this is why you do not have laws that force women to carry to term and unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. The laws usually acknowledge that around 20 weeks, elective terminations are no longer par for the course and you will find this all around the world where abortions are legal. Abortions post this period of gestation usually are very rare and usually have to be signed off on by some legal or second opinion.

The problem is that the prolifers take these rare cases and graphically show or try to induce feelings of awe shucks to further their stupid agendas when the majority of abortions occur in the first trimester and are chemically induced to force a miscarriage. This practice is as old as the hills but with modern medicine a lot less messy.

At the end of the day, abortion should be down to the choice of the woman (and partner) and in reality does not affect anyone one iota.

I wish these twits will look at the stats and see that way over 90% of pregnancies in the US go to term, all of it is a google search away. There are still enough live births so the human species is in no threat of extinction.

[stargazzer]

Well thats interesting and now its for the convenience of justice and not justice itself, adding tradition in mourning idea's, asking the unity at conception to stand aside.

All anybody needs to do is ask a mother who has given birth to a bunch about how different each baby is and how differently each baby behaves....add to it the known reality that each in a bunch brought up exactly the same way are going to be all incredibly different and unique. ( same family all very different people

With above the memory and experience card including development can't be played because it contradicts above findings by denying an obvious essence of self that is missing in order to not only fill the empty gap, but obviously is dramatically impervious to experience, memory and development.

It seems to me that there is a choice in only two possibilities because...there are only two very significant happenings. So if both are denied the fixing of when the person is a human being, the suggestion cannot be anything but less significant. Conception and the Big Smack at birth.

I'm not so sure if anything else achieves anything more then stamping individuals out on an assembly line asking climate or whatever to decide who you are...Anyway if someone wants to argue this thats fine and I don't think I can think of anything else in this opinion other then I havn't seen anything else that makes sense...why..? because if the question is considered at all, the premise is that there is a moment when the propagation process exacts a human being. To introduce a process of development after conception simply defines the known development which begins at conception... and cannot become anything but a human being, including the above described uniqueness...

an argument is required to suggest the pregnancy is influencing the unique person seen in families, the position has no foundation for the claim. So whats left..? picking and choosing a favorable frame in development ...prob in 5000 years when man gets a little more organized things will be looked back on and seen differently, always seems to be the way, if people want to think of it as a crowded tooth well thats what makes the world what it is...different opinions.