Do Women Who Have Killed, Claim Life Does Not Begin At

[Pastafarian]

All other defintions are hardly scientific as they invovle arbitrary lines born more of political or personal considerations and needs than biology.

Not really, the studies I have seen have been based on nervous system development.

[Pastafarian]

IN fact I think the main problem here is that whilst Frogen views wars as necessary and thus killing soldiers as necessary, his rampant christian fundamentalist views on life deny him from contemplating the necessity of abortion.

[JW Frogen]

Chunky Monk,

Though it is unlikely that a relative would kill another relative in a civil war, as most civil wars are religo-ethnic wars so members of the same family fighting against each other are rare, I would concede the point that a soldier who kills his own relative in war may having less justification killing than a soldier killing a stranger, but then your point would make all women killing by abortion having less justification than a soldier killing a stranger, and I do not think you want to go there.

[JW Frogen]

IN fact I think the main problem here is that whilst Frogen views wars as necessary and thus killing soldiers as necessary, his rampant christian fundamentalist views on life deny him from contemplating the necessity of abortion.

I am not a Christian in any sense. Other than admiring the teachings of Jesus, which did not address abortion.

Little clue I am not a Christian fundy, I do not think all abortion is unjustified killing. I have wrote so several times on this thread.

At what point from conception to and through nervous system development does the conceived life magically become a life and why?

[Aussie]

IN fact I think the main problem here is that whilst Frogen views wars as necessary and thus killing soldiers as necessary, his rampant christian fundamentalist views on life deny him from contemplating the necessity of abortion.

Dunno.

Mayhap Frogen accepts whatever the 'necessity' is......he just wants two concessions:

1. Something was 'killed,' and,

2. The 'killer" must concede there was a 'killing.'

Silly, but that is his simple concept.

I don't agree with it.

[JW Frogen]

IN fact I think the main problem here is that whilst Frogen views wars as necessary and thus killing soldiers as necessary, his rampant christian fundamentalist views on life deny him from contemplating the necessity of abortion.

Dunno.

Mayhap Frogen accepts whatever the 'necessity' is......he just wants two concessions:

1. Something was 'killed,' and,

2. The 'killer" must concede there was a 'killing.'

Silly, but that is his simple concept.

I don't agree with it.

It would appear from the length of this thread and your last post it is not a simple concept.

A life was killed. Not something. A life.

If the killer can not concede that then they have not thought seriously about their killing which indicates they themselves do not believe their killing is just.

That you do not agree is not an argument against the propostion, you would have to articulate why you do not agree.

[Pastafarian]

Wel for instance the first neurons form at 4 weeks, before that no nerve impulses, there fore no memories, no sensation etc.
The neural tube closes within about 8 wks. Until then there is no real nervous system at all, and more importantly no co-ordination. So basically resembles you after 4 beers.

[Pastafarian]

IN fact I think the main problem here is that whilst Frogen views wars as necessary and thus killing soldiers as necessary, his rampant christian fundamentalist views on life deny him from contemplating the necessity of abortion.

Dunno.

Mayhap Frogen accepts whatever the 'necessity' is......he just wants two concessions:

1. Something was 'killed,' and,

2. The 'killer" must concede there was a 'killing.'

Silly, but that is his simple concept.

I don't agree with it.

It would appear from the length of this thread and your last post it is not a simple concept.

A life was killed. Not something. A life.

If the killer can not concede that then they have not thought seriously about their killing which indicates they themselves do not believe their killing is just.

That you do not agree is not an argument against the propostion, you would have to articulate why you do not agree.

Because up until about 10 weeks I dont define it as a life.

[JW Frogen]

Wel for instance the first neurons form at 4 weeks, before that no nerve impulses, there fore no memories, no sensation etc.
The neural tube closes within about 8 wks. Until then there is no real nervous system at all, and more importantly no co-ordination. So basically resembles you after 4 beers.

So in order for a life to be a life it must have memories. How detailed must the memories be before it is a life?

What is the life conceived until it has memories, a Hyundai Getz?

Of course everyone knows when they conceive they are conceiving a life, that is what condems are attempting to prevent.

So you are practicing the very rationalisation of life to start when you need it to start, directly after you decided to kill that life, revealing you really had no moral conviction about the justness of your killing.

[JW Frogen]

Because up until about 10 weeks I dont define it as a life.

The key word here is the word "I".

You need it not to be a life in order to justify killing it. It is a personal decision, you have decided life begins after you have decided not to kill it.

This can lead to all sorts of dangerous places, such as the Nazis killing mentally hadicapped people. They do not have the same capacity of memory normal people do, so are the less of a life? Is it just to kill them?