1) life - as in "I live my life"
2) life - as in, a bacteria is "life", bacteria is "alive".
A human being is "alive" at conception. E.G., a human zygote embryo, fetus, adult is "life" as defined by biologists.
However, when a human being possesses "a life" as in "a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived of as belonging to the soul" is NOT a scientific question, it is distinctly different than the biological definition of life. The debate on where "one's life" begins (as opposed to when life biologically begins) is a question of constant debate without an objective answer because the question itself is subjective.
Chuz repeatedly blurs the line with ambiguous language and/or equivocation (as he has done here), either purposely or ignorantly, on this matter.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled, simply being conceived does NOT qualify. The Supreme Court is not an authority on truth nonetheless they are the Supremme Authority when it comes to matters of interpreting the Consitutition.
Chuz do you have the integrity to ACKNOWLEDGE the Supreme Courts ruling and their REASONING, even though I am sure you disagree?
1) the Constitution should be interpreted as you believe rather than how the majority of Supreme Court Justices have. This would involve CITING the Supreme Courts reasoning or highlighting dissenting opinions on cases that have involved abortion.
2) people should ascribe to your position on abortion. This would involve an explanation of why your position on abortion is beneficial, optimal, or some other reason why your position is superior to that others. Since the moral debate is unbounded, that is, because the moral debate has no objective basis for determining what is "right" and "wrong" then this is far more difficult and complex issue.
Thus far you have blended and blurred many issues and sub-issues rather than targeting them independently and specifically. For example, you have written about when "science has determined life begins" but then don't explain why that is relevant to a moral position on abortion. You instead beg the question, equivocate with words such as "life", invent your own interpretation of the Constitution, or quote some person as an argument to authority.
Furthermore, you need to ATTEMPT to understand your oppositions position in its STRONGEST form. Perhaps this will give you a different perspective on what your opponents are actually proposing and objecting to. This may give you a better idea of how to attack their arguments then how you have done in the past. So far I haven't seen evidence that you actually comprehend your oppositions position fully.
Last edited by scourge99; 12-31-09 at 06:13 PM.
Justice William Rehnquist- dissenting,... Roe v. WadeWhat choices do I have?
Yeah,.. the same William Rehnquist who would later become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
2) What I 'need' is fewer people telling me what I need. And I doubt very much your critique is actually geared to aid me in any of the ways you suggest.
If you can do it better than me,.. do it.
Barring that,... How would you like a nice big cup of,.....
If life does not begin at conception, then it never begins.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
IMO a Sperm is not alive.
But the original question was Life beginning at conception, to which i answered 'Yes'
We were not asked to vote on whether that was intelligent Life or even life that was 'aware', merely the onset of Life.