It seems to that those who agrue that abiogenesis did happen. Also agree that when human females are pregnate that the baby isn't alive. A being that is growing eating and producing waste. Is not alive because relies on mom for food and air.


Which is it. If Life can start spontanously. Then that little baby is alive the moment the egg starts to divide. Can't have it both ways sorry.

Daniel, you are aware that abiogenesis supposes life being started with single-celled organisms, not complex, multi-cellular organisms? That these single-celled organisms arose from the reactions of non-living, self-replicating molecules?

Babies, even when in the womb, are complex, multi-cellular organisms and not at all what abiogenesis proposes life started off as.

LMAO!! this is hilarous

Can you elaborate how abortion ralates to this.... interresting argument?

That isn't what I said. I said that the best argument for allowing abortion is that the baby is not alive. So if life started off with single-celled organisms then that multi celled organism must be alive. Thus those who have abortions should have murder charges brought against them. It is considered to be murder to kill a living human being no matter how old. The only exceptions are self-defense and war.

What a title for a thread. In fact best I have seen!

If people do do that, maybe they are using the word 'life' in slightly different ways. The abortion life is not an autonomously viable 'life' in the way that an adult is independently alive. Egg and sperm are both 'alive' before they meet. Probably just semantics. Some people say it is only truly alive when it has its own heartbeat or in fact when it has been born. Very individual threshold, determinations of what is life.

Why don't ya find us a good dictionary definition?

I would say that the fetus is alive myself. It is not like a freaking plastic bag or piece of canvas for goodness sake.

I see what your argument is now!

Yes, the cells dividing in the womb becoming a foetus are alive. It is whether these cells constitute a human life that is the subject of much debate in the to'ing and fro'ing regarding the legality or illegality of abortion.

If the fetus is alive then it is human even when it looks like a chicken.

It's alive, but so is our individual skin cells, and sperm and eggs, and genital warts, but if it's gonna annoy you you'll get it burnt off.

So now a fetus is a genital wart.

Yes it is human and is alive but not sentient or conscience. That is where there justification comes from, at the very earliest stages the baby is no more alive then a plant. Without that sentience or consciousness some people do not consider it a full human life.

I'm somewhat conflicted on the subject myself so I do not claim to be either pro life or pro choice.

I think the title name should be changed as it is misleading, not entirely accurate, and assumes that supporters of abiogenesis are for abortion.

Nope, it's a foetus and thats it. If it'll annoy you, you can stop it from growing into a human being.

Hi Daniel. I think you're barking up the wrong tree with the abiogenesis argument there: nobody claims that human reproduction is an example of this (it's life from life, not life from non-life), and if abiogenesis did occur, then that first living organism was very, very different from living humans, who appeared billions of years later.

The abortion part of your argument might stand, depending on whether you've actually seen anyone claim that a foetus is not alive until it is born. I certainly haven't seen anyone claim this. The argument usually runs instead that the sex cells are living cells, but separately are not a human life. Together, post-fertilisation, they are simply a cell, or collection of cells. Nothing 'magic' has happened initiating a spark of life (the cells were, after all, living biological cells to start with). So the question would be, at what point between fertilisation and birth can those cells be said to have become a person?

Unless you're coming from a religious perspective (which I appreciate you are, although that's therefore a faith position rather than one which can be rationally argued), there is no 'magic moment' at which the developing cells achieve personhood. Rather, there is a gradual process of development which is a bit like, say, cooking: there is no point at which the raw chunk of animal you've put in the oven becomes 'dinner', it merely gets more and more like dinner until it is. When it's raw, it's definitely not; when it's cooked, it definitely is. In between, it's a judgment call, involving various factors like temperature, degree of cookedness, levels of harmful bacteria, palatability, and so on.

Same with babies. Fertilised egg ≠ human. Baby at point of birth = human. In between, it's a judgment call, involving various factors such as ability to survive outside the womb unaided, awareness, ability to feel pain, development of other senses, and so on. I think everyone would agree that we should err on the side of caution in terms of deciding whether or not it is ethical to prevent the development of non-baby into baby at any given point, but there is no scientific argument for mooting the issue by pronouncing the fertilised egg to be a human, and announcing that to be that.

Presumably you disagree. If so, maybe you could tell us what magic thing happens at the point at which you consider that the cells become a person?

I have heard it claimed not to be human life to not life period. I also noticed on here a lot of the people who support abiogenesis supports abortion. I know that is a generlization and not all support both.

