Ron Paul's Ideology, a pet peeve

[monotony]

My views are generally in alignment with Dr. Paul's primarily because I worry about the economic consequences of our current policies, as well as the Federal government (military-industrial-complex) continuing to grow in size and scope. It is very obvious to even a casual observer that Ron Paul has a very calculated and studied position in many areas regarding liberty, economics, and the proper role of government.

So that is why I am frustrated by his assertions and legislation regarding the notion that "life begins at conception." I know this is a very polarizing issue, and I know he is a doctor that has delivered thousands of babies, but I don't understand how in the world he supports that notion. It appears to me to be a dogmatic belief, as I have not seen him support it with the reasons why he thinks believes this.

Isn't a more reasonable view that when the embryo develops into a living organism that has a heartbeat and brainwaves and sustains a separate consciousness that "life begins"? His flatland belief that a fertilized egg is the equivalent of an 8 or 9 month old baby just seems irrational. To me that is similar to saying that a shrimp has the equivalent value of a snow leopard. I mean, isn't there a relative level of consciousness that can be taken into consideration here? It seems to me that the mother, a fully developed conscious being with her own considerations and concerns, should outweigh the concerns of the fertilized egg until that child develops past a certain point, at which time both the mother's and the child's concerns must be taken into consideration. In regards to his stance on individual liberty, it seems to me that keeping the gov't off of the woman's body should be equally valued in his reasoning behind this issue.

I have heard him mention witnessing a late date abortion where the child was basically killed in the process of removal, and that is tragic. I can definitely understand the impact that can have on a person. But I have a hard time understanding why the good Dr., so astute in so many areas, can not see into this issue more deeply and have a more multi-perspective approach. I think it would really help reel in the people who would like to support him, but land on the pro choice side of the abortion issue, and hold it as their main concern.

[LibertyEagle]

His personal beliefs are not the issue, because his stance is that abortion should be left up to the states to decide.

[RP08]

I think he'd like it to be seen at a similar level as with murder. If someone murders a pregnant woman, he/she can be convicted of 2 (or more) counts. I have no idea if there's a "how far along" part of that law.

[monotony]

His personal beliefs are not the issue, because his stance is that abortion should be left up to the states to decide.

While that is true in a sense, he also sponsoring a bill to "provide that human life shall exist from conception (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2597)". So from a state's perspective, regarding life existing from conception SERIOUSLY limits the discussions that can be had over this issue. That is bothersome to me, especially because he provides so much reference for so many of his other positions, that this one seems so very arbitrary to me.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Yeah, about that life thing. Shrimp, Snow Leopard, Human, Paramecium. Equivalent value doesn't enter into it. Unicellular bacteria or multicellular vertebrate... it's still life. This is just rudimentary biology. To say otherwise would be denying everything we know about biology and medicine. You may as well become a creationist.

If NASA said they discovered bacteria on another planet the headlines would be screaming about the discovery of actual extraterrestrial LIFE.

So yeah, life does begin at conception. It's a single celled organism with its own unique DNA. In a few hours it's a multicellular organism with its own unique DNA.

That being said, I'm still pro-choice. I just don't try to make myself feel better about it. The question regarding abortion is when are you killing a sea monkey and when are you killing a baby?

[SeanEdwards]

My views are generally in alignment with Dr. Paul's primarily because I worry about the economic consequences of our current policies, as well as the Federal government (military-industrial-complex) continuing to grow in size and scope. It is very obvious to even a casual observer that Ron Paul has a very calculated and studied position in many areas regarding liberty, economics, and the proper role of government.

So that is why I am frustrated by his assertions and legislation regarding the notion that "life begins at conception." I know this is a very polarizing issue, and I know he is a doctor that has delivered thousands of babies, but I don't understand how in the world he supports that notion. It appears to me to be a dogmatic belief, as I have not seen him support it with the reasons why he thinks believes this.

Isn't a more reasonable view that when the embryo develops into a living organism that has a heartbeat and brainwaves and sustains a separate consciousness that "life begins"? His flatland belief that a fertilized egg is the equivalent of an 8 or 9 month old baby just seems irrational. To me that is similar to saying that a shrimp has the equivalent value of a snow leopard. I mean, isn't there a relative level of consciousness that can be taken into consideration here? It seems to me that the mother, a fully developed conscious being with her own considerations and concerns, should outweigh the concerns of the fertilized egg until that child develops past a certain point, at which time both the mother's and the child's concerns must be taken into consideration. In regards to his stance on individual liberty, it seems to me that keeping the gov't off of the woman's body should be equally valued in his reasoning behind this issue.

I have heard him mention witnessing a late date abortion where the child was basically killed in the process of removal, and that is tragic. I can definitely understand the impact that can have on a person. But I have a hard time understanding why the good Dr., so astute in so many areas, can not see into this issue more deeply and have a more multi-perspective approach. I think it would really help reel in the people who would like to support him, but land on the pro choice side of the abortion issue, and hold it as their main concern.

A human zygote is a living cluster of animal cells with unique DNA and the potential to develop into a complete human being. These tiny undeveloped beings can be created in a petri dish in a laboratory by combining the germ cells of a male and female adult human.

