Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Posted: 9/17/2009 12:10:23 PM EST
How come (for those who follow that line of thought) I'm not 9 months older than I am reported to be?

I was born in June.
If life begins at conception, how come my birthday isn't considered sometime in September?

Obviously there's a logistical struggle there (what date was conception? how do we verify this?) but it would lend more credence to the argument.

Just something I've been mulling over lately.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:15:31 PM EST
probably because delivery times are not exactly 9 months and they can vary quite a bit?

Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:16:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2009 12:18:51 PM EST by BuckHammer]
Originally Posted By andrasik:
How come (for those who follow that line of thought) I'm not 9 months older than I am reported to be?

I was born in June.
If life begins at conception, how come my birthday isn't considered sometime in September?

Obviously there's a logistical struggle there (what date was conception? how do we verify this?) but it would lend more credence to the argument.

Just something I've been mulling over lately.


Birthday = day of birth, not day of life's beginning.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:16:35 PM EST
Originally Posted By mcg3686:
probably because delivery times are not exactly 9 months and they can vary quite a bit?



That was something else I had thought of, but it has a rather simple solution: tack on 'x' months to the date of physical delivery to compensate.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:17:04 PM EST
Originally Posted By andrasik:
How come (for those who follow that line of thought) I'm not 9 months older than I am reported to be?

I was born in June.
If life begins at conception, how come my birthday isn't considered sometime in September?

Obviously there's a logistical struggle there (what date was conception? how do we verify this?) but it would lend more credence to the argument.

Just something I've been mulling over lately.


Because it's called a BIRTHday, not Conceptionday.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:17:06 PM EST
Because that would be your conception day rather than your birthday.

Do you want your annual celebration to forever be a marker of the night your dad fucked your mom?
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:18:32 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:18:51 PM EST
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Because that would be your conception day rather than your birthday.

Do you want your annual celebration to forever be a marker of the night your dad fucked your mom?


That's all a birthday is to begin with - a reminder of that day.

Either way, we have a misnomer for the term birthday then. But if someone truly believes that life begins at conception, then you are - without a doubt - 9 months (+/- depending on date of physical delivery) older than currently thought. How is that a debateable point?
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:19:32 PM EST


GD never fails to amaze me.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:20:12 PM EST
The law doesn't recognize you until you're born, and that's about all birthdays are used for other than celebration.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:20:24 PM EST
The notions of "life" and "individual entity" are exclusive.
Until your delivery into the air and the severance of your umbilicus from your host you are not an individual.
Every active cell of your body is "alive" but they will not survive long if isolated from the rest of your body.
Conception is clearly the creation of new life but birth is a far more concrete defining moment.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:20:41 PM EST
wat
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:23:39 PM EST
Originally Posted By ColonelHurtz:
The notions of "life" and "individual entity" are exclusive.
Until your delivery into the air and the severance of your umbilicus from your host you are not an individual.
Every active cell of your body is "alive" but they will not survive long if isolated from the rest of your body.
Conception is clearly the creation of new life but birth is a far more concrete defining moment.


I'm being far less abstract than you are.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think we're speaking of the same thing.
I'm looking at it simply: if life begins (according to some) at conception, should we be considered 9 months older than we are?

Originally Posted By dolanp:
The law doesn't recognize you until you're born, and that's about all birthdays are used for other than celebration.


This isn't a discussion of the law. This is a completely hypothetical thought exercise. I don't even know whether or not life begins at conception - and that's not the question I'm asking here.

If p then q.
P
Therefore q.

If life begins at conception then you are 9 months older than currently stated.
Life begins at conception.
Therefore you are 9 months older than currently stated.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:28:53 PM EST
Too deep for me to ponder.
Keanu voice/ Whoa! /Keanu voice
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:33:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By andrasik:
How come (for those who follow that line of thought) I'm not 9 months older than I am reported to be?

I was born in June.
If life begins at conception, how come my birthday isn't considered sometime in September?

Obviously there's a logistical struggle there (what date was conception? how do we verify this?) but it would lend more credence to the argument.

