What if life does begin at conception?

The point would be to have minimal government interference in our lives. Both sides abuse power.

 

Life does begin at conception. Dead matter never becomes live matter as was believed in the dark ages when spontaneous generation was in vogue, or as in the Frankenstein movies.

 

That I certainly agree with.

 

Then life begins long before conception.....both sperm and ang are alive.

 

And unfortunately the thread he turned into just another pro and anti abortion thread as I assumed it would. The OP was drawing a parallel between AGW laws being enforced on the premise of what if it's true man is warming the planet and a strict no abortion law based on the premise of what if it's true life begins at conception. As I suspected those that agree with the what if rule in AGW head for the hills when asked if the what if rule still applies for abortion. I think I made my point here and I'll move on.

 

Bull crap. I specifically answered your question.

 

No you dodged a simple yes or no question with multiple attempts at diversion and obfuscation.

Yes or no?

 

And I said that life begins at conception. WTF is so hard for you to grasp here?

 

Doesn't matter if "life" starts at conception....women still have the right to their own bodies (in most states) and so can kill it.

Nothing to do with AGW..

 

I believe two are sharing the body, in that instance.

Normal rights are temporarily modified;
it's not forever.

We must respect the rights of both entities within the body, both the woman, and the fetus who cannot consent.

No different than if you are born a conjoined twin, and separation is impossible without killing at least one of you.

 

No, they are not.

Which of your rights can I temporarily modify?

Irrelevant ...meaningless..

NO, we must respect the rights of the one who has rights and that would be the woman(in case you're confused on that point )

Nope, that's another issue.

 

Gametes are alive, but are not human beings.

 

Of course it does, when a consensual act of the "other" puts the first party in a position of dependency.

And your basis for that claim is...?

 

exactly, if I started baking a cake, had all the ingredients in a baking pan all ready to bake and then decided not to after I put in the oven.... then was it ever a cake....

when would if of began being a cake if I did finish the cake?
when would if of began being a cake if I did not finish the cake? (on would it only of been a potential cake)

when it was in the mixing bowl?
when it was in the oven?
when it came out of the oven a unfinished product?
when it came out of the oven a finished product?

 

You should start protests regarding all of those killed by god and Mother Nature and take all those idiots who harass and invade the privacy of women going to clinics with you.

 

Neither is a ZEF.

 

Seriously, a potential life Does begin at conception. But for legal purposes I would be happy if the decision to abort had to be made in the first trimester. I a woman can't do that she is an idiot and so legally have to carry to term. Too many couples that can't have children would far to happy to adopt.

 

These statements refer to two distinct arguments. Libertarian arguments (such as Thomson's) suggest that only explicit (perhaps even contractual) agreements can designate responsibility. This is why they argue positive rights are illegitimate and why, legally, there are no Good Samaritan laws (in the US). It may be a nice thing to do to help someone, but they argue, it is not ethically (a duty) or legally required of someone (even if one does participate in the creation of the situation).

Your second question refers to the second type of argument - those based on personhood claims (many of whom find the negative rights approach insufficient). The "hence" term that begins my statement here is a conclusion indicator, which explicitly ties the idea back to the preceding claims (premises) made earlier in the argument (i.e. the "basis of that claim").

 

And if the ultrasound shows a non viable foetus?

 

Nope you were trying to build a giant straw man out of a handful of wilted weeds

 

How easily and quickly you determine women to be idiots... not only idiots but people who should be punished for being an idiot by being physically harmed...
...not only an idiot who should be punished by being forced to gestate but further punished by having her baby taken away.

Is this where you say you aren't a misogynist???

 

But then you go on to say it's not really life and not worth caring about so no you didn't answer the question

 

Nope just pointing out the duplicitous stand of leftist who say what if it's true is grounds for implementation of global warming laws but what if it's true is not grounds for implementation of anti abortion laws.

 

Clearly it's more than just potential, because it's growing.

So what is she if she can't keep her legs closed? A Noel laureate?

You don't say.

Because...?

The problem being, obviously, that the "preceding claims" provide no basis for the claim I underlined, which is obviously the one I was asking about.