It's theoretically possible to take that zygote and grow it in an artificial womb environment. Experimenters are already growing animal fetuses this way. So where does the life of this human begin? Isn't it logical to think that it begins when there exists a living cell that carries the unique genetic information of the total being? After conception, the mother is just a life support system for a tiny parasitic weak and undeveloped human.

The question is, should the woman be compelled by society to care for this tiny parasite human, or should she be free to pull the plug. I don't know, but I do know I recoil in horror from Dr. Paul's description of an abortion procedure. I can't help but feel there is something not right about dismembering what are obviously, recognizably, human infants. With developed faces, and hands, and the works. That isn't 'tissue' being surgically removed from the mother. It's not like trimming a toenail.

[allyinoh]

Being pro-life, I don't see this as a problem.

People can debate all day long about abortion but there are more pertinent topics to discuss and get people to join the camp over than abortion.

[Wendi]

I worry about the deluded people who find their way in here and attempt to debate what Ron Paul's beliefs "should" be on a particular topic.

[CodeMonkey]

My views are generally in alignment with Dr. Paul's primarily because I worry about the economic consequences of our current policies, as well as the Federal government (military-industrial-complex) continuing to grow in size and scope. It is very obvious to even a casual observer that Ron Paul has a very calculated and studied position in many areas regarding liberty, economics, and the proper role of government.

So that is why I am frustrated by his assertions and legislation regarding the notion that "life begins at conception." I know this is a very polarizing issue, and I know he is a doctor that has delivered thousands of babies, but I don't understand how in the world he supports that notion. It appears to me to be a dogmatic belief, as I have not seen him support it with the reasons why he thinks believes this.

Isn't a more reasonable view that when the embryo develops into a living organism that has a heartbeat and brainwaves and sustains a separate consciousness that "life begins"? His flatland belief that a fertilized egg is the equivalent of an 8 or 9 month old baby just seems irrational. To me that is similar to saying that a shrimp has the equivalent value of a snow leopard. I mean, isn't there a relative level of consciousness that can be taken into consideration here? It seems to me that the mother, a fully developed conscious being with her own considerations and concerns, should outweigh the concerns of the fertilized egg until that child develops past a certain point, at which time both the mother's and the child's concerns must be taken into consideration. In regards to his stance on individual liberty, it seems to me that keeping the gov't off of the woman's body should be equally valued in his reasoning behind this issue.

I have heard him mention witnessing a late date abortion where the child was basically killed in the process of removal, and that is tragic. I can definitely understand the impact that can have on a person. But I have a hard time understanding why the good Dr., so astute in so many areas, can not see into this issue more deeply and have a more multi-perspective approach. I think it would really help reel in the people who would like to support him, but land on the pro choice side of the abortion issue, and hold it as their main concern.

Well, the point at which a human being gains its rights must be defined somewhere in the eyes of the law. Currently we have a double standard where the fetus's rights depend on whether it is "wanted" by the mother or not. The clearest point to define is at conception. Anything after that is pretty subjective... heartbeats, brainwaves, etc. don't denote human rights for any special reason.

Personally I wouldn't mind first term abortions, but as a society we would have to deal with the fact that if I punch a 2 months pregnant woman in the stomach and she miscarries, I can't be charged with squat in regards to the dead fetus.

[jblosser]

There is nothing "arbitrary" about declaring that one is not willing to say it's ok to aggressively remove the life from any human organism that is not in the act of willfully committing aggression against another. This is, in fact, quite a consistent position.

You may well choose not to agree to draw your lines there, but I do not get the people that try to make it sound like people opposed to abortion are simple-minded or lack some kind of rational sophistication or scientific perspective. What is irrational about wanting to protect human life? At worst one can argue they're choosing to err on the side of caution.

These same kind of "rational", "sophisticated" arguments have been used throughout history to deny life and other rights to various other groups of the species as well.

[0zzy]

Personally, I think abortion is necessary if it end agers the life of the mother or if the fetus can not live outside of the womb. I would also say if it was from rape, but I think that would raise up the rape count more than it already is. Maybe a young child, too.

Hrm.. I'm on the sideline, limited abortion.

[jblosser]

I have heard him mention witnessing a late date abortion where the child was basically killed in the process of removal, and that is tragic.

By the way, the story he typically tells involves seeing a 2.5 pound breathing baby put in a bucket after extraction and left, not "killing in the process of removal". 2.5 pounds would indicate development around 30 weeks, which is around 3/4 of a typical gestation. I don't know if you consider that "late date" or not. Regardless, all reports are it was a completely planned event, so why exactly would you say it is tragic?

[jblosser]

Personally, I think abortion is necessary if it end agers the life of the mother or if the fetus can not live outside of the womb. I would also say if it was from rape, but I think that would raise up the rape count more than it already is. Maybe a young child, too.

Hrm.. I'm on the sideline, limited abortion.

The "life of the mother" bogeyman gets raised fairly often, but there's not typically a lot of data given to back it up. For what it's worth, Dr. Paul has indicated he's never been presented with a case where he found abortion necessary to save the mother. Also for what it's worth, my grandmother was told she'd die if she gave birth to my mother. She told them to figure it out, they did, and she died some 50 years later.

[monotony]

I worry about the deluded people who find their way in here and attempt to debate what Ron Paul's beliefs "should" be on a particular topic.

