Who has the right to life?

jdobbin · February 9, 2007

You keep saying this - where's your citations? How about some links to biologists?

He has no citations. And he looks to be abusive if you question him about it.

White Doors · February 9, 2007

No, what you are trying to do is make an astronomical assupmption that some sort of miraculous 'biological function' occurs at the moment of childbirth that matches with current Canadian legal definition of human rights.
Wrong. I believe a fetus is not a human life until it can survive on its own outside the mother's body. This would put the line at somewhere around 7 to 8 months. Before the fetus is just a mass of tissue which is part of the mother's body. My definition of 'human life' is just as biologically sound as your definition. Personally, I think it is aburd to call something that nothing more than a blob of cells human.

According to common Canadian law you are a 'hard right' conservative on this issue then riverwind.

Tell me, how does that feel?

jdobbin · February 9, 2007

Thanks for your OPINION.

Thanks for a good laugh on enablement.

Say it again so I can smirk all over again.

Care for a thousand points of light next?

White Doors · February 9, 2007

You keep saying this - where's your citations? How about some links to biologists?

He has no citations. And he looks to be abusive if you question him about it.

Biological life begins at conception as did all of your lives who are reading this. Find me a peer reviewed scientific article that disputes this and I will show you the 'four corners of the world'.

'nuff said.

jdobbin · February 9, 2007

Wrong. I believe a fetus is not a human life until it can survive on its own outside the mother's body. This would put the line at somewhere around 7 to 8 months. Before the fetus is just a mass of tissue which is part of the mother's body. My definition of 'human life' is just as biologically sound as your definition. Personally, I think it is aburd to call something that nothing more than a blob of cells human.

Some regard the brain to be critical to determining life and death. For example, I certainly don't believe human life ends when the heart stops. It ends when there is no brain activity. Do you think it is similar for the fetus?

Melanie_ · February 9, 2007

Biological life begins at conception as did all of your lives who are reading this. Find me a peer reviewed scientific article that disputes this and I will show you the 'four corners of the world'.
'nuff said.

Uh-uh. You are the one who keeps bringing in biologists and science. You find a peer reviewed scientific article that asserts that biological life begins at conception. Waiting for your post.....

BC_chick · February 9, 2007

Wow - the minds of simpletons.

Come on now, it's just a discussion. If it's getting you that worked up, maybe you need to take a breather.

It happens to the best of us, but it's not fair to someone like me who just got home from work, wants to discuss issues and doesn't feel like being insulted right about now just for disagreeing with someone.

If I'd made this personal, fine, make it personal. But I didn't....

jdobbin · February 9, 2007

Biological life begins at conception as did all of your lives who are reading this. Find me a peer reviewed scientific article that disputes this and I will show you the 'four corners of the world'.
'nuff said.

And when does biological life end?

Riverwind · February 9, 2007

Some regard the brain to be critical to determining life and death. For example, I certainly don't believe human life ends when the heart stops. It ends when there is no brain activity. Do you think it is similar for the fetus?

That is another perfectly valid 'biological' definition of 'human life'. I do not claim that my definition is more correct than your definition. I simply state that both definitions are arbitrary and are really religious/metaphysical opinions rather than fact.

White Doors · February 9, 2007

Hey,if you want to argue when biological life begins, knock yourselves out. Just know that unless you believe that life begins at conception all you are doing is stamping your feet and saying 'No! science is wrong and that's IT'!

your choice.

I'm not an anti-abortionist. Merely fascinated how political agenda's can over ride science.

If that makes me a George W Bush clone then so be it.

blueblood · February 9, 2007

Another thing of note is that laws are arbitrary. Riverwind should know this in his debating over first nations issues. IMO this argument is going nowhere, I believe life starts at conception, others here do to, others believe it starts at birth. The question is, that since laws are arbitrary, who is to say which side is correct as it is all a matter of opinion?

It's not about arguing when life starts per se. It's about whether the rights of an unborn and undeveloped life should override the rights of a woman to do what she wants with her body.

here's another question knowing that I believe that life starts at conception (this is my opinion) how does the right to do whatever you want override the right someone has to live? I'll give you this, if I believed that a fetus wasn't a life, I would be right with you in saying a woman has the right to do whatever she wants. If you had the choice of having it your way and killing an innocent person or not having it your way and letting the innocent person live, what would you choose? I'm not saying your belief is wrong, as no one here knows which side is truly right in the grand scheme of things (IMO it's all arbitrary). Who is anyone to say who is right in this type of debate of beliefs?

BC_chick · February 9, 2007

My assertion is that if you do have an abortion that you should surely be aware of the scientific facts of the process. You do not agree?

Yes I do.

