Can you please define your personal definition of 'conception'?
When fertilization occurs. This is when I believe life begins.
Okay, this is what I wasn't understanding with my question earlier. I guess I've always equated life with beginning with implantation and I wasn't thinking about others having it occur with fertilization. Thank you for clearing that up.
Also, evidence for the fact that your body starts believing it's pregnant at conception? I'm pretty sure that's not until implantation.
HCG isn't created until implantation, but other changes occur in the body as a result of fertilization. The lining of the uterus swells (on top of the normal thickening) to sort of "catch" the blastocyst and trap it against the endometrium. If there isn't a blastocyst, this swelling doesn't occur. Scientists don't really know what causes the swelling to happen, but some have hypothesized that there is a hormonal release triggered by the blastocyst that tells our bodies we are pregnant and to prepare. If fertilization doesn't occur, this process never happens, so our bodies have to "know" that there is life and it needs to get ready. T
I'm not a scientist or doctor and am not sure if I got all of that termonolgy correct, but that's how I understand it.
Post by basilosaurus on Aug 24, 2012 16:13:43 GMT -5
Millions of people believing something doesn't make it true, though. Millions believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. It isn't.
I think a lot of people have learned that the pill might prevent implantation; I know I did. That's been on labels, websites, texbooks, etc for decades. That isn't enough to prove it's true, though I certainly understand why so many people believe all those sources.
It was hypothesized and plausible enough, but there really had been no studies to show either way. Since then there have been studies, and there's still no evidence that it prevents implantation. At what point, if ever, do we accept that the absence of evidence means the accusation isn't true? That's the million dollar question.
To make another comparison, think of thimerisol. Some vocal opponents yelled about it, the ingredient was yanked without evidence that it was harmful, and since then, no study has shown it to be a problem. Will the lack of evidence of harm ever convince the true believers, though?
It's like the word sex. There is a medical definition. There is a legal definition. But to many people the word means many different things. See Bill Clinton.
Millions of people believing something doesn't make it true, though. Millions believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. It isn't.
I think a lot of people have learned that the pill might prevent implantation; I know I did. That's been on labels, websites, texbooks, etc for decades. That isn't enough to prove it's true, though I certainly understand why so many people believe all those sources.
It was hypothesized and plausible enough, but there really had been no studies to show either way. Since then there have been studies, and there's still no evidence that it prevents implantation. At what point, if ever, do we accept that the absence of evidence means the accusation isn't true? That's the million dollar question.
To make another comparison, think of thimerisol. Some vocal opponents yelled about it, the ingredient was yanked without evidence that it was harmful, and since then, no study has shown it to be a problem. Will the lack of evidence of harm ever convince the true believers, though?
THANK YOU.
But why do you (and a number of others) even care what we believe...enough to make numerous sarcastic comments? We're not sitting here telling you you should believe it too ....or telling you not to use the BCP...or telling you we think it should be illegal.
Shoudl we just STFU about anything that even remotely relates to our faith? Because seriously, that's the message I'm getting.
ETA: And with that post, I wait with bated breath for the inevitable shouts of "martyr! get down from your cross!""
Post by basilosaurus on Aug 24, 2012 16:59:21 GMT -5
Show me where I made sarcastic comments. I care what you believe if you're spreading misinformation. I especially care if that misinformation leads to people not getting access (either at a pharmacy or through insurance coverage) to contraception.
And it affects me personally if there's some federal ban on funding "abortion" that extends to contraception. Things like the Hyde amendment affect me personally as my medical insurance is federal, and my care is on federal property.
And to be honest, AW, you've been really fucking snide lately and hairflip-y and crap, and I can totally own that's probably a large part of the reason why I got pissed off.
Perhaps I see the hair-flip in your signature and just react subconsciously. I don't know. I don't feel like I've been any different, but if I have offended you, I am sorry.
I am pregnant (medically, legally and in my own personal opinion) and hormonal, so maybe that's part of it. I'll try to tone it down.
Can you please define your personal definition of 'conception'?
When fertilization occurs. This is when I believe life begins.
