Thanks Bex, but I think you are still missing the essential point.
RAZD, you admit that an embryo exists in the first few weeks......and have said that many of them fail to form,
What I have demonstrated is that a significant number of conceptions do not result in an embryo -- something like 60% of the time.
so the miscarriages that occur showing an empty pregnancy sac and nothing more cancels out the belief that human life begins at conception.
Certainly there is no human life in those instances, there is not even
any kind of organism. Logically these conceptions cannot be equated with human life - something is missing.
But rather only begins with an embryo.
Not what I said Bex. Even with an embryo we are not assured of a human life, as many are missing essential components to become functioning beings -- these embryos die due to malformation or missing formation of elements critical for continued existence -- and they die.
this dot contains the full DNA as is seen in every cell in our full grown bodies. BUT, it also has all the living micro-forces necessary for a full autonomous human being.
Clearly this too is false when we have multitudinous evidence of embryos that are missing essential components to become functioning beings -- embryos that die due to malformation or missing formation of elements critical for continued existence -- and they die because their DNA did
not have the proper information for the formation of a human being.
To repeat, this dot contains the full DNA as is seen in every cell in our full grown bodies.
You are confusing the end result with the beginning. This is like buying a lottery ticket and then assuming you have won, because every win begins with the purchase of a lottery ticket. This is the
post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. Clearly in well over 60% of the cases the result of conception is not even a beginning of a human life. Just because A contains B does not mean that B results in A.
. . . . <img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/wyjbammegu.jpg">
B does not equal A, conception does not equal human life.
Life begins immediately after the egg is fertilised. What happens from there on maybe another story, whether successful further development or failure.
Please stop equivocating "life" with "human life" as they are not the same thing. Bacteria is "life" but it is not (last time I checked)
human life. The issue is not when life begins -- that occurred 3.5 billion or more years ago -- the issue is when is that life "human" and not something else ( like an empty pregnancy sac or an embyo missing critical components).
What begins at conception? The egg and the sperm were both necessarily
alive before, the DNA in the egg and the sperm is not changed, nothing is added, nothing is created. In 55% of the cases the zygote passes completely out of the uterus and never proceeds further than the combination of sperm and egg: what has "begun" in those cases? How is this not different from having sex where no conception occurs?
Also I never disputed the existance of an embryo at 3 weeks, i have shown you already that they exist by the pictures and have constantly repeated this. This is from successful conception and successful further development,
But you have disputed the cases where there is no embryo, and where successful further development does not occur.
I simply do not agree with what you are saying in regards to conception not being the start of life.
There's that equivocation between life and human life again. This basic disagreement on your part is
Cognitive Dissonance:
if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning.
There is
more on Wikipedia if you are interested. You have made a strong commitment to the concept of life at conception, and you have told it to other people as if it is the truth, and thus dealing with evidence that shows it is a false concept sets up a sever case of Cognititive Dissonance. One way to resolve cognitive dissonance internally is to reject the contraditctory evidence.
Even with this belief, how does this justify abortion?
The fact that the development of life into human life is a continous process (it even continues after birth) means that different people will come to different conclusions about the relative importance of different stages of development.
They have a right to honest information about the whole process, and they have a personal, legal, ethical, and moral right to make the decisions that affect their lives and the lives of those in their family.
In the last 30 minutes or so, 90 un-born human beings have been sucked or dismembered into oblivion in the USA alone.
This is just another appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy, and not to facts or reason based on facts. The (intentionally misleading) language used is intended to sway opinion through emotion, and not through facts, and it misrepresents the truth.
If the facts were on your side you would not need to make such appeals. The decisions should be made based on rational evaluation of all the facts by the families involved, and not by groups of busy-body outsiders with false information.
Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s),
and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]