But you're talking about "having the right to kill a fetus" not scientific biological process.

jdobbin · February 9, 2007

That is another perfectly valid 'biological' definition of 'human life'. I do not claim that my definition is more correct than your definition. I simply state that both definitions are arbitrary and are really religious/metaphysical opinions rather than fact.

It is probably closer to your idea of when human life begins. I think pretty much everyone would agree that the brain is what makes us...us.

And you're right, you can't find a peer reviewed article on when life begins but it is interpreted in many ways.

BC_chick · February 9, 2007

here's another question knowing that I believe that life starts at conception (this is my opinion) how does the right to do whatever you want override the right someone has to live? I'll give you this, if I believed that a fetus wasn't a life, I would be right with you in saying a woman has the right to do whatever she wants. If you had the choice of having it your way and killing an innocent person or not having it your way and letting the innocent person live, what would you choose? I'm not saying your belief is wrong, as no one here knows which side is truly right in the grand scheme of things (IMO it's all arbitrary). Who is anyone to say who is right in this type of debate of beliefs?

I know, it's definitely not an easy black or white situation.

But IMO, the woman has MORE right to decide what life form comes from her body, than someone else has in telling her what she can or cannot do with her body.

geoffrey · February 9, 2007

But IMO, the woman has MORE right to decide what life form comes from her body, than someone else has in telling her what she can or cannot do with her body.

Your argument is 100% correct, if it can be derived that a fetus (baby... you don't have a fetus shower before the birth) is not a seperate entity from the mother, in that it is not self-interested or from a slightly different perspective, has a set of self-interests (a messy ethical concept).

I don't think this has ever been proven... logically or empirically... so the issue should divert to the outcome that produces the least harm if both ideals are true. Considering that, that abortion should be unethical.

While I maintain my belief that it is an unethical practice... the larger moral picture of a ban on abortion shows that these women are going to abort anyways, but in much less safe conditions, so the body count just increases.

So I figure that legalised abortion is the only real way to have things, if reduction of harm is our ultimate goal.

With that in mind, we can look at genetic 'undesirables' in whatever form they appear, in a slightly different light. Is letting the mother know about the possible defects with the child going to increase the amount of abortions? If so, I'd have to suggest that my reasoning above would show this to be unethical.

Melanie_ · February 9, 2007

With that in mind, we can look at genetic 'undesirables' in whatever form they appear, in a slightly different light. Is letting the mother know about the possible defects with the child going to increase the amount of abortions? If so, I'd have to suggest that my reasoning above would show this to be unethical.

Some genetic issues are more volatile than others. For example, Tay-Sachs disease is genetically determined, and results in a child growing typically for the first 18 months of their lives. After that, they start painfully and irreversibly dying by the time they are 4 or 5 years old. It is most common in Eastern European Jews, but that is simply because of intermarriage - it can happen anywhere. If two carriers marry, there is a one in four chance that they will produce a child with this disorder. If a test were available, what parent would choose to put a child (and themselves) through this? Picture your normal and happy one and a half year old suddenly enduring pain and suffering that you can't alleviate, eventually leading to their death.

On the other hand, Down's Syndrome isn't a death sentence - it is a chromosomal abnormality. It can't be "cured", as the extra chromosome can never be removed, but many people with Down's Syndrome can be productive and contributing members of society. We can and do test for Tay Sachs, but to what end do we test for Down's?

Riverwind · February 9, 2007

With that in mind, we can look at genetic 'undesirables' in whatever form they appear, in a slightly different light. Is letting the mother know about the possible defects with the child going to increase the amount of abortions? If so, I'd have to suggest that my reasoning above would show this to be unethical.

What would you think if scientists came up with an inutero cure for down syndrome? The effect would be the same - people with down syndrome would be eliminated from society. Would you say that is a bad thing? Are you saying that people should refuse medical treatment that prevents a child from become disabled because they would be taking something away from that child by forcing them to be 'normally abled'?

I can understand why people want to show compassion towards people with down syndrome and do not believe that they are any less human because they are disabled. However, it is absurd to pretend that down syndrome is a desirable trait that we would like to preserve. I suspect that most parents who love their down syndrome child would not hesitate to have their child treated if there was a 'cure' available.

Catchme · February 9, 2007

Canadian laws states that life begins at first breath, they are very clear on this, how wilbur you can suggest otherwise, is beyond me. There is no room for discussion either about when life commences, or about woman's rights to self determine.

Pro-choice is working, the focus upon choice and increased access to birth control and counselling is not only lowering abortion stats, but teenage pregnacy stats as well.

Moreover, the increased occurance of STD's is increasing amongst the portions of society that discount the use of protected sex.

No, Birth makes you a citizen and all the priveledges and responsibilities that come with that. It does NOT determine when biological life begins.