I have a question about this. Since "life" begins at fertilization, and fertilization is a process, does life begin at the start of the process, or at the end of the process? Or in the middle? Or in the first third? or the last millisecond? When is the exact instant that it happens, from not life to life? It would be great to know the actual beginning of life!
When fertilization occurs. This is when I believe life begins.
I have a question about this. Since "life" begins at fertilization, and fertilization is a process, does life begin at the start of the process, or at the end of the process? Or in the middle? Or in the first third? or the last millisecond? When is the exact instant that it happens, from not life to life? It would be great to know the actual beginning of life!
I realize you're being sarcastic and that you know this answer is different for everyone, but since you quoted me and asked, I'll bite. Life for me begins at the moment the sperm and egg unite, more specifically, when the nucleus of the sperm fuses with the egg. Once this happens, a new "organism" is created. To me that organism is a human life. Therefore, anything you do to intentionally interfere with the development of that organism from that point on would be an abortion.
I think the definition of abortion isn't as clear cut as this. Sure, the health department has their definition, but every individual probably defines it differently. For some, using BCPs causes abortion. So increased access means more abortions. For others, the morning after pill causes abortions. So increased access means more abortions.
I don't think church has anything to do with this. My point was simply that whether or not you feel access to birth control decreases abortions is going to depend on how you view birth control.
NO. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN SET OF FACTS. FACTS ARE FACTS. THIS IS SO RIDICULOUS.
Right, but I am entitled to my own opinion, which is that pregnancy begins at conception and since abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, BCP can serve as an abortifacient.
Our medical community is of the opinion that someone is pregnant only after implantation occurs. I disagree with this and mentioned why in other places in this thread (because there are hormonal changes taking place within your body prior to implantation in which your body recognizes there is life there (or another organism if you don't believe it is "life"). I'm not alone in thinking this and I can guarantee you that there are scientists and doctors that agree with me. They can back up their claims with scientific fact, just like the opinion of the majority of the medical community is also backed up with fact. As I also mentioned in this thread, whose opinion we choose to base law on is politically motivated.
I have a question about this. Since "life" begins at fertilization, and fertilization is a process, does life begin at the start of the process, or at the end of the process? Or in the middle? Or in the first third? or the last millisecond? When is the exact instant that it happens, from not life to life? It would be great to know the actual beginning of life!
I realize you're being sarcastic and that you know this answer is different for everyone, but since you quoted me and asked, I'll bite. Life for me begins at the moment the sperm and egg unite, more specifically, when the nucleus of the sperm fuses with the egg. Once this happens, a new "organism" is created. To me that organism is a human life. Therefore, anything you do to intentionally interfere with the development of that organism from that point on would be an abortion.
lol okay...but what happens if the sperm is halfway through the edge of the egg so its started to fuse, but hasn't actually fused? Is that still life? Or what if they fuse, and then the sperm dies?
I am only being silly tho. You can believe what you like of course, but no one can define when life begins. I just think its funny that you don't define a sperm as a life, seeing as it wiggles its way out of a man, makes a journey with a bunch of its pals, makes the effort to get into the egg - but only then is it a life. Until then its the most amazingly animated dead thing ever.
I realize you're being sarcastic and that you know this answer is different for everyone, but since you quoted me and asked, I'll bite. Life for me begins at the moment the sperm and egg unite, more specifically, when the nucleus of the sperm fuses with the egg. Once this happens, a new "organism" is created. To me that organism is a human life. Therefore, anything you do to intentionally interfere with the development of that organism from that point on would be an abortion.
lol okay...but what happens if the sperm is halfway through the edge of the egg so its started to fuse, but hasn't actually fused? Is that still life? Or what if they fuse, and then the sperm dies?
I am only being silly tho. You can believe what you like of course, but no one can define when life begins. I just think its funny that you don't define a sperm as a life, seeing as it wiggles its way out of a man, makes a journey with a bunch of its pals, makes the effort to get into the egg - but only then is it a life. Until then its the most amazingly animated dead thing ever.