I worry about Ron Paul "supporters" who insult other supporters for no particular reason and add nothing to the discussion. Do you advocate only people with your political and religious affiliations "finding their way in here"? If so I hope you realize Dr Paul's support wouldn't be half of what it is now.

I figured I would get this kind of resistance by questioning the good doctor, but that doesn't change that fact that he is obviously flatlanding it on this issue. There are SEVERAL people in my sphere of influence that I could convince to support Paul if he had a more reasonable and well thought out position on this specific issue (one of the few that doesn't cross party lines, IMO).

A person can be pro life and not believe that life begins at conception. And he never discusses why he holds that belief. He always discusses his views on abortion from the point of view of "a second before birth" as if that is the actual issue. The overwhelming majority of pro choice people I know are not in favor of abortion after the fetus has passed through certain developmental milestones. It is not a strong argument for a Dr. to propagate a message of "life begins at conception" and then support it with "i've seen late stage abortions and they aren't pretty."

Can he really believe that having an abortion when the child is the size of a fingernail is equivalent to aborting a fetus that would be viable outside the womb or that has an active heartbeat and brainwaves?

I think he contradicts himself a bit by championing individual rights, except those of a female over her body in virtually any circumstance. When the child becomes an individual, differentiated consciousness his logic has legs, but until then his position on this is flawed IMO and it stems from his arbitrary belief that life begins at conception.

Just some food for thought.

[jaybone]

Abortion is a sticky wicket, and should absolutely not be regulated by an entity that cannot deliver a phone bill on time.

I have to admit, I am completely torn on this issue, and don't have the answer.
I have found that when in doubt, less legislation is the way to go.

[1000-points-of-fright]

I think he contradicts himself a bit by championing individual rights, except those of a female over her body in virtually any circumstance. When the child becomes an individual, differentiated consciousness his logic has legs, but until then his position on this is flawed IMO and it stems from his arbitrary belief that life begins at conception.

There's nothing arbitrary about it. It's a biological fact. If anyone is "flatlanding" it's you by ignoring basic 8th grade science. And if you actually read the bill he is introducing instead of just reacting to its title, you'll see that "(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State." Which, ipso facto, means that each state has the authority to NOT protect the unborn.

In addition...

`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--

`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--

`(A) the performance of abortions; or

`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'

So you see, the introduction of this bill in no way contradicts his previous position on states rights. Don't worry, you'll still be able to have your abortions. I bet California would even allow late term abortions.

[jblosser]

that doesn't change that fact that he is obviously flatlanding it on this issue. There are SEVERAL people in my sphere of influence that I could convince to support Paul if he had a more reasonable and well thought out position on this specific issue (one of the few that doesn't cross party lines, IMO).

obviously flatlanding... reasonable... thought out. Again, this strikes me as just demagoging. Why is it just assumed one is being unreasonable if one maintains that human beings deserve protection of their life regardless of their size or development? I frankly don't see why the burden of proof should be on Dr. Paul here. To even talk of "when life begins" we are of course engaging in demagogery; there is no question that a fetus is scientifically _alive_ from conception, the only question is when legal and moral obligation for that life attaches. And when society has declared that we protect human life, the burden of proof should be on those that want to add a class of human life that should not be protected.

Obviously we as a species have historically gotten that backwards; we often fail to protect some groups until pushed or forced to change. That doesn't mean it's the rational way to go about it.


Can he really believe that having an abortion when the child is the size of a fingernail is equivalent to aborting a fetus that would be viable outside the womb or that has an active heartbeat and brainwaves?

Why is equivalency the standard for rational argument? This is the approach that sets a metric for "good enough" and says anything below that line is beneath our care. I don't find that particularly rational, and it has led to some rather large abuses in our history as we have moved that line along. Another approach says *all* life is protected unless that protection is forfeited; this is the notion of inalienable rights and the non-aggression principle.


I think he contradicts himself a bit by championing individual rights, except those of a female over her body in virtually any circumstance.

There is nothing contradictory about this, it is nearly the only consistent position to hold when one maintains the non-aggression principle and the notion that it applies to all human life unless somehow proven otherwise.


When the child becomes an individual, differentiated consciousness his logic has legs, but until then his position on this is flawed IMO and it stems from his arbitrary belief that life begins at conception.

There is the word "arbitrary" again. How is it arbitrary to say human life is protected unless proven otherwise (and again, any fetus is of course _alive_ from conception, just as a dog or cat or amoeba is _alive_; the question is protection, not life), vs saying human life is only protected once some subjective standard of development is applied? I'm not asking to argue about what the subjective standard would be, I'm asking to explain how the term "arbitrary" isn't being applied completely backwards there.

[scrosnoe]

you all back away from what is written here now and think a minute and then explain to me why i cannot get many prolifers to instantly intuitively support ron paul. is it his position or his campaign or something else i am not understanding . . .

[Gee]

No one knows when "life begins". Period. Scientists aren't really even close to even defining consciousness, let alone pin-pointing when it starts (if it even does have a definite starting point). I don't think theologians are any closer to pinpointing the time when a person's soul is created, nor are able to determine what happens to aborted souls.

[jblosser]

you all back away from what is written here now and think a minute and then explain to me why i cannot get many prolifers to instantly intuitively support ron paul. is it his position or his campaign or something else i am not understanding . . .

