Summations Only

Yes. Indeed it is. So you have on one hand defined a human life as that which has the ability for cellular reproduction. By this definition a zygote of a day or so old qualifies as "human life". Well OK. But this occurs (according to you - and I roughly agree for many of the reasons you cite) between 24 and 28 weeks after conception.So are you saying that a zygote capable of cellular production qualifies as a "human life" or are you saying that to qualify as a "human life" a somewhat developed brain is required?Can you see how your position seems somewhat contradictory?Question: Are you defining human life in terms of cellular reproduction or brain development?

I am sure we can all praise your consistency as to when human life begins.....Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I don't need to pinpoint when personhood begins to identify you or me as persons. Likewise I don't need to pinpoint when personhood begins to state that things lacking brains are incapable of personhood.Do I?

Mistakenly concluding that an existing brain has died (and the person with it) is hardly the same as concluding that a brain which has never existed doesn't exist. And as long as there isn't ever again any brain activity this assessment would be correct wouldn't it? But still any unexpected recovery in brain activity that this person might miraculously undergo is dependent on them possessing a physical brain. Has anyone ever recovered personhood after their brain has been removed? The presence of a brain is absolutely fundamental to personhood existing in the first place.

If that is the definition you want to apply then are you back to square one in failing to address all of the problems pointed out to you right at th beginning of this thread: Look Shadow I know that for religious reasons you need there to be a "moment" at which soul imbued human life springs forth. But the fact is that biology doesn't work that way. And furthermore the "moment" you have decided to pin your hopes to results in 60% of all souls never making it past the conceptus stage anyway.How are you going to reconcile your definition with these facts? Are you really suggesting that over 60% of humans have never even physically existed beyond a cell or two?

Do you honestly believe that all conceptuses are human lives imbued with souls?Do you accept that about 60% of all conceptuses end up flushed down the toilet without anyone even realising that any conception had taken place? The majority of conceptuses never implant in the uterus.Do you agree that if the church really wants to save human lives and genuinely believes that human life starts at the "point" of conception they should focus on research into this majority of conceptuses rather than get too riled up about the comparatively tiny amount that get intentionally aborted?If saving human life as they have defined it really is the issue....

Here is an easily accessible link where a study is cited:

quote:

---

One study testing hormones for ovulation and pregnancy found that 61.9% of conceptuses were lost prior to 12 weeks, and 91.7% of these losses occurred subclinically, without the knowledge of the woman. Link

---

Here is a link to the study being cited LinkHere is a link to a wiki article:

quote:

---

Current research suggests that fertilized embryos naturally fail to implant some 30% to 60% of the time. Of those that do implant, about 25% are miscarried by the sixth week LMP (after the woman's Last Menstrual Period). As a result, even without the use of birth control, between 50% and 70% of zygotes never result in established pregnancies, much less birth. Wiki Link:

---

Here is a link to the paper being cited in that wiki article Link

Plagues are a "natural process". As is pestilence, drought, tsunamis etc. Are you suggesting that natural processes should be left to do their work without human interference?If you define "human life" as that of the conceptus do you accept that about 60% of "human life" has never even lived to any meaningful physical extent?Do you accept that natural abortions are the biggest killer of "human life" known to man?If so - What do you suggest we do about his tragic majority? Anything at all?

If 60 percent of human souls ends up in a better place as part of God’s will without ever having physically existed as anything more than a few cells or having any comprehension of physical existence one has to wonder what the point of the other 40 percent of us is.I am the 40%.....

I very much doubt it. Because nobody with a remotely rational view of human life considers aborted zygotes to be human deaths. But those who consider every zygote to be a precious soul imbued person should surely be campaigning for this overwhelming majority of "people" rather than getting worked up about a tiny tiny number of intentionally aborted zygotes.Are churches or religious groups campaigning for research into saving the 60% of humans that never actually make it past the zygote stage? Given the facts of natural abortion objecting to intentional abortions seems a bit like campaigning against the deadly dangers of electric blankets in the middle of a minefield during a machine gun battle.

Then my response would be - Why aren't they so blase about letting nature take it's course when it comes to other natural causes of death? E.g diseases.If they really believe these zygotes are people then they seem awfully apathetic about the fact that 60% of people are killed by this single factor. Well my answer would be that when it comes to real people rather than zygotes we should both stop murderers and tackle things like disease.

And that about sums it up. The whole issue of saving souls and safeguarding the rights of poor little zygotes is just a pile of old nonsense. They don’t actually care about these things or think of them as real people any more than I do. It’s all about defining human life in emotive ways so that they can apply words like kill and murder to abortions and then view themselves as the messengers of God’s disapproval and retribution. I don’t doubt the sincerity with which they wish to impose their nonsensical beliefs onto others. What I doubt the sincerity of is the claim that this has much to do with saving souls or safeguarding the welfare of poor little conceptuses.What I doubt the sincerity of is questions like When does human life begin? because they only seem interested in science providing an answer that justifies their condemnation of others. And the whole 60% thing rather pisses on that fire.Seriously what is the point of imbuing a few cell conceptus with a soul for a day or two? So it can exert it’s freewill and be divinely judged on it’s actions? It’s laughable. Why not just cut out that pointless step and put the soul in heaven (or wherever it is supposed to end up) from the get-go? The whole notion of every conceptus having a soul is entirely potty and those who try to take that position in order to impose their beliefs on others should be shown just how insane their position is.

Those that do should be ardently campaigning for research into the 60% of human lives that are tragically lost as a result of natural abortions shouldn't they? I can see three reasons why that might be the case1) Ignorance.
2) They don't really care about lost lives or souls at all.These are just used as an excuse to get retributional.
3) They don't actually really believe that zygotes are people at all. These are just used as an excuse to get retributional.The first should be solvable by explaining the fact of the 60%. The other two deserve the tag of dishonesty.

Do you think bacteria are sentient? Link

Do you consider it an act of mass murder of these sentient beings every time you clean your teeth?