A sperm on its own is only one-half of a human being. You need an egg for it to be whole. Of course a sperm is a living thing, just like other cells in my body are living things. I guess when I am talking about "life" and when it begins, I'm talking about a human life. A person.
If the sperm didn't completely fuse and died, the new organism wasn't created and therefore a new "life" was never created. It's like all the times where the sperm never made it to the egg and nothing happened. If they fuse and then the baby dies (whether within minutes or days of conception), I would consider that a miscarriage.
lol okay...but what happens if the sperm is halfway through the edge of the egg so its started to fuse, but hasn't actually fused? Is that still life? Or what if they fuse, and then the sperm dies?
I am only being silly tho. You can believe what you like of course, but no one can define when life begins. I just think its funny that you don't define a sperm as a life, seeing as it wiggles its way out of a man, makes a journey with a bunch of its pals, makes the effort to get into the egg - but only then is it a life. Until then its the most amazingly animated dead thing ever.
A sperm on its own is only one-half of a human being. You need an egg for it to be whole. Of course a sperm is a living thing, just like other cells in my body are living things. I guess when I am talking about "life" and when it begins, I'm talking about a human life. A person.
If the sperm didn't completely fuse and died, the new organism wasn't created and therefore a new "life" was never created. It's like all the times where the sperm never made it to the egg and nothing happened. If they fuse and then the organism dies (whether within minutes or days of conception), I would consider that a miscarriage.
Sorry, I have to accuse you of sleight of hand there - you went from talking about what is life, to what is "half a human being". Sperm is either a living thing or not. If you say it is not, then you are obviously wrong. If you say it is, but not human, then you have to say the same about the fertilized egg - which is also not human. The combination is a potential human, in the same way fingers are a potential fist. But fingers aren't a fist, and a fertilized egg is not a human. But you don't really have to say anything, because I am using logic, and you will claim faith. Its all good!
pregnancy begins at conception and since abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, BCP can serve as an abortifacient.
Are very confusing. BCPs don't interfere with the development of the 'organism'. They prevent the development in the first place. Also the definition of abortion isn't simply terminating a pregnancy.
But why do you (and a number of others) even care what we believe...enough to make numerous sarcastic comments? We're not sitting here telling you you should believe it too ....or telling you not to use the BCP...or telling you we think it should be illegal.
Shoudl we just STFU about anything that even remotely relates to our faith? Because seriously, that's the message I'm getting.
ETA: And with that post, I wait with bated breath for the inevitable shouts of "martyr! get down from your cross!""
Full stop. Number one, I'm sarcastic about everything. Every damn thing.
Number two, I have never bashed you for your religion. Yes, I might have made statements in regards to religion and abortion but those were all in the context of a discussion about keeping religion out of legislation. You have just as much of a right to believe there's a God as I do to believee there isn't one, or there's a Buddha, or Kali, or the flying goddamn spaghetti monster.
And normally I get that argument. But, in this thread? There was no talk from AW or myself about legislating artificial BC. And yet the comments flew as soon as AW opened her mouth.
And Sibil? Yes, you were very respectful in your posts. I know that your post got quoted when I mentioned sarcastic comments and just so you know I specifically remember thinking when you first wrote about the recent research that at least you were respectful. I thank you for that.
Reeve - What is this logic stuff you speak of? My feeble Christian mind just doesn't compute...
No, a fertilized egg is the beginning of a human being. A sperm is 1/2 of the beginning of a human being, but it cannot become a human being without the egg. A fertilized egg, however, if left alone can develop into a human being and is therefore human life to me. It is the starting point of human life.
I'm sorry I didn't clarify from the beginning, but I thought we all assumed when people speak of being pro-LIFE or talk about when they feel LIFE begins they are talking about human life or a baby. We aren't talking about plants and baby cows here. We're talking about human babies. From now on I will be clearer.
But what do I know. I'm just a stupid Christian, right?
And just because now I am curious, at what point do you feel human life begins? At what point is a baby a human being? I'm assuming you'll say when it is viable outside of the womb, right? So prior to that point what do you consider the "organism" living inside of the mother? Not human?