Perhaps there is a slight correlation, since positions on both issues can be religiously motivated or otherwise, but I would suggest that there's only a conceptual relationship between the two when views are held for the same reasons: i.e. religious ones. For the reasons I stated, I don't think arguing that abiogenesis was the origin of life on Earth is logically inconsistent with an anti-abortion stance.

Did you consider my question as to what the 'magic moment' is from your perspective as to when a zygote becomes a human, and what happens at that point to make it so?

I'm also interested to know your views on similar issues, and what this might tell us about your position on the issue you raised in the OP. For example, is female menstruation, which rids the body of an unfertilised egg, 'abortion'? Is male masturbation and resultant waste of viable sperm 'abortion'? Is pre-coital contraception such as the contraceptive pill 'abortion'? Is intra-coital contraception such as the use of condoms 'abortion'? Is the morning-after pill 'abortion'?

I ask because I'm interested to know your reasoning behind your position.

Well, you see there are various provisos, addendums, and specifications...

Good luck getting any real answers Daniel

here is a great way of seeing the this debate from different perspectives -


a creationist walks into a room of scientists hotly debating topics on abiogenesisn ......

The creationist errantly takes this as proof that abiogenesis is invalid (if it was valid, why all the disagreement?).


the scientists on the other hand all support abiogenesis, but are debating specifics within that framework ("a" led to "b", but one says via path 1, the other via path 2 etc etc.....). I hope this helps Iamson.....

I don't think you can compare abiogenesis and abortion, one is a scientific theory the other is a legal term.

As far as the legal definitions of "foetus" or "abortion" they are both open to interpretation and hard to define, however I haven't seen anything in Canadian law that defines either by the determination of life, rather both are dependant on the foetus being alive at some point.

Sorry I didn't see the question first time. But I would say when sperm meets egg.

The thing is if you murder a pregnate woman at any stage they can charge you with two murders. At least here in the states.

I sincerely hope you are a vegetarian.





Hey, you are comparing a baby to a chicken, so don't talk.

No i am not. When a fetus is developing at some point it looks like a fish and a bird.

That isn't true. Different states have different opinions and it can even come down to the personal judgement of a district attorney as to whether a person is charged with two murders or not. It is almost case specific. There have been cases where people are charged and cases where they are not.

I'm not familiar with the law in question, but I would assume that they would have to define the terms in order to get a conviction.

Here's a medical definition of "pregnant":



Source: http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=10695

Then determine what a "fetus" is:



Source: http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3424

If we go one step further, here is a medical definition of abortion:



Source: http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2091


As you can see, medicine has it's own definition of abortion, and that is the point I would like to make, society decides what abortion is and whether it is legal/ethical/moral.

Abiogenesis on the other hand is a scientific theory, it is either correct or incorrect based on the evidence provided, and the hypotheses generated from the evidence, personal or social opinion don't really have any say on it's validity.

I said that you could be charged for two. I didn't get into specifics because i don't know them.

Yes, I agree with the person who posted that the title of this thread is misleading and non-sensical. I don't see abiogenesis and abortion being in opposition of each other. As previously stated, life from life v. life from not-life does not equate as a logical premise for expounding. Unless I'm missing something here, this topic could fill 1000 pages of legal definitions, law interpretations, and court decisions/opinions, but never arrive at at anything remotely resembling agreement or resolve.

What is the actual issue here?

The title was meant to get your attention and it did.

My thing would be this and for those who don't believe in souls well i can understand why you would have a problem with this statement. Though to me life would be a soul rather than er say flesh per sa? Why would you not concider stopping a soul from entering a body wrong? Personally I understand that it is a womans choice even though i do not agree that it should be done. It is still a person's choice. lol I got alittle off topic on my own statement i suppose.... >.>; whoops. maybe.

But free abortion makes personal responsibility non existent. So what I would say is the woman must delivery her first child and then if she wants then abort any others. Of course if it would hurt said lady to carrier full term that is a different issue.

not that that has anything to do with my statement. Though it is still their choice if someone wants to be irresponcible then well they have to live with the end result.

The baby is alive while in the womb, just not in the same sense as a human outside of the womb. I don't personally consider a baby to be a full-fledged "Human" until the umbilical cord is cut.
People who are against abortion had better be equally against hunting animals. In this day and age, we can survive on a Vegan diet. Unless it is absolutely necessary to assure survival at the time, there is no real "need" to kill animals even for food.
Until a certain point in development, a fetus/baby is no more intelligent than most animals we eat.