There are many possible reasons. Sticking with just this one issue though, quite a few aren't going to like the "leave it to the states" message any more than their friends across the aisle do. People have completely forgotten that the limited, divided government of federalism protects liberties and individuals better than centralization does.

[jblosser]

No one knows when "life begins". Period. Scientists aren't really even close to even defining consciousness, let alone pin-pointing when it starts (if it even does have a definite starting point). I don't think theologians are any closer to pinpointing the time when a person's soul is created, nor are able to determine what happens to aborted souls.

"Life", "consciousness", and "soul" are three distinct terms. You are right that the jury is still out on the second two, but the first with respect to science and the law is historically pretty clearly defined except when people have a group they want to exclude. We do not currently as a society define things like homicide in relation to things other than a hard, objective notion of life. There is no established "not guilty by reason of the person lacked consciousness or a soul" (with some rather famous exceptions that prove the rule with respect to consciousness, brain death, etc.).

[0zzy]

The "life of the mother" bogeyman gets raised fairly often, but there's not typically a lot of data given to back it up. For what it's worth, Dr. Paul has indicated he's never been presented with a case where he found abortion necessary to save the mother. Also for what it's worth, my grandmother was told she'd die if she gave birth to my mother. She told them to figure it out, they did, and she died some 50 years later.

It's no "bogeyman". It has happened before, where it endangers the mother or the fetus/baby (or both). I don't think we should turn a blind eye on that type of thing.

I remember an Irish women wanted to come to America to perform an abortion because the doctors said it couldn't live outside the womb. She was denied. Why should she have to carry the fetus for 9 months and have it die in her arms when born?

[jblosser]

It's no "bogeyman". It has happened before, where it endangers the mother or the fetus/baby (or both). I don't think we should turn a blind eye on that type of thing.

I remember an Irish women wanted to come to America to perform an abortion because the doctors said it couldn't live outside the womb. She was denied. Why should she have to carry the fetus for 9 months and have it die in her arms when born?

To clarify, I wasn't trying to say it *never* happens, only that the data tends to indicate it's a lot rarer than people make it out to be. Multiple Ob/Gyns (including Dr. Paul) have made the claim they never saw a real case of it presented to them during their careers.

[cjhowe]

"Life", "consciousness", and "soul" are three distinct terms. You are right that the jury is still out on the second two, but the first with respect to science and the law is historically pretty clearly defined except when people have a group they want to exclude. We do not currently as a society define things like homicide in relation to things other than a hard, objective notion of life. There is no established "not guilty by reason of the person lacked consciousness or a soul" (with some rather famous exceptions that prove the rule with respect to consciousness, brain death, etc.).

Let me start out by saying, I absolutely respect every person's view on this issue. This isn't as simple an issue as anyone is making it out to be. We're looking at definitions of life and that it needs to be protected. We use some definitions that we glean from religion, although we don't actually look at what the religion teaches. Then we use some definitions that we glean from science, but then we don't use what science says for the end of life.

If we are to use Christianity's claim of when life begins, we have two choices and neither of them are at conception. Christianity makes the claim that life begins with man's seed or at breath. Man's seed occurs before conception and breath is where we identify it legally today.

Science makes no actual claim on when life begins. It can make a claim a living cells, but not necessarily "living". If we're to use the living cells argument, one can certainly argue seed and egg here as being life. However even if you were to call conception life, we're not consistent at the end of life (I'm not even going to get into right to die in this argument). Say you "die" of a heart attack or stroke, you're not "dead" yet (I'm not making a Monty Python joke either). Your cells are still alive and your system can even be rejuvenated (look up the recent studies about cellular death occurring because of the reintroduction of oxygen). The embalmer at the morgue is actually your murderer if you use science's definition of life.

If life is to be protected as a society's moral imperative, we must be consistent. Our society's arbitrariness of breath and will being the definition of life is the consistant most choice on the table.

[Mesogen]

Isn't a more reasonable view that when the embryo develops into a living organism that has a heartbeat and brainwaves and sustains a separate consciousness that "life begins"? His flatland belief that a fertilized egg is the equivalent of an 8 or 9 month old baby just seems irrational.
Why is it irrational? The zygote has a unique set of DNA and is a unique individual because of that. So this separate life began at conception.

The rest of your argument hinges on whether or not some form of life has more "value" than another depending on its level of consciousness, which is something no one can really know or truly gauge.


To me that is similar to saying that a shrimp has the equivalent value of a snow leopard.

See? You switched from "is it a life?" to "is it a valuable life?"

Different question and different argument.

[jblosser]

Science makes no actual claim on when life begins. It can make a claim a living cells, but not necessarily "living". If we're to use the living cells argument, one can certainly argue seed and egg here as being life.

With all respect, this is a rubbish argument. Science is not the least bit confused about the difference between individual living cells and an independent organism as an instantiation of a member of a species. This is the difference between "life" generically and "a life".

*Government* remains confused about when ending the life of that independent organism should be considered murder, but that is an entirely different subject. I don't really get why people want to confuse the two, unless they have a problem objectively getting that they are in fact talking about the termination of an independent life form that is self-contained beyond the need for shelter and nourishment that most life forms have, although on a different scale. But there's nothing scientific about that semantic game, it just shows a dependence on subjective emotion that belies the argument of rationality.