Just something I've been mulling over lately.

It really depends on the country and the culture. In other countries your age is based upon when you were conceived, not when you were born. In our culture it just happens to be when you were born. It's really just about tradition and what people are used to doing more than anything else.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:34:11 PM EST

Originally Posted By andrasik:
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Because that would be your conception day rather than your birthday.

Do you want your annual celebration to forever be a marker of the night your dad fucked your mom?


That's all a birthday is to begin with - a reminder of that day.

Either way, we have a misnomer for the term birthday then. But if someone truly believes that life begins at conception, then you are - without a doubt - 9 months (+/- depending on date of physical delivery) older than currently thought. How is that a debateable point?

It's not a debatable point. You've been alive for x+.75 years. You were born x years ago. What is the conflict?
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:35:55 PM EST
Originally Posted By andrasik:
Originally Posted By ColonelHurtz:
The notions of "life" and "individual entity" are exclusive.
Until your delivery into the air and the severance of your umbilicus from your host you are not an individual.
Every active cell of your body is "alive" but they will not survive long if isolated from the rest of your body.
Conception is clearly the creation of new life but birth is a far more concrete defining moment.


I'm being far less abstract than you are.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think we're speaking of the same thing.
I'm looking at it simply: if life begins (according to some) at conception, should we be considered 9 months older than we are?

Originally Posted By dolanp:
The law doesn't recognize you until you're born, and that's about all birthdays are used for other than celebration.


This isn't a discussion of the law. This is a completely hypothetical thought exercise. I don't even know whether or not life begins at conception - and that's not the question I'm asking here.

If p then q.
P
Therefore q.

If life begins at conception then you are 9 months older than currently stated.
Life begins at conception.
Therefore you are 9 months older than currently stated.


Can you generate a piece of paper with the time, place and moment of your conception?
Preferably witnessed and sworn to by a doctor and registered in the state or city where said conception took place.

I doubt you can. I doubt few could even come within a day or two of the event.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:36:00 PM EST
Originally Posted By andrasik:
This isn't a discussion of the law. This is a completely hypothetical thought exercise. I don't even know whether or not life begins at conception - and that's not the question I'm asking here.

If p then q.
P
Therefore q.

If life begins at conception then you are 9 months older than currently stated.
Life begins at conception.
Therefore you are 9 months older than currently stated.


Age since birth is something that has been trackable for thousands of years. Only recently have they been able to closely track development prior to that. So I would say the primary answer to your question is "tradition" and "simplicity".
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:37:32 PM EST
Originally Posted By ColonelHurtz:
Originally Posted By andrasik:
Originally Posted By ColonelHurtz:
The notions of "life" and "individual entity" are exclusive.
Until your delivery into the air and the severance of your umbilicus from your host you are not an individual.
Every active cell of your body is "alive" but they will not survive long if isolated from the rest of your body.
Conception is clearly the creation of new life but birth is a far more concrete defining moment.


I'm being far less abstract than you are.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think we're speaking of the same thing.
I'm looking at it simply: if life begins (according to some) at conception, should we be considered 9 months older than we are?

Originally Posted By dolanp:
The law doesn't recognize you until you're born, and that's about all birthdays are used for other than celebration.


This isn't a discussion of the law. This is a completely hypothetical thought exercise. I don't even know whether or not life begins at conception - and that's not the question I'm asking here.

If p then q.
P
Therefore q.

If life begins at conception then you are 9 months older than currently stated.
Life begins at conception.
Therefore you are 9 months older than currently stated.


Can you generate a piece of paper with the time, place and moment of your conception?
Preferably witnessed and sworn to by a doctor and registered in the state or city where said conception took place.

I doubt you can. I doubt few could even come within a day or two of the event.


That's not the point - I'm not looking for specifics as of yet.