Somewhat similarly to how an unintelligent fetus can become a full-grown adult Human being, single-celled organisms can evolve into more complex organisms such as "animals" (although through different means, and over a much, MUCH longer period of time.)

I concur, i see little to no regard given to the taking of an animals life when its not needed at all to survive yet many do and the harm it does to our planet is astounding, and its so immediate any small change has such a domino effect for the better. once one just cuts down on meat,, but even that being said the point its the supporting of treatment to animals and their offspring that is justified. astounds me.....lets jsut be real few animals are being grass fed.....


or the one that astounds me the most is the smoker pufifng away in a closed vehilce with a child who is screaming about abortion...

People think that humans are better then animals for some reason.

I always like the ones who cry murder when abortion is spoke of but then of course support the war, overindulge in food that could be sent to save the life of starving people, wear clothing made by an eight year old in sweat shop, and are pro life but do not donate money or help out at orphanages(or even adopt themselves).

Geee, consider this.

interesting story
Earlier version
A little word byte about it here.

Ok, danielost, then by your point of view, this woman should not have been ticketed, and she should have the access to the HOV lane, because she is right according to you, her unborn is a person. According to the judge and Arizona police, the unborn is not. Yet, if that unborn was born and in a car seat, she would have access. Apparently, it can happen both ways. If you are right Danielost, that woman should have won her case!

So how does abiogenesis and preganancy have anything to do with each other?

No the hov lane is for two or more seats being occupied.

Do you have the legal wording for the law that states that two or more seats need to be filled?

They don't. I was pointing out that most supporters of abiogenesis supports abortion. It is the womans body yes. She should be able to choose for herself yes. But the lady in woe vs wade is now an anti-abortionist. What changed she had a baby.


So what I am saying is a woman should have to carry her first child full term before being able to choose. She may decide that she doesn't like the idea after she gets all the info. Also we might see a drop in teen pregnancies as well.




no

Then why is the title of the thread abiogenesis vs abortion? I must have missed somthing...

Because those who do support both say that life came from nothing and a fetus is not alive. The real reason for the title was to get peoples attention.

maybe we can work it out so you can carry the baby for a woman who gets molested or raped or whose birth control doesnt work... I wonder if that would chance your opinion of abortion?

They don't at all. Abiogenesis is life coming from non life...pregnancy is coming from other life. The title and the entire OP is wrong, misleading, generalizing, and makes absolutely little to no sense. Its obvious this thread was created for the sole purpose to try to take another stab at abiogenesis...not that this isn't already being done in like five other threads.

You know this how? Got any poll data or anything to support that? Or is just your assumption, a generalization perhaps?

rape is one of the exceptions. The best birth control is don't do it. No it wouldn't. Your talking to a person who is in pain almost 24/7 except when I sleep and I usually only sleep for three hours at a time.




Your right almost and two of those threads are mine.




because unlike you I do listen and read most posts.

I will say it again the main reason for the title was to get people to read it.

I think intentionally creating misleading titles and threads is against the rules...also I believe creating similar threads multiple times is also.

So what you don't have any poll data or any studies suggesting that most people who support abiogenesis support abortion?

Nope sorry just read the rules nothing against misleading titles. Couldn't find any polls on abortion and abiogenesis. I will try to make one on here.

Hmm really?

1c. Multi-posting: Do not start multiple identical threads in multiple forum sections or post multiple identical replies in multiple threads. Posting something once in one place is sufficient.

2d. Accuracy: Do not post material that is knowingly or intentionally false, inaccurate or misleading.

2e. Garbage posting: Do not deliberately make posts of little worth or that contain nonsense, this includes making numerous short non-constructive posts designed to quickly inflate your post count or to annoy other members.
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/rules.php

Please don't make another abiogenesis thread.

1 they are not identicle. This one is about people who think that abiogenesis is real and that fetuss are not alive. The other one was asking from a poster for links to his claims.

2 I did not post anything that is knowingly or intentionally false. Maybe a little misleading

3 I don't care about post counts. nor am I trying to annoy any one. In fact I started the other thread so I wouldn't annoy tiggs in his topic.

You admitted to creating the thread title for the sole purpose to get peoples attention...you know what forget it, most people already realize that this thread is ridiculous anyways and it is futile to discussing anything with you.

That does not make it a false title. And only slightly misleading.

It is misleading. You are trying to establish a moral connection between abiogenesis and abortion in such a way that makes proponents of abiogenesis look immoral or something. I find this thread offensive.