However even if you were to call conception life, we're not consistent at the end of life (I'm not even going to get into right to die in this argument). Say you "die" of a heart attack or stroke, you're not "dead" yet (I'm not making a Monty Python joke either). Your cells are still alive and your system can even be rejuvenated (look up the recent studies about cellular death occurring because of the reintroduction of oxygen). The embalmer at the morgue is actually your murderer if you use science's definition of life.

When to allow a "natural" cessation of life is, of course, another angle for the "when is killing legal" discussion, but beyond that is no more related to the abortion discussion than the concept of Just War is. It is also worth noting that violation of the non-aggression principle is not involved.


If life is to be protected as a society's moral imperative, we must be consistent. Our society's arbitrariness of breath and will being the definition of life is the consistant most choice on the table.

I don't believe I have argued that the absolute protection of life under all circumstances is the moral imperative. There are broadly recognized legal exceptions to this, including self-defense. I'm only talking about understanding that it isn't an argument about "when life begins", it is an argument about if abortion is another case where it is moral to end a life -- *another* exception to the general principle of protecting life, and beyond that an exception of the non-aggression principle. Since this is the actual kind of argument it is, the OP claim that Dr. Paul is the one who has the burden of proof is not supported.

[foofighter20x]

While that is true in a sense, he also sponsoring a bill to "provide that human life shall exist from conception (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2597)". So from a state's perspective, regarding life existing from conception SERIOUSLY limits the discussions that can be had over this issue. That is bothersome to me, especially because he provides so much reference for so many of his other positions, that this one seems so very arbitrary to me.

Realize that the scope of such a federal law would only extend to Washington DC, federally administered territories, and federal installations and buildings.

[foofighter20x]

If we're to use the living cells argument, one can certainly argue seed and egg here as being life.

You'd be wrong.

A standard component of any scientific definition of life is that the living organism possess the ability to reproduce itself.

Neither ovum nor sperm can reproduce themselves. Thus what we call "sex cells" are not life, but merely the vessels of life.

Human males and females reproduce their own cells daily, thus they meet the definition in that sense. However, to produce offspring beyond their own lives, they typically are required to copulate and exchange the sex cells so that the two vessels combine and create a new single cell organism, genetically unique from its two parents, and able to grow and reproduce itself.

[SeanEdwards]

If we're to use the living cells argument, one can certainly argue seed and egg here as being life.


Individual germ cells do not have the capability to divide and multiply, because they don't have enough chromosomes by themselves.

[cjhowe]

<snip>. Science is not the least bit confused about the difference between individual living cells and an independent organism as an instantiation of a member of a species. This is the difference between "life" generically and "a life".
<snip>


Thank you for the response. Science is very much confused on this issue. So much so that there are seven prevailing philosophies.

Metabolic - sperm and egg
Genetic - Fertilization, diploid cell
Embryological - gastrulation, ontological individual and can no longer become two individuals
Neurological - brain waves
Ecological - maturation of the lungs
Technological Advancements in medical technology allow for immature lungs to function. So, definition of ecological, but through technological means.
Self-Consciousness - would even allow for infanticide

[cjhowe]

You'd be wrong.

A standard component of any scientific definition of life is that the living organism possess the ability to reproduce itself.

Neither ovum nor sperm can reproduce themselves. Thus what we call "sex cells" are not life, but merely the vessels of life.

Human males and females reproduce their own cells daily, thus they meet the definition in that sense. However, to produce offspring beyond their own lives, they typically are required to copulate and exchange the sex cells so that the two vessels combine and create a new single cell organism, genetically unique from its two parents, and able to grow and reproduce itself.

To call egg and sperm life is the metabolic viewpoint. It contends that both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.

You can certainly take the position that the ability to reproduce is needed to be considered life, but by such a strong stance you would be denying the status of life to virii as well as to individuals with non functioning reproduction organs. So, a sterile woman or a man with a vasectomy would no longer be alive by your definition.

I'm not taking the position that and egg and sperm is life. Simply making the point that science does not make a claim, merely contemplates competing philosophies.

[foofighter20x]

To call egg and sperm life is the metabolic viewpoint. It contends that both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.

You can certainly take the position that the ability to reproduce is needed to be considered life, but by such a strong stance you would be denying the status of life to virii as well as to individuals with non functioning reproduction organs. So, a sterile woman or a man with a vasectomy would no longer be alive by your definition.

I'm not taking the position that and egg and sperm is life. Simply making the point that science does not make a claim, merely contemplates competing philosophies.

You'll note that I never stated any requirement of reproduction to include offspring.

Only that the organism be able to reproduce itself.

Pay attention. :rolleyes:

As for virii, they do reproduce themself. They only difference is their method; they can't do it alone. They invade the host cell, take it over, reproduce within, and then destroy the host so they can be released. The key similarity is that it has all the virus posseses all genes it needs when it starts the process.

Sperm and ovum do not. They only have 1/2 the genes and can't do jack poo until they get paired up.

Difference being, you start with virii, you end with more virii. You start with just an egg or just a sperm, and you'll not get amy more of those cells out of them. Also, virii can use any cell and results generally in genetic duplicates. On the other hand, sperm and egg require the pairing of their specific sexual opposite and do not ever reproduce a genetic duplicate.