A sperm on its own is only one-half of a human being. You need an egg for it to be whole. Of course a sperm is a living thing, just like other cells in my body are living things. I guess when I am talking about "life" and when it begins, I'm talking about a human life. A person.
If the sperm didn't completely fuse and died, the new organism wasn't created and therefore a new "life" was never created. It's like all the times where the sperm never made it to the egg and nothing happened. If they fuse and then the organism dies (whether within minutes or days of conception), I would consider that a miscarriage.
Sorry, I have to accuse you of sleight of hand there - you went from talking about what is life, to what is "half a human being". Sperm is either a living thing or not. If you say it is not, then you are obviously wrong. If you say it is, but not human, then you have to say the same about the fertilized egg - which is also not human. The combination is a potential human, in the same way fingers are a potential fist. But fingers aren't a fist, and a fertilized egg is not a human. But you don't really have to say anything, because I am using logic, and you will claim faith. Its all good!
Actually I happen to think faith in this particular discussion is quite logical. Sperm alone is not a separate human being; egg alone is not a separate human being. Sperm and egg together make a new human being. Yup, logical. Maybe not your logic, but logical.
You know, I don't really care about the comments about how using your faith in this conversation is stupid or irrelevant, because people are free to think that. What bothers me is the inconsistency. First, that people's faith-based opinions are not welcome in a medical or legal discussion (when faith was never brought up by ME) is ridiculous. Faith plays a huge role in the way people interpret things, just like politics plays a role, or a person's life experiences. It IS relevant to this discussion. And it is inconsistent because half of the posters who mentioned that it has nothing to do with this topic will end up interjecting their personal beliefs into threads on different topics.
My other issue is with posters who are known for being snide and sarcastic calling me out for being that way. For more on this, see Matthew 7:5.
I think both of these issues are related. People are fine with dissenting opinions as long as people are respectful and quiet with them. But as soon as people begin to voice their opinions in the same disrespectful or questioning way that the majority chooses to do it, you expect them to shut their mouths and their opinions are no longer valid. You simply don't like the taste of your own medicine...
You know, I don't really care about the comments about how using your faith in this conversation is stupid or irrelevant, because people are free to think that. What bothers me is the inconsistency. First, that people's faith-based opinions are not welcome in a medical or legal discussion (when faith was never brought up by ME) is ridiculous. Faith plays a huge role in the way people interpret things, just like politics plays a role, or a person's life experiences. It IS relevant to this discussion. And it is inconsistent because half of the posters who mentioned that it has nothing to do with this topic will end up interjecting their personal beliefs into threads on different topics.
My other issue is with posters who are known for being snide and sarcastic calling me out for being that way. For more on this, see Matthew 7:5.
I think both of these issues are related. People are fine with dissenting opinions as long as people are respectful and quiet with them. But as soon as people begin to voice their opinions in the same disrespectful or questioning way that the majority chooses to do it, you expect them to shut their mouths and their opinions are no longer valid. You simply don't like the taste of your own medicine...
Valid point AW, but your initial post was not sarcastic or snide and people jumped all over you for it. Then you reacted...and as far as I'm concerned understandably so.
Ugh, whatever. Both of you are determined to be butthurt about this so just carry on.
I don't think either of us are hurt or care about this particular thread. That you can't see that is a little funny. I think we're both probably a little irritated, if anything. As someone else mentioned, this turned into yet another thread where 2V and I end up having to defend or explain what we believe. It doesn't seem to happen to other people as frequently as it does us. Everyone else seems to be free to express their opinions, even if they are unpopular, and they may get called out for it, but it doesn't turn into four or five page threads where everyone decides to pick apart everything they say.
::takes a sip of the board martyr juice and hands it to 2V::
Reeve - What is this logic stuff you speak of? My feeble Christian mind just doesn't compute...
No, a fertilized egg is the beginning of a human being. A sperm is 1/2 of the beginning of a human being, but it cannot become a human being without the egg. A fertilized egg, however, if left alone can develop into a human being and is therefore human life to me. It is the starting point of human life.
