XPost: alt.atheism, alt.abortion   
   From: kbjarnason@gmail.com   
      
   On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 17:00:04 -0500, MarkA wrote:   
      
   > I asked this of an anti-abortion/forced-birth/pro-life poster in another   
   > thread, and never got a reply.  I sincerely would like some input from   
   > someone who believes that life starts at conception   
      
   PMFJI, but... if life *doesn't* start at conception, it must presumably   
   start earlier, before sperm and ovum ever meet.  In the sense of life   
   meaning "all living things", sure, but the specific life?  No, I think   
   that cannot be sensibly argued to come _before_ conception.   
      
   Of course, the issue here isn't when life starts, but when _personhood_   
   starts, at what point a pair of cells go from unassociated spermatozoon   
   and ovum to a legally-recognized individual with the rights we grant   
   people in our societies.   
      
   >, and first/second   
   > trimester fetuses have a "right to life".   
      
   Here's a quaint little notion: there is no such thing as a right to   
   life.  As a simple example, explain to the guy who just fell off a cliff   
   how his "right to life" means a damned thing to anyone, including him.   
   It doesn't.  "Right to life" is hogwash.   
      
   What you have is the right to not have your life wilfully taken from you,   
   barring extraordinary circumstances.  Among those circumstances are that   
   you're a traitor or murderer (in places where the death penalty applies   
   for those), or you're brain-dead (in places where they take the sensible   
   path of pulling the plug in hopeless cases).   
      
   > A fertility clinic fertilizes an egg, and allows it to divide once.  The   
   > two daughter cells are separated, and one is frozen.  The other is   
   > allowed to continue dividing, and is eventually implanted into a woman's   
   > uterus, where it grows to term, resulting in a healthy baby and happy   
   > parents.   
   >   
   > So, what *is* the other cell?  Is it a separate person, who has his/her   
   > own "right to life"?  Or, is it just a cell, discarded from the person   
   > who has already been born, as we shed cells all the time?   
      
   Well, this is the issue, isn't it?  Here's another they dislike   
   intensely, since most of them derive their anti-choice stance from the   
   Bible and other god-addled nonsense: if abortion is immoral, how is it   
   that so many spontaneous abortions occur - which is to say, how come it's   
   okay when "God duzzit"?   
      
   It's fun to watch them waffle on about nonsense such as "well, the potter   
   can do as he likes with his pot, no?" neglecting to note that this argues   
   in favour of the mother ("potter") doing as she likes with her "pot".   
      
   It's all nonsense, of course.  If there were a sane and rational argument   
   in the lot of them, they'd have trotted it out ages ago, but like their   
   other god-addled kindred, the creationists, it's all just "God duzzit"   
   and "God wantsit" and "God saysit" and derivations of the like, with the   
   very occasional "no actual reason, just don't do it" tossed in here and   
   there.   
      
   > If it is its own person, why wasn't it its own person if it weren't   
   > separated?  Are we all actually 100,000,000,000,000 separate people,   
   > sharing the same body?   
      
   The usual argument made is that no, doesn't count, because those "don't   
   have the potential to become a person".  One suspects they've never heard   
   of cloning.  Or DNA.   
      
   > If it is not its own person, would it become a person if thawed, and   
   > allowed to develop into a new fetus?  That would imply that personhood   
   > is something that comes with a certain degree of development, which the   
   > pro-lifers deny.   
      
      
   What "pro-lifers"?  Hell, I'm all for life, I think it's grand.  That   
   frothing pack of mouth-breathing loons aren't "pro-life", they're anti-   
   choice, as is readily demonstrated by examining what they do in terms of   
   support for the spawn *after* it's been whelped.  What's that?  Not a   
   damned thing, it can barking well die for all they care?  Yes, well, "pro-   
   life" my great-aunt's sainted arse.   
      
   Don't expect a sane answer from them; there *is no* sane way to answer   
   the question you pose, without shooting one's own foot - and most of the   
   leg - off in the process.  You'll most likely get "it's a person at   
   conception" or equivalent... but then ask again about why it's okay for   
   God to kill 'em off by the millions at that stage, or why they haven't   
   commenced kidnapping or similar procedures against the cryo operators,   
   and you'll have enough comic relief to last you a decade.   
      
      
   --   
   “BTW, what the heck is ‘a real cross,’ anyway? :--)” -- Mkimes   
   “I think it’s realated to the double cross.” -- Martin Goldberg   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)