Edit: most virologists don't consider virii to be life as they don't meet a separate definition of life--the ability to respond to changes in its environment. Virii don't. Humans and other animals and plants do.

[PennCustom4RP]

You'd be wrong.

A standard component of any scientific definition of life is that the living organism possess the ability to reproduce itself.

Neither ovum nor sperm can reproduce themselves. Thus what we call "sex cells" are not life, but merely the vessels of life.

Human males and females reproduce their own cells daily, thus they meet the definition in that sense. However, to produce offspring beyond their own lives, they typically are required to copulate and exchange the sex cells so that the two vessels combine and create a new single cell organism, genetically unique from its two parents, and able to grow and reproduce itself.

Small wrench in the works here...in the case of Horse x Donkey offspring...a Mule is unable to reproduce, as are other hybrids, yet very much alive. Otherwise I agree with your statement.

But this is not as cjhowe states:

So a sterile woman or a man with a vasectomy would no longer be alive by your definition
As she has some medical condition causing her barrenness, and he has been altered.

[foofighter20x]

Small wrench in the works here...in the case of Horse x Donkey offspring...a Mule is unable to reproduce, as are other hybrids, yet very much alive. Otherwise I agree with your statement.

But this is not as cjhowe states:

As she has some medical condition causing her barrenness, and he has been altered.

You two seriously aren't understanding me, are you?

I said reproduce itself.

Not reproduce offspring.

If you are alive, then all the cells that make you up are growing and reproducing themselves. What do you not get about that? :confused:

A single-cell organism will reproduce itself and offspring simultaneously.

Multi-cellular organisms will reproduce themselves (one lung cell grows and splits, as does a heart cell, a skin cell, a liver cell, etc), but produce offspring via sexual reproduction (meosis, not mitosis).

Pay attention. I never said sexual reproduction was necessary to life. A barren woman is still having cells in her body continually undergo mitosis (i.e. cellular reproduction).

You guys need to go read a biology book and not second guess my definition. You are essentially placing positions in my mouth that I never argued. Good job, you little junior Giulianis! *thumbs up* :rolleyes:

[PennCustom4RP]

You guys need to go read a biology book and not second guess my definition. You are essentially placing positions in my mouth that I never argued. Good job, you little junior Giulianis! *thumbs up* :rolleyes:


Well maybe your definition is not an accurate one, when regarding reproduction of ITSELF, this means offspring..

Ask A Scientist©
Biology Archivehttp://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99171.htm
Definition of life

Definition of life

Question: Does anyone know what is currently the most accepted idea
on the characteristics needed for any kind of life?
Chris E Lee

I assume since no one has answered your question in nearly a
month that no one has a sufficient answer for you, so I'll take
a crack at it. As far as I know, most of the accepted criteria
for determining whether something is "alive" can also, at
least individually, be applied to non-living things -- it's
kind of difficult to say. The main points I can think of at
the moment are:

MOTION -- does it seem to move under its own power? Does it move
with some discernible purpose? (Toward food, away from heat, etc)

REPRODUCTION -- does it have some way of making more of itself,
either through sexual reproduction or by budding or fissioning in
some way?

CONSUMPTION -- does it eat or drink? Does it take in nutrients
in one way or another in order to survive, grow, and eventually
multiply?

GROWTH -- does the organism develop over time, increase in
complexity, until it reaches a mature stage?

STIMULUS RESPONSE -- does the organism respond to external
stimuli, i.e. has a nervous system of some sort to detect
external conditions?
To qualify as a living thing, an organism must in one way or
another meet each of those criteria.


Not to be a dick, but you went that way...I suppose reproduction by division is a concept you've not heard of...Annelids do it all the time:rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

EC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.


SEC. 5. FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS NOT BINDING ON STATE OR LOCAL COURTS.

Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under the amendments made by sections 3 and section 4, is not binding precedent on the court of--

(1) any State or subdivision thereof;

(2) the District of Columbia; or

(3) any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, or any subdivision thereof.

It still sounds to me that what he is attempting to do is to return the decision-making about abortion to the states and get the Federal government out of the business of funding abortions.

[cjhowe]

You'll note that I never stated any requirement of reproduction to include offspring.

Only that the organism be able to reproduce itself.

Pay attention. :rolleyes:
<snip>

And a sterile organism is not able to reproduce itself. Thus, being sterile. :p . This would bring up a strange scenario as well, since a child is unable to reproduce itself, that would put off it's status of life until puberty. This is well past infanticide. :confused:

Again, I don't subscribe to the metabolic argument of life, so I'm not the best person to defend it. My only point being that all seven distinctions that science makes are arbitrary and that science doesn't agree and therefore does not claim when life begins.

As a social solution, I would put forth the legal test as being 1) There is someone (person, state or otherwise) willing to claim responsibility for the child in any stage of development and 2) There is not undue burden placed upon anyone to deliver the child to the party willing to claim responsibility.

This test would clearly outlaw late term abortions as there is no additional burden placed on the carrying mother to induce delivery of the child as there is to abort it. The mother therefore delivers it and the state is willing to take responsibility.

As far as earlier abortions, if the child was extracted as to not put an additional burden on the carrying mother, would the state or someone else be willing to take responsibility for the fetus after extraction? If there is noone willing to take responsibility, the method of extraction does not matter.