No, Canadian law says "life" begins at birth, it does not begin before, and yes birth makes a citizen because the fetus is now "alive".

Embryos, are recoginized as only embryo's and frozen for future use perhaps for decades. They are NOT recognized as a life. They cannot be, neither can a fetus. Nor does a fetus have rights, it cannot.

In fact, you yourself have have stated why above.

A fetus does NOT become a citizen until it is born, therefore it has NO rights. It cannot exist without a host. The host is the one alive with rights.

Biological life, as in a cluster of cells, is not "life," it has potential to be alive when born, and will have its rights bestowed upon it at that time. Until the time of viable birth, there is only 1 set of rights in play and that is the woman's. NO others have any rights in the matter and that is why Canada has not eneterd into abortion laws. Neither the government, nor the SCC, have the right to override equality, self-determination, conscience and universal access to medicare, rights.

------------------------------------------

Wilbur, there is NO morality in question when it comes to self-determination and other Rights laws. Neither the Supreme court, nor parliament can legislate morality. And do not bother with addressing all the other laws, they are not morality laws.

------------------------------------------

Hair carries full DNA, eventually someday, if indeed not know, clones can/will be made from hair cells.

White Doors · February 9, 2007

No, Canadian law says "life" begins at birth, it does not begin before, and yes birth makes a citizen because the fetus is now "alive".
Embryos, are recoginized as only embryo's and frozen for future use perhaps for decades. They are NOT recognized as a life. They cannot be, neither can a fetus. Nor does a fetus have rights, it cannot.

In fact, you yourself have have stated why above.

A fetus does NOT become a citizen until it is born, therefore it has NO rights. It cannot exist without a host. The host is the one alive with rights.

Who are you arguing with? Yourself?

Since when does there need to be a law to make a biological fact, fact?

The Fetus is ALIVE. If you can't get that than that is your issue. You are correct, RIGHTS begin at birth currently in Canada. Who was arguing that?

If you have an abortion you are terminating a life. In my opinion that can be morally ethical in the cases of rape, severe mutation etc. In other cases it can be questionable ethically - ie using abortion as a form of birth control, later term abortions etc. I don't think anyone here would take too much issue with what I am saying.

But the fact of the matter is, life begins at conception.

Riverwind · February 9, 2007

But the fact of the matter is, life begins at conception.

The fact of the matter is, that your opinion not a fact. Both jdobbin and myself provide different definitions of biological life which are just as scientifically valid as yours.

Wilber · February 9, 2007

This such a hot button issue that it is a perfect example of how people will try and use their interpretation of science to justify their philosophy. The fact is, science and philosophy have nothing to do with each other. One is the reality of nature. The other is the invention of man. There are no rights in nature. Rights are the exclusive creation of man. A right comes about when enough people can exert enough pressure to make a philosophy a policy. Over time that policy becomes entrenched enough to be regarded as a right. A right is nothing more than that. It is not some sacred missive handed down by some superior intelligence.

A case in point. In BC mammograms and abortion on demand have become regarded as a womans right and are paid for by the public system, yet if a man wants periodic PSA screening for prostate cancer (a simple blood test that indicates the possibilty of the cancer most responsible for deaths in men) he will have to pay for it himself. There is no philosophical or scientific reason for this discrepancy, just the degree of activism. So much so that even in a political system dominated by males, it is a glaring example of how men can get the short end of the stick when it comes to preventative medicine.

White Doors · February 9, 2007

But the fact of the matter is, life begins at conception.
The fact of the matter is, that your opinion not a fact. Both jdobbin and myself provide different definitions of biological life which are just as scientifically valid as yours.

Although there is no universal agreement on the definition of life, scientists generally accept that the biological manifestation of life exhibits the following phenomena:
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.

Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.

Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.

Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at conception, when a sperm unites with an oocyte (life created through cloning excepted). From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct life has begun to live inside her.

Check this out:

http://www.michaelclancy.com/

White Doors · February 9, 2007

But the fact of the matter is, life begins at conception.
The fact of the matter is, that your opinion not a fact. Both jdobbin and myself provide different definitions of biological life which are just as scientifically valid as yours.

You did? where? See above for the one's that I found.

Riverwind · February 9, 2007

You did? where? See above for the one's that I found.

Great! You just proved that the life represented by a fetus is no different from the life represented by a fruit fly. We are talking about 'human life' here and what the definition of 'human life' is. Nothing in your quotes even attempts to define what that means.

White Doors · February 9, 2007

You did? where? See above for the one's that I found.
Great! You just proved that the life represented by a fetus is no different from the life represented by a fruit fly. We are talking about 'human life' here and what the definition of 'human life' is. Nothing in your quotes even attempts to define what that means.

If a fetus isn't human life then what else could it possibly be nitwit?