This is a general working thought experiment that I'm trying to refine. We know that conception dates aren't accurate. That much is certain. But we do have a large window that we KNOW has to be fulfilled. Why then, if someone believes that life begins at conception, does the clock not start ticking at that point in regards to their "age"?
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:39:30 PM EST
Actually you are correct. From a purely cellular/physiological level your combined entity began at the moment of ferilization. As others have said, purely for legal purposes your chronological age begins on the date of your live birth. And for the record, there are many, many examples of babies being born prematurly of the typical 9 month gestation period. So some are not as physiologically as old as others. Since most like the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) approach to such matters, when we speak of age it applies to the time that has elapsed since the day of birth.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:40:03 PM EST
Your premise is false.
This is a thinly veiled "life begins at conception" baited thread.

At what moment did you begin to breathe air?
It really is that simple.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:41:59 PM EST
Originally Posted By ColonelHurtz:
Your premise is false.
This is a thinly veiled "life begins at conception" baited thread.

At what moment did you begin to breathe air?
It really is that simple.


How is my premise false? You cannot simply claim it as false and it becomes so.

I'm not trying to bait anyone into a life begins at conception argument. This is purely a thought experiment - sorry if you feel otherwise. You're free to click to back arrow in your browser and read other threads.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:42:51 PM EST
Because we celebrate BIRTHdays.. Not CONCEPTIONdays.

"Conception" is an inexact term anyway.. Is a fertilized but not implanted egg a "conception", or does it need to implant in the uterine wall? Implantation is the clinical definition for the start of pregnancy according to the medical authorities I've seen posit an opinion.

Hell, fertilization can happen about three days out from intercourse too, and I'm not sure what kind of delay is possible between fertilization and implantation.

Too much variance. I like the way we do it now better
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:44:38 PM EST
Originally Posted By WinstonSmith:
Because we celebrate BIRTHdays.. Not CONCEPTIONdays.

"Conception" is an inexact term anyway.. Is a fertilized but not implanted egg a "conception", or does it need to implant in the uterine wall? Implantation is the clinical definition for the start of pregnancy according to the medical authorities I've seen posit an opinion.

Hell, fertilization can happen about three days out from intercourse too, and I'm not sure what kind of delay is possible between fertilization and implantation.

Too much variance. I like the way we do it now better


Trust me, I like the way we do it today better as well. This is merely asking "why" and looking for answers.

I see that ARFcom GD, however, is probably not the best place for such questioning.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:45:52 PM EST
Originally Posted By andrasik:
How come (for those who follow that line of thought) I'm not 9 months older than I am reported to be?

I was born in June.
If life begins at conception, how come my birthday isn't considered sometime in September?

Obviously there's a logistical struggle there (what date was conception? how do we verify this?) but it would lend more credence to the argument.

Just something I've been mulling over lately.


ITS Called Birthdate, hence the date you popped out and that was the day you became a nuisance to society and everyone started counting down to your death.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:46:26 PM EST
Are you just trying to add 9 months to you age so you can be 21 and buy handguns and booze????
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:48:35 PM EST
Originally Posted By Chris0013:
Are you just trying to add 9 months to you age so you can be 21 and buy handguns and booze????


Already 21, boss.

Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:48:37 PM EST
no

Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:48:44 PM EST
I take it you prefer Fahrenheit to Celsius?

I'd rather start the count from the Quickening, but I guess I'm a little old fashioned.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:49:42 PM EST
Originally Posted By andrasik:
Originally Posted By ColonelHurtz:
Your premise is false.
This is a thinly veiled "life begins at conception" baited thread.

At what moment did you begin to breathe air?
It really is that simple.


How is my premise false? You cannot simply claim it as false and it becomes so.

I'm not trying to bait anyone into a life begins at conception argument. This is purely a thought experiment - sorry if you feel otherwise. You're free to click to back arrow in your browser and read other threads.


Your "thought experiment" is under scrutiny.
It has already been succesfully demonstrated in this thread why for social reasons, your practical life is measured from your birth or delivery.
I clearly understand the biological facts of conception, embryonic and foetal development. You should too.

If you wish to misconstrue your biological age based on your belief that your life began at conception then do so.
Good luck establishing that moment and getting American jurisprudence to accept it in law and for societal purposes.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:51:14 PM EST
Originally Posted By ColonelHurtz:
The notions of "life" and "individual entity" are exclusive.