Edit: foofighter- we cross posted and you cleared up your point. But, again, I'm not the best person to defend the metabolic status of life as I don't subscribe to it.

[foofighter20x]

Well maybe your definition is not an accurate one, when regarding reproduction of ITSELF, this means offspring..

...

REPRODUCTION -- does it have some way of making more of itself,
either through sexual reproduction or by budding or fissioning in
some way?

Did you miss the word itself in your own source definition there? Looks like you did.

Seems you also missed the word either which immediately followed it. Do you not get that mitosis is cellular fissioning, also given as a definition in your source?

Thank you for proving my more limited, specfic definition correct.

You get your Junior-Giuliani Honor Badge for knowing absolutely nothing about the topic of which you speak!

Congrats! :D

[foofighter20x]

As a social solution, I would put forth the legal test as being 1) There is someone (person, state or otherwise) willing to claim responsibility for the child in any stage of development and 2) There is not undue burden placed upon anyone to deliver the child to the party willing to claim responsibility.

This test would clearly outlaw late term abortions as there is no additional burden placed on the carrying mother to induce delivery of the child as there is to abort it. The mother therefore delivers it and the state is willing to take responsibility.

Edit: foofighter- we cross posted and you cleared up your point. But, again, I'm not the best person to defend the metabolic status of life as I don't subscribe to it.

1) I have no argument with this. I'd like that women seeking abortion at least be required to attempt to be paired with an adoption-seeking couple that wants the child (of course, this would be a solution only as an interim until abortion is outlawed.



2) I disagree with this test unless there is a hearing with someone there to speak for the unborn child. My disagreement is about the applicable civil law. Most libertarians argue that outlawing abortion is the statist answer, when in fact the truth is that the allowance for abortion by the state for the woman to have the child murdered is, in fact, the real statist stance.

How do I come to that conclusion? Liability under civil law.

Think about it: if your actions, whether willful or negligent, cause another person to enter into a status of dependency, they can sue for compensation/support.

The actions of either the mother or father (at least one of them was responsible for the pregnancy; which one however, is a matter of case-specific circumstances) resulted in the act of bringing about the child's status of dependency--that of 1) existing to begin with; and 2) existing in a dependent state.

Being alive--even though unborn--the child has a right to its life. The question then is: who is responsible for that life? In cases of rape, it's clearly not the mother, but having been raped still does not give her the right to end the life of any other person, to include the unborn child (the only time she had the right to end a life was during the defense against the rape and the attempt of rape; equally important was the limited scope of the life she could end: the life of the rapist ).

In most other cases outside of rape, it's usually both the fault of the mother and father. When one does a risky act, it shouldn't be the burden of society to clean up the pieces if that risky act doesn't go to plan. The repsonsibility and liability for the risky act then fall to the parents.

Since abortion is 1) a state-given excuse from that liability, and 2) a state-given freedom to murder a specific person--the unborn child--then it's clear that abortion is the statist stance, not the libertarian one.

[cjhowe]

1) I have no argument with this. I'd like that women seeking abortion at least be required to attempt to be paired with an adoption-seeking couple that wants the child (of course, this would be a solution only as an interim until abortion is outlawed.



2) I disagree with this test unless there is a hearing with someone there to speak for the unborn child. My disagreement is about the applicable civil law. Most libertarians argue that outlawing abortion is the statist answer, when in fact the truth is that the allowance for abortion by the state for the woman to have the child murdered is, in fact, the real statist stance.

How do I come to that conclusion? Liability under civil law.

Think about it: if your actions, whether willful or negligent, cause another person to enter into a status of dependency, they can sue for compensation/support.

The actions of either the mother or father (at least one of them was responsible for the pregnancy; which one however, is a matter of case-specific circumstances) resulted in the act of bringing about the child's status of dependency--that of 1) existing to begin with; and 2) existing in a dependent state.

Being alive--even though unborn--the child has a right to its life. The question then is: who is responsible for that life? In cases of rape, clearly not the mother, but that still does not give her the right to end the life of any other person, to include the unborn child. In most other cases outside of rape, it's usually both the fault of the mother and father. When one does a risky act, it shouldn't be the burden of society to clean up the pieces if that risky act doesn't go to plan. The repsonsibility and liability for the risky act then fall to the parents.

Since abortion is 1) a state-given excuse from that liability, and 2) a state-given freedom to murder a specific person--the unborn child--then it's clear that abortion is the statist stance, not the libertarian one.

That's a tautology. You're arguing that to determine the fetus's legal status you must accept that it has legal status as a dependent. My point 2) is that the fetus obtains legal status when someone accepts specific responsibility for the fetus and it enters their possession.
In addition to disallowing late term abortion, this allows for prosecution for someone causing harm to the mother that results in a miscarriage. The mother has claimed responsibility and is in possession of the fetus. The fetus then has legal status.

[cjhowe]

Being alive--even though unborn--the child has a right to its life. <snip>

The reason for the "social solution" is that we cannot agree when life begins. This type of argument, which I don't wish to defend, would validate the metabolic argument again.

[foofighter20x]

That's what I'm saying though. If you keep a simple, scientific definition of life, then there is no choice but to conclude that for humans, it begins at conception.

