Saturday, October 20, 2012

"Life begins at birth..."

Democrat Senate candidate Chris Murphy (at 34:30):

"Ultimately I think that life begins at birth..."

Idiot. The simple callousness of it (a baby seconds before birth isn't alive?) aside, it is an uncommonly clear example of the stupidity and junk science that haunts the pro-death side of the abortion debate.

Human life does not begin "at birth". Humans reproduce sexually, by union of egg and sperm to form a zygote. We don't reproduce by budding, which is the process by which young form from parts of the mother's body, like flatworms.

Human life begins at conception. No debate. We need to get the science right.

The point during human life that we respect life can be debated. The science cannot be debated. 


  1. Michael,

    'We don't reproduce by budding, which is the process by which young form from parts of the mother's body, like flatworms'.

    Idiot. Flatworms also reproduce sexually, by the union of male and female gametes. Your ignorance of biology is amazing.

    There's no debate that at conception a unique combination of the genes of that species (whether human, mouse or flatworm) forms, many of which are non-viable and spontaneously abort.

    The debate is about when the resulting conceptus achieves 'personhood', which is a legal definition. If you're quoting Chris Murphy correctly, then obviously 'at birth' is wrong.

    I'd personally would put 'life starts at' at the point when the children have left the family home for the very last time.

    1. Personhood is an ethical and legal term.

      Human life is a biological term.

      Human life begins at conception.

      You believe that not all humans are persons, in the sense that they have a right to life.

      I believe that all humans are persons with the right to life.

      That is the difference between our views.

    2. Michael,

      No. I believe all human beings are persons, and have the right to life. But I don't think that an unimplanted fertilized human ovum is a person. I also believe that a human fetus one day before birth is a person.

      You and I differ in where we put the time at which a conceptus becomes a person. You put it at fertilization. I'm not so certain. I'd put it at 24 weeks, but I think 'choice' should cease at 20 weeks, to be conservative. Some European states put it at 16 weeks (and a British government minister has suggested that Britain should adopt that too), which is reasonable.

      Women have rights too. Abortion should be available as a last resort in case of failure of contraception, rape or incest. But it should be a limited right and rare (contraception should be readily available).

      Anyway, do you still think that flatworms breed by budding? Or do you need a sex education review?

    3. Biologically, we are apes. Not sure what Egnor is trying to achieve with this tack.

    4. Biologically, we are indeed Hominidae. And the life of each Hominidae, as with each organism that reproduces sexually, begins at conception.

      [Not sure what Egnor is trying to achieve with this tack.]

      I making sure you can't lie with impunity about the science.

    5. I don't think anyone here denies that life begins at conception. The point of contention is at what point personhood starts.

    6. Personhood is the point of contention.

      And most pro-aborts deny that life begins at conception. Where have you been for the past four decades?

    7. "And most pro-aborts deny that life begins at conception."


    8. No. Back atcha. :)

      (This depth of discourse is amazing. Egnor, I stand in awe of your rhetorical skillz.)

    9. Aw.. shucks... Wasnt no big deal...

  2. This is the person that is killed at 16 weeks but he/she comes out looking like this.
    Aborting a human person after conception is totally immoral!

  3. It's quite cut and dry, really.
    Life begins at conception.
    In our model a male and female living being come together in a sexual union that result in a new potentiality of their form - a new 'being' of their kind. For us this means a new 'human being'.
    This new potentiality is known as a 'life' and the new human being (whatever the stage it is at) is 'alive'.
    No debate here.
    Just fact.
    Scientifically established and understood fact.

    Chris Murphy states "Ultimately I think that life begins at birth...".
    There is no wiggle room for error here.
    Life does NOT begin at birth, it begins at conception. LIFE is what is being discussed here.
    LIFE is the issue at hand - the issue that the candidates in the video are discussing.
    Rights and legal definitions only enter into after the fact.
    Legal rights (such as 'personhood') or even more abstract concepts like independent and/or self awareness and consciousness are aspects commonly associated with the living. There is no, for example, debates over the 'personhood' of a stone or a log.

    Focus now!
    That means the materialists need to put on their thinking caps and squint, even if just for a moment.

    What we actually see in this clip - coming from the mouth of a political candidate who is an advocate for the 'choice' movement - is classic avoidance.
    He literally says: "Ultimately I think that life begins at birth..."
    Absolute buffoonery?
    No. absolute DISHONESTY.
    He seeks to avoid the entire debate by pretending that a baby in the womb is not a living human being - right up until birth!!
    He avoids the central issue entirely.
    What is that issue?
    In a nutshell: Do we extend the legal rights, conventions, and protections of 'personhood' to all living human beings no matter their stage of development, age, mental acuity, or ability to contribute?
    Or do we select a range of prime 'personhood' that allows most humans to enjoy the various benefits of being considered a 'person', but that also allows the elites to sterilize and cull (ie exterminate) and in some cases even harvest the biological components of the weakest and most vulnerable of our kind?
    Further, and within this debate, there is another question for the broader public: Does the population at large feel comfortable with the debate being held by those in elite positions within the legal and business communities, or do they think such issues should be put to the VOTE.


    Bach debates person-hood and flatworms sex lives, Anon preaches phylogenetic reductionism in biology - but nothing in those comments seems to recognize the absolutely unscientific and nakedly ANTI-Human approach used by this 'pro choice' advocate on a political stage? Maybe I am missing something....

    Pépé has posted a link the result of the evil work that is 'abortion'.

    This is what the 'liberals' stand for in the Democratic party?
    The Dems should kick this vampire out.

    1. CrusadeRex,

      Improve your reading skills. In my first comment, I stated that Chris Murphy, if correctly quoted (which is a doubtful proposition with Michael Egnor) was wrong in stating that life begins at birth. The question remains as to when personhood starts. If at conception, then you have the problem as to what to do with the many surplus frozen morulas resulting from in-vitro fertilization. If you regard them as 'persons' with all the rights of human beings, then you have a problem. You either have to implant them into volunteer surrogate mothers or ban IVF. I don't have a problem. They're not persons. They can be flushed down the sink, used in research or left frozen.

      The point about flatworms is that it demonstrates Egnor's considerable ignorance of biology, which is profound.

    2. Bach,
      Improve your writing skills.
      You wrote:
      "But I don't think that an unimplanted fertilized human ovum is a person. I also believe that a human fetus one day before birth is a person."
      This is avoidance. You seek to have a debate about at which point in human development rights and 'personhood' should be granted. In doing so you avoid the central issue, just as Mr Murphy does - albeit in a slightly more educated fashion.
      The central issue? Do we grant human rights to ALL human beings regardless of age, development, and mental acuity - or, alternately, do we pick specific levels of these aspects and treat all those human beings outside of them as if they were animals or inanimate objects?
      You dodge this completely and attempt to move on to which level of development we should choose. Science, morality, and common sense point to conception.
      You, and the folks on the Social Darwinist side to convenience.
      As to your comments re frozen embryos: Yes they should be implanted and those who experiment on them should be prosecuted.