No they aren't.

Until your delivery into the air and the severance of your umbilicus from your host you are not an individual.

That depends on what arbitrary definition of "individual" you decide to use. Genetically, you most certainly ARE an individual.

Every active cell of your body is "alive" but they will not survive long if isolated from the rest of your body.

Some "Siamese" twins could not survive if separated, due to organ sharing. Are they not individuals?

Conception is clearly the creation of new life but birth is a far more concrete defining moment.

No it isn't. And conception is not so much the creation of new life as it is the creation of genetically-distinct life.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:52:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2009 12:54:23 PM EST by WinstonSmith]
Originally Posted By andrasik:
Originally Posted By WinstonSmith:
Because we celebrate BIRTHdays.. Not CONCEPTIONdays.

"Conception" is an inexact term anyway.. Is a fertilized but not implanted egg a "conception", or does it need to implant in the uterine wall? Implantation is the clinical definition for the start of pregnancy according to the medical authorities I've seen posit an opinion.

Hell, fertilization can happen about three days out from intercourse too, and I'm not sure what kind of delay is possible between fertilization and implantation.

Too much variance. I like the way we do it now better


Trust me, I like the way we do it today better as well. This is merely asking "why" and looking for answers.

I see that ARFcom GD, however, is probably not the best place for such questioning.


Oh, I dunno. I think it's a fun place to pose such questions. One must be somewhat realistic about the expected result from the target audience though

And for the record, I prefer things now because if there were, say, a week of possible variance in date of conception, my wife would want a party every day of that week.

Her birthday expectations are somewhat grandiose at times. My primary objection to your posited method of celebration is financial.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:53:47 PM EST
BIRTHday
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:54:21 PM EST
Originally Posted By WinstonSmith:
Originally Posted By andrasik:
Originally Posted By WinstonSmith:
Because we celebrate BIRTHdays.. Not CONCEPTIONdays.

"Conception" is an inexact term anyway.. Is a fertilized but not implanted egg a "conception", or does it need to implant in the uterine wall? Implantation is the clinical definition for the start of pregnancy according to the medical authorities I've seen posit an opinion.

Hell, fertilization can happen about three days out from intercourse too, and I'm not sure what kind of delay is possible between fertilization and implantation.

Too much variance. I like the way we do it now better


Trust me, I like the way we do it today better as well. This is merely asking "why" and looking for answers.

I see that ARFcom GD, however, is probably not the best place for such questioning.


Oh, I dunno. I think it's a fun place to pose such questions. One must be somewhat realistic about the expected result from the target audience though


Extremely true.

I can't post these questions in my philosophy classes either, but that's because most of the people in there are even less intelligent than your average GDer and would explode at the thought.

Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:55:25 PM EST
I believe one of the oriental nations count from conception
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:56:13 PM EST
Originally Posted By ColonelHurtz:
Originally Posted By andrasik:
Originally Posted By ColonelHurtz:
Your premise is false.
This is a thinly veiled "life begins at conception" baited thread.

At what moment did you begin to breathe air?
It really is that simple.


How is my premise false? You cannot simply claim it as false and it becomes so.

I'm not trying to bait anyone into a life begins at conception argument. This is purely a thought experiment - sorry if you feel otherwise. You're free to click to back arrow in your browser and read other threads.


Your "thought experiment" is under scrutiny.
It has already been succesfully demonstrated in this thread why for social reasons, your practical life is measured from your birth or delivery.
I clearly understand the biological facts of conception, embryonic and foetal development. You should too.

If you wish to misconstrue your biological age based on your belief that your life began at conception then do so.
Good luck establishing that moment and getting American jurisprudence to accept it in law and for societal purposes.


Scrutiny doesn't falsify a statement. Please, by all means, and if you can, disprove the premise. I would honestly not care. What I do care about, however, is parading around like you have disproved it when you haven't.

