Ohio State Sen. says if men are so worried about wombs, then turnabout is fair play

[eeyore1954]

I loved how some people have tried to justify the law because "hey, if she can have intercourse what's she so worried about a probe for?".

I sincerely doubt if that is a widespread justification. Even among the evil women hating republicans.

Stupid people say that. Really stupid and ignorant people say that.

Something we can agree on.
Just because I went to the bathroom today doesn't mean I shouldn't be against a forced colonoscopy.

 

[A'isha]

Is there any scientific consensus that the time a new human life begins is anytime other than conception or immediately afterward?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin?

 

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by eeyore1954
Is there any scientific consensus that the time a new human life begins is anytime other than conception or immediately afterward?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin?

I was looking for actual scientific evidence or consensus. This is an article with different schools of thought. Interesting (although I had read it before) but it didn't help with this

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muldur
Because conception (union of sperm and egg) is the earliest point at which the pre-born baby exists as a distinct, identifiable entity.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo
Not according to actual medical science.

 

[Arcade22]

I was looking for actual scientific evidence

Then you will find none because what you are talking about isn't science but philosophy.

 

[A'isha]

I was looking for actual scientific evidence or consensus. This is an article with different schools of thought. Interesting (although I had read it before) but it didn't help with this

If conception is the point at which "the pre-born baby exists as a distinct, identifiable entity", then how do you account for twins (or triplets, etc.)?

 

[eeyore1954]

If conception is the point at which "the pre-born baby exists as a distinct, identifiable entity", then how do you account for twins (or triplets, etc.)?

My feeling is when the egg splits you now have two distinct separate living entities. That does not mean you did not have a distinct identifiable life before the split.

Is there any scientific literature on this?

 

[A'isha]

My feeling is when the egg splits you now have two distinct separate living entities. That does not mean you did not have a distinct identifiable life before the split.

It certainly means that you didn't have two distinct identifiable lives before the split. So where does the second distinct identifiable life come from, and why wasn't it also distinct and identifiable at conception?

Is there any scientific literature on this?

http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf

 

[eeyore1954]

It certainly means that you didn't have two distinct identifiable lives before the split. So where does the second distinct identifiable life come from, and

The second life comes from the splitting of the cell. Just because a cell can split and form a new life doesn't mean the first cell was not a distinct identifiable life before the split.

Why wasn't it also distinct and identifiable at conception?

I don't know.

http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf

This seems to be basically the same as what is in the first article.

 

[A'isha]

The second life comes from the splitting of the cell. Just because a cell can split and form a new life doesn't mean the first cell was not a distinct identifiable life before the split.

It also doesn't mean it was, and in fact casts doubt on the claim that "human life begins at conception", since for at least one individual in every set of twins, that's obviously untrue.

I don't know.

Which is why, as the linked paper shows, there are a number of ideas about when human life can be said to actually begin that are long after "conception", to take things like the existence of twins into account.

This seems to be basically the same as what is in the first article.

Except it's in the form of a paper with references and a bibliography. And it shows Mulder's statement to be incorrect, and mine to be correct: "Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it."

 

[eeyore1954]

It also doesn't mean it was, and in fact casts doubt on the claim that "human life begins at conception", since for at least one individual in every set of twins, that's obviously untrue.

It shows there is another way a human life can begin so it would cast doubt on the belief human life can only begin at conception.

Except it's in the form of a paper with references and a bibliography. And it shows Mulder's statement to be incorrect, and mine to be correct: "Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it."

It doesn't show he was wrong and you were correct. If there is a later point that life can begin at also does not make the statement "conception (union of sperm and egg) is the earliest point at which the pre-born baby exists as a distinct, identifiable entity." wrong.

 

[A'isha]

It shows there is another way a human life can begin so it would cast doubt on the belief human life can only begin at conception.

And if human life can begin other than at conception, then the importance of conception in determining when human life begins is drastically reduced, because it's no longer the definitive determinator.

It doesn't show he was wrong and you were correct. If there is a later point that life can begin at also does not make the statement "conception (union of sperm and egg) is the earliest point at which the pre-born baby exists as a distinct, identifiable entity." wrong.

Remember, my reply to his statement was "not according to actual medical science". And, as the paper I linked points out, my reply is absolutely true - medical science contradicts the idea that human life begins at conception (and, as the rest of the paper points out, it's definitely not true that "conception (union of sperm and egg) is the earliest point at which the pre-born baby exists as a distinct, identifiable entity").

 

[marplots]

Isn't it the case that the law is schizophrenic when it comes to defining human life? I seem to remember that an abortion could legally occur for a fetus, that if killed as the result of an assault, would be counted as a murder.

Do I have that right? One circumstance under the law where death is allowed and another where it's a crime - for the same fetus?