I'm sorry I didn't clarify from the beginning, but I thought we all assumed when people speak of being pro-LIFE or talk about when they feel LIFE begins they are talking about human life or a baby. We aren't talking about plants and baby cows here. We're talking about human babies. From now on I will be clearer.
But what do I know. I'm just a stupid Christian, right?
And just because now I am curious, at what point do you feel human life begins? At what point is a baby a human being? I'm assuming you'll say when it is viable outside of the womb, right? So prior to that point what do you consider the "organism" living inside of the mother? Not human?
Well, I was being as polite as I could be - I certainly wasn't trying to offend by my logic / faith comment. And I didn't call you stupid. If I wanted to be offensive to you, I could be quite easily, and I wouldn't mince words. You originally stated that it was when life began, and I pointed out that sperm is already alive. Then you shifted it to when a baby/human began. I just said that it was when the potential for a human/baby began. Similar but different, because the potential for a baby isn't the same as a baby. Many things can happen to thwart potential. As for when a human life begins, my answer would be that I don't know. I don't know because no one knows. At least not yet. And this is why I said that you would use faith. You believe it starts when the sperm fertilizes an egg. This cannot be proven. you just believe it to be so. But every bit of reasoning you put forward to justify this could be equally applied to 3 weeks later in the process, or to the sperm itself. I think you are just annoyed because what I am saying is both reasonable and fair. It is easier for you to assume that I am attacking you. But I am not. I just think you are wrong, and claiming knowledge without any proof, which is faith. And that is why I despise faith. It allows people to believe things that have no evidence, and when evidence comes up which contradicts faith, most people would rather cling to their belief than the truth. In this particular case, it is possible that you are right. But it is equally possible that you are wrong. So to claim you know a thing when you don't have any proof seems both arrogant and foolish to me. And, so that you cant then go "boo hoo you called me arrogant and foolish" let me be plain - I am saying the belief itself is arrogant and foolish. not you as a person. Likewise I think religion is stupid - but I don't think all religious people are stupid.
Ugh, whatever. Both of you are determined to be butthurt about this so just carry on.
I don't think either of us are hurt or care about this particular thread. That you can't see that is a little funny. I think we're both probably a little irritated, if anything. As someone else mentioned, this turned into yet another thread where 2V and I end up having to defend or explain what we believe. It doesn't seem to happen to other people as frequently as it does us. Everyone else seems to be free to express their opinions, even if they are unpopular, and they may get called out for it, but it doesn't turn into four or five page threads where everyone decides to pick apart everything they say.
::takes a sip of the board martyr juice and hands it to 2V::
The reason both you and 2V are called out to defend what you believe is this:
You state what you believe as fact in threads where facts sometimes contradict your belief, or where facts are simply not known yet. Unlike politics or other parts of human discussion, the basis for your belief is not provable data, therefore challenges will be made. And, using politics as an example, everyone here gets challenged on that too - when the facts don't back up what is being said. If I came here and said "Obama has fixed the economy" I would have many people attacking my statement, and they would be right to do so. If I then claimed it I was right because I believe it to be so, people would think I was stupid and foolish. And again, they would be right to do so, IMO.
The difference between you and 2V is that while 2V argues her point, she will look at it from other peoples point of view, and more importantly, she will sometimes change her position when the evidence is put forward without having to compromise her faith. This is admirable. Plus she is willing to forgive me when I am an a-hole - which is about as Christian as you can get. I may despise religion, but I admire that too - because at least it is in accordance with what she believes. This is why she and I can still be civil, and why I have actually changed my own position on occasion. On the other hand, you refuse to see other peoples point of view and just claim persecution when anyone says something that contradicts you. Which makes for a less persuasive argument, and it also makes it frustrating to talk to you, which is why so many posters get the hump when dealing with you on here.
Reeve - I apologize. I know your disdain for religion and faith, so I was just assuming that you were being condescending and offensive with that comment. I was projecting that on you and I apologize. I'm not sure how to take your "quite easily" comment, but oh well.
