25 notes &
I was abducted & you were banging patchouli: What do they mean by 'life begins at conception'?
People who say this aren’t talking about ‘life’ in a literal biological way. They are referring to a religious idea that at the moment an egg is fertilized, it becomes ensouled.
This is an important distinction because that is really the sticking point for them, but they frame their assertion as though they are talking about a biological event, which makes it difficult to argue. Furthermore, even if we agree that the cells that make up a zygote or even an embryo are alive, that doesn’t make it a separate, independent life. It isn’t. If it were it could survive outside the uterus.
If we are just arguing about the value of life in the sense living tissue — that’s a whole different thing from an ensouled being. If I had to choose between my dog and a zygote, there would be no contest. I’d choose my dog. Some people will be outraged by that (apparently they think that human cells have more intrinsic value than dog cells, or cow cells, or what have you), but I value the actual life of an animal over the potential life of a few human cells.
More importantly, I value the actual life of a woman — and her family — over a potential life, but as long as we allow the “pro-life” faction to frame this issue, we are playing by their rules, and will always be on the defense. We need to take back this issue and frame it in a way that shows their duplicitous language.
Actually, when people say ‘life begins at conception’ they are saying ‘Human life begins at conception.’ And this is true. There is no human in an egg, nor in a sperm. They are both gametes, having only half the number of DNA, and do not have the possibility of separately growing into an adult member of the species. Together, they form a fertilized egg which is a member of the human species, and if allowed to grow, will become an adult member of the species.
Just because it can’t survive on its own until it is born, doesn’t mean it is not fully alive, fully human, and fully person. There are many people who are physically and socially dependent on other people and things, yet we don’t diminish their personhood because of that. Your bigotry towards the unborn is unfounded.
Since people are equal under the law, and we believe all people are created equal as an integral precept of a free and just society, it flies in the face of justice to claim a born human being is worth more than an unborn one.
“Your bigotry towards the unborn is unfounded.”
i read that part but snorted in laughter at the same time and almost peed
as i was reading this i was saying to myself “this person doesn’t sound like they have a uterus, maybe i’m just being an asshole” but nope. i mean I’m still an asshole but you can start throwing around combative statements like that which warrant an actual response when you can start popping babies out of your uterus
“and if allowed to grow, will become an adult member of the species.”
Not quite. Even after conception it is prettttty rare for a pregnancy to go full term. Out of every 100 eggs exposed to sperm, 84 are fertilized. Out of those 84, only 69 implant. Out of those 69, 42 survive past one week, 37 survive past 6 weeks, and 31 are born alive. So 31% of eggs exposed to sperm will “become an adult member of the species” [assuming it doesn’t die during childhood]. And it gives your “person” [egg that is fertilized] little over a third of a chance of developing and surviving until birth. This is also assuming the pregnancy is normal, healthy, and probably most importantly—planned. Can’t really look into good prenatal care if you don’t know you’re pregnant.
This information comes from a basic genetics textbook that I used last year, “Human Genetics: Concepts and Applications, 9th edition” written by Ricki Lewis and published by Mcgraw Hill and I am tooootally down to send an ebook copy to anyone who’s interested in this stuff. Lookin’ at you, nikosnature, since you obviously don’t understand prenatal development.
Although, since a person is conceived at fertilization, it would already be down to 84, so really it’s 31 out of 84, which would be almost 37%, not much more than 31% but just so we understand each other.
Finally, by “If allowed to grow, it will become an adult member of the species” this was meant, if it survives to adulthood. The point is, a human fetus will not develop into an adult elephant, or adult giraffe. I hope you agree with me on that point.
That’s why I said “little more than a third”. The 31% is referring to 31 out of the 100 exposed to sperm, “little more than third”=31/84, I should have been more clear on that.
Obviously a human embryo will not develop into a giraffe or anything other than a human, I don’t see what this has to do with the topic at hand though. Your points were as follows:
1. fertilized eggs are not only human, but “fully alive”
2. fertilized eggs will develop into human adults which means they have rights
I addressed that second point because, as was stated, they have a relatively slim chance of developing and being born. Saying that as soon as egg is fertilized, it will undoubtedly develop and be born is an incorrect assumption and I tend to address it when it comes up partly because honestly, I just think a lot of people don’t know that. When you tell people that a majority of pregnancies terminate naturally before the mother is aware she is pregnant plenty of people don’t believe it. However I also think it’s a point that deserves to be pointed out to religious people especially, because for all of your righteous anger and sadness over the supposed death of “fully alive” human babies, you are overlooking one very important detail—that, if you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent god, he is either killing or allowing the deaths of millions and millions of unborn “babies”.
About 20-22% of known pregnancies are purposely terminated in the united states per year. Using the numbers stated above, about 63% of ALL pregnancies are terminated naturally[counting from fertilization onwards]. So, where is the “bigotry towards the unborn” REALLY coming from? Humans? God? Nature? I just don’t think it makes sense, if you want to say that as soon as an egg is fertilized it’s a human with rights, if you honestly believe that terminating a pregnancy is ending a life—where’s the fight for that other 63% no one talks about? Are they less important? Are they not actually humans? When clearly some unknown force is responsible for many times more “deaths” than induced abortion is…why aren’t we focusing on that?
This inconsistency leads me to believe that the anti-abortion side is less about “the rights of the unborn” and more about the rights of a woman. I believe that what people take issue with is women having full control of their bodies. I also believe this is why the argument has now spilled over to the topic of contraception.
The problem with your argument, is that you suggest that just because human beings die from natural causes, we have the right to kill them. You say that just because 37% of human beings die from natural causes before birth, we have the right to kill all human beings before birth. Can we apply this principle to people with high blood pressure? They are at an increased risk of heart attacks. Since some people with high blood pressure get heart attacks, are we allowed to kill all people with high blood pressure? Your argument fundamentally breaks down. Old people are at a higher risk of all kinds of diseases, and its hard to take care of them sometimes. Do we have the right to kill them without or against their consent? Obviously when applied, your principle that we can kill people because they die of natural causes, can’t work in a civilised society.