I think there may be another circumstance too: chemical endangerment of a child, when the "child" in question is still in utero.

 

[A'isha]

Isn't it the case that the law is schizophrenic when it comes to defining human life? I seem to remember that an abortion could legally occur for a fetus, that if killed as the result of an assault, would be counted as a murder.

Do I have that right? One circumstance under the law where death is allowed and another where it's a crime - for the same fetus?

I think there may be another circumstance too: chemical endangerment of a child, when the "child" in question is still in utero.

Those laws are mostly a backdoor attempt to outlaw abortion (deliberately introducing that contradiction in the law so it can be "resolved" by banning abortion as the same kind of murder). See also the attempts at introducing legislation mandating criminal investigations whenever there's a miscarriage.

 

[RandFan]

The point is moot until you define the word "life" and "separate entity".

Sperm do not have identical dna of the father. A spermatozoa that is not dead is a unique living human cell. It is human life. Likewise with Ovum. If sperm and ovum were all the same in each human then all of my children would be clones of each other. They would have the same hair color and eye color and look as identical as identical twins.

This point about "unique" is just an ad hoc rationalization. The point about "life" is just an equivocation. Human life doesn't begin. It's a continuation. Sperm and ovum are just as much alive and varied before conception as they are after.

Those are scientific facts.

 

[RandFan]

Those laws are mostly a backdoor attempt to outlaw abortion (deliberately introducing that contradiction in the law so it can be "resolved" by banning abortion as the same kind of murder). See also the attempts at introducing legislation mandating criminal investigations whenever there's a miscarriage.

It should be noted that the laws affect poor women. Those who can afford it can simply book a flight to another state. The poor women have to resort to coat hangers, increased likelihood of a lifetime of poverty, or giving up their child for adoption. Something quite contrary to human nature.

 

[A'isha]

It should be noted that the laws affect poor women. Those who can afford it can simply book a flight to another state. The poor women have to resort to coat hangers, increased likelihood of a lifetime of poverty, or giving up their child for adoption. Something quite contrary to human nature.

Republicans only care about the sacred right to life of a fetus before it's born. After it's born, it becomes just an excuse for those lazy 47%-ers to take undeserved money from the Job Creators, which is why SNAP and WIC need to be eliminated and the ACA/Medicaid have to be done away with.

 

[eeyore1954]

And if human life can begin other than at conception, then the importance of conception in determining when human life begins is drastically reduced, because it's no longer the definitive determinator.



Remember, my reply to his statement was "not according to actual medical science". And, as the paper I linked points out, my reply is absolutely true - medical science contradicts the idea that human life begins at conception (and, as the rest of the paper points out, it's definitely not true that "conception (union of sperm and egg) is the earliest point at which the pre-born baby exists as a distinct, identifiable entity").

Can you point me to where the paper points out "it's definitely not true that "conception (union of sperm and egg) is the earliest point at which the pre-born baby exists as a distinct, identifiable entity")

Is there any scientific evidence that human life begins at a time other than conception or when the cell splits?

 

[A'isha]

Can you point me to where the paper points out "it's definitely not true that "conception (union of sperm and egg) is the earliest point at which the pre-born baby exists as a distinct, identifiable entity")

Is there any scientific evidence that human life begins at a time other than conception or when the cell splits?

The paper describes a number of different points at which various scientists and scientific theories consider human life to have begun. It even specifically lists some of the evidence to back up the quote from it that I posted: "Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it."

 

[RandFan]

Can you point me to where the paper points out "it's definitely not true that "conception (union of sperm and egg) is the earliest point at which the pre-born baby exists as a distinct, identifiable entity")

Is there any scientific evidence that human life begins at a time other than conception or when the cell splits?

Again, the debate is pointless until you define your terms. You are equivocating the word "life". Human life does not simply "begin". Sperm are human cells. Each one is unique which is why my children are all different.

The point is moot until you define the word "life" and "separate entity".

Sperm do not have identical dna of the father. A spermatozoa that is not dead is a unique living human cell. It is human life. Likewise with Ovum. If sperm and ovum were all the same in each human then all of my children would be clones of each other. They would have the same hair color and eye color and look as identical as identical twins.

This point about "unique" is just an ad hoc rationalization. The point about "life" is just an equivocation. Human life doesn't begin. It's a continuation. Sperm and ovum are just as much alive and varied before conception as they are after.

Those are scientific facts.

 

[RandFan]

The fertilized egg is not a human life

Life does not begin at conception.


It’s an utterly nonsensical position to take. There is never a “dead” phase — life is continuous. Sperm are alive, eggs are alive; you could even make the argument that since two cells (gametes) enter, but only one cell (a zygote) leaves, fertilization ends a life. Not that I would make that particular claim myself, but it’s definitely true that life is more complicated than the simplistic ideologues of the anti-choice movement would make it.
​