But I am being honest when I say that I assumed we were both on the same page and talking about when human life begins. I do feel that my explanation is logical, but maybe we need to address the definition of logic in this thread too
You say potential baby, I say baby, because it is the beginning of a real baby to me. Whether or not growth could be thwarted doesn't change the fact that it is the beginning of human life. Growth could be thwarted at 36 weeks gestation, when the baby could very easily survive outside of the womb, but that doesn't change that it is a baby. Growth can be thwarted at any point of a pregnancy. But there is a starting point when the pregnancy begins. Science just isn't clear on that (even if there is an accepted medical definition to make it easier to legislate these types of things).
You're separating logic and faith and saying that because I am using my faith, I am not being logical. Can't people be using both? I feel I am being logical when I say that we know that there are changes happening in the woman's body the minute that the sperm and egg fuse. Hormones change and start causing the body to accept the fertilized egg. Without the sperm and egg fusing none of this would happen. And it isn't anything that the mother or father does after the fertilization that causes it to happen - it is a human life growing beyond our control. We can choose to stop the life from continuing to grow, but it isn't anything that we do that causes it to grow in the first place.
To me that is logical. I totally understand how someone else can have a different opinion and feel it is logical. This sort of goes back to my original point - people can have different opinions even when it comes to science. You can use scientific fact to back up many different opinions in this case. It isn't as cut and dry as "Fact is fact so you aren't entitled to your opinions" that people are saying in this thread.
Thank you for clearing up your feelings in the last part. I don't take offense to your feelings on religion. I was assuming that you felt that way about religious people too. Once again, I am sorry for projecting that onto you.
The difference between you and 2V is that while 2V argues her point, she will look at it from other peoples point of view, and more importantly, she will sometimes change her position when the evidence is put forward without having to compromise her faith. This is admirable. Plus she is willing to forgive me when I am an a-hole - which is about as Christian as you can get. I may despise religion, but I admire that too - because at least it is in accordance with what she believes. This is why she and I can still be civil, and why I have actually changed my own position on occasion. On the other hand, you refuse to see other peoples point of view and just claim persecution when anyone says something that contradicts you. Which makes for a less persuasive argument, and it also makes it frustrating to talk to you, which is why so many posters get the hump when dealing with you on here.
That you can't see how I have been able in the past to see other points of view or how I have changed on certain topics after hearing people's respectful and reasonable arguments is sort of upsetting. I can list a handful of issues in which my eyes have been opened on these boards and I have expressed gratitude for posters for being patient enough with me to help me work through it.
I am sorry if I have been unforgiving to you in the past or if I have come across as unwilling to hear other opinions. To be honest, I feel like I am pretty patient and willing to discuss things. Way more patient than most people would be and also way more forgiving than most people would be when "talked to" in the way I often am.
I will admit that your often offensive comments about religion and religious people rub me the wrong way. Maybe I'm not aware that I am treating you differently because of it. I will try to work on that.
Reeve - I apologize. I know your disdain for religion and faith, so I was just assuming that you were being condescending and offensive with that comment. I was projecting that on you and I apologize. I'm not sure how to take your "quite easily" comment, but oh well.
Your assumption is fair enough - sometimes I am condescending and offensive, and I know it (hence the "quite easily" bit - I have to actively reign myself in). I try not to be like that, as in this thread - but I suppose it is the same as when you state certain beliefs and people see them as rude. We all see the world through our own eyes, and it is difficult to remember that what we see as correct may be offensive to others. We all have our faults lol. Maybe we can be more civil from now on, eh?
Reeve - I apologize. I know your disdain for religion and faith, so I was just assuming that you were being condescending and offensive with that comment. I was projecting that on you and I apologize. I'm not sure how to take your "quite easily" comment, but oh well.
Your assumption is fair enough - sometimes I am condescending and offensive, and I know it (hence the "quite easily" bit - I have to actively reign myself in). I try not to be like that, as in this thread - but I suppose it is the same as when you state certain beliefs and people see them as rude. We all see the world through our own eyes, and it is difficult to remember that what we see as correct may be offensive to others. We all have our faults lol. Maybe we can be more civil from now on, eh?