[cjhowe]

That's what I'm saying though. If you keep a simple, scientific definition of life, then there is no choice but to conclude that for humans, it begins at conception.

If? There is NO simple scientific definition of life. There are at least seven scientific claims on when life begins. No agreement. To ignore all arguments that disagree with your philosophy is not science.

[foofighter20x]

If? There is NO simple scientific definition of life. There are at least seven scientific claims on when life begins. No agreement. To ignore all arguments that disagree with your philosophy is not science.

Wait... On when it begins?

I think not.

The differences are on which charateristics life exhibits, not on when it begins.

[cjhowe]

Wait... On when it begins?

I think not.

The differences are on which charateristics life exhibits, not on when it begins.

The philosophies I listed at the beginning of our back and forth
Metabolic
Genetic
Embryological
Neurological
Ecological
Technological
Self-Consciosness
are the viewpoints that science has of when life begins. To think otherwise gives absolute credence to putting life to begin at metabolic activity. Which we both refuse to accept.

[foofighter20x]

Then they are focusing on the wrong aspects.

They need to define what life is first. Without a solid definition of life, then any argument over when it begins is pointless and meaningless.

Here's my criteria:
1. Not dead.
2. Metabolizes
3. Grows
4. Reproduces (its own cells, not necessarily offspring)
5. Adapts over time to changes within its environment
6. Responds to stimuli.

Embryos are/do all these things from the moment of conception.

Note: items 2-4 are all components of mitosis.

What criteria do these other theories add that exclude the embryo from being life?

edit: i should clarify that these are MY assessments, and not that of Dr Paul.

[LibertyEagle]

While that is true in a sense, he also sponsoring a bill to "provide that human life shall exist from conception (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2597)". So from a state's perspective, regarding life existing from conception SERIOUSLY limits the discussions that can be had over this issue. That is bothersome to me, especially because he provides so much reference for so many of his other positions, that this one seems so very arbitrary to me.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but when I read the bill, what I get out of it is the following.

He is attempting to return the decision-making about abortion to the states and get the Federal government out of the business of funding abortions.

[cjhowe]

Then they are focusing on the wrong aspects.

They need to define what life is first. Without a solid definition of life, then any argument over when it begins is pointless and meaningless.

Here's my criteria:
1. Not dead.
2. Metabolizes
3. Grows
4. Reproduces (its own cells, not necessarily offspring)
5. Adapts over time to changes within its environment
6. Responds to stimuli.

Embryos are/do all these things from the moment of conception.

Note: items 2-4 are all components of mitosis.

What criteria do these other theories add that exclude the embryo from being life?

edit: i should clarify that these are MY assessments, and not that of Dr Paul.

Your clarification of 4 in science, is number 3. Reproduces in the context of where you got that criteria means offspring.

[foofighter20x]

well, if growth covers mitosis, then strike number 4 then.

to be alive you don't need to be capable of producing offspring. to sustain life, however, you would have to be able to do so...

[Wendi]

I worry about Ron Paul "supporters" who insult other supporters for no particular reason and add nothing to the discussion. Do you advocate only people with your political and religious affiliations "finding their way in here"? If so I hope you realize Dr Paul's support wouldn't be half of what it is now.

I could care less if someone agrees with *me.* This is supposed to be about Ron Paul. If someone doesn't agree with *him,* then why are they here?

[cjhowe]

well, if growth covers mitosis, then strike number 4 then.

to be alive you don't need to be capable of producing offspring. to sustain life, however, you would have to be able to do so...

Which goes to show the arbitrariness of the entire discussion about life.

[LibertyEagle]

I could care less if someone agrees with *me.* This is supposed to be about Ron Paul. If someone doesn't agree with *him,* then why are they here?

Very well said.

[PennCustom4RP]

Did you miss the word itself in your own source definition there? Looks like you did.

Seems you also missed the word either which immediately followed it. Do you not get that mitosis is cellular fissioning, also given as a definition in your source?

Thank you for proving my more limited, specfic definition correct.

You get your Junior-Giuliani Honor Badge for knowing absolutely nothing about the topic of which you speak!

Congrats! :D

1. my original post agreed with you, yet you attack me.
2. your limited definition, the def that fits your agenda, is not the scientifically correct one as demonstrated by what I posted directly from a scientific website, with citation. Yet you attack me again.
3. No point in discussing anything with someone who knows everything. Keep talking your shit repeatedly, Im sure youll convince youself.

[cjhowe]

I could care less if someone agrees with *me.* This is supposed to be about Ron Paul. If someone doesn't agree with *him,* then why are they here?

Like many of the issues, one doesn't have to agree with RP in order to agree with the steps RP wishes to take on an issue.

One doesn't have to agree with Ron Paul on when life begins in order to agree that it's not the role of the federal government to decide.

One doesn't have to agree with his viewpoint on immigration to agree that amnesty is a dangerous response in a nation of laws.

One doesn't have to agree with the reasons why they attacked us to agree that we should keep our nose out of the internal affairs of sovereign nations.

One doesn't have to agree with the economic theories that RP does to agree in the benefit of abolishing the IRS or removing from the Fed the role it plays in relation to the federal government.

There is a lot of room for disagreement with Ron Paul, yet still be in support of what he wants to accomplish as President.

[Wendi]

Very true, CJ :D