This thread isn't about changing American jurisprudence or decades (centuries) of tradition. It's simply about a thought. Disprove the thought based on rational logic. Do not try to derail it and build up a strawman argument like you have been utilizing for the past few posts.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:56:26 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2009 12:57:09 PM EST by sterinn]
let me be the 1st to say that this could be epic....definately ss worthy.

If life begins at conception, how come my birthday isn't 9 months before?

Even Bush is confused with your dumbassery......

Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:56:46 PM EST
Originally Posted By andrasik:
Originally Posted By Chris0013:
Are you just trying to add 9 months to you age so you can be 21 and buy handguns and booze????


Already 21, boss.



Just making sure
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:58:39 PM EST
Your premise is clearly false.
Examine your original statement:

I was born in June.
If life begins at conception, how come my birthday isn't considered sometime in September?


The answer to the question posed in the second sentence is clearly answered by the declaration in the first.
The modifying clause is moot. That is your false premise for logical purposes in this argument.
The word "born" has an immutable definition.

If you wish to argue whether life does begin at conception or not, then you need to restate your premise.
Others may argue against that, I would not.

Link Posted: 9/17/2009 1:01:18 PM EST
Originally Posted By Mr_Harry:
I believe one of the oriental nations count from conception


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_age_reckoning
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 1:03:37 PM EST
Originally Posted By andrasik:
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Because that would be your conception day rather than your birthday.

Do you want your annual celebration to forever be a marker of the night your dad fucked your mom?


That's all a birthday is to begin with - a reminder of that day.

Either way, we have a misnomer for the term birthday then. But if someone truly believes that life begins at conception, then you are - without a doubt - 9 months (+/- depending on date of physical delivery) older than currently thought. How is that a debateable point?


What does it matter? Not only is age relative but so is time. Age is completely arbitrary but you are trying to look at it as an absolute.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 1:07:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2009 1:10:04 PM EST by ColonelHurtz]
Originally Posted By AndrewS:
Originally Posted By andrasik:
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Because that would be your conception day rather than your birthday.

Do you want your annual celebration to forever be a marker of the night your dad fucked your mom?


That's all a birthday is to begin with - a reminder of that day.

Either way, we have a misnomer for the term birthday then. But if someone truly believes that life begins at conception, then you are - without a doubt - 9 months (+/- depending on date of physical delivery) older than currently thought. How is that a debateable point?


What does it matter? Not only is age relative but so is time. Age is completely arbitrary but you are trying to look at it as an absolute.


Celestial time is not arbitrary.
Neither is age as measured by orbits around our Sun.
You can make a semantic argument out of this but the value of the period can easily be observed and calculated.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 1:07:12 PM EST
Originally Posted By johnnieblue:
Originally Posted By Mr_Harry:
I believe one of the oriental nations count from conception


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_age_reckoning


We Have a winner

Thank you

I remember being told this in school over 30 years
ago but was not sure it was 100% true.

Link Posted: 9/17/2009 1:08:27 PM EST
Originally Posted By ColonelHurtz:
Originally Posted By AndrewS:
Originally Posted By andrasik:
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Because that would be your conception day rather than your birthday.

Do you want your annual celebration to forever be a marker of the night your dad fucked your mom?


That's all a birthday is to begin with - a reminder of that day.

Either way, we have a misnomer for the term birthday then. But if someone truly believes that life begins at conception, then you are - without a doubt - 9 months (+/- depending on date of physical delivery) older than currently thought. How is that a debateable point?


What does it matter? Not only is age relative but so is time. Age is completely arbitrary but you are trying to look at it as an absolute.


Celestial time is not arbitrary.


I didn't say it was. I said age was arbitrary.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 1:09:55 PM EST
Birthday not Conception Day
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 1:12:03 PM EST
Originally Posted By AndrewS:
Originally Posted By ColonelHurtz:
Originally Posted By AndrewS:
Originally Posted By andrasik:
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Because that would be your conception day rather than your birthday.

Do you want your annual celebration to forever be a marker of the night your dad fucked your mom?


That's all a birthday is to begin with - a reminder of that day.

Either way, we have a misnomer for the term birthday then. But if someone truly believes that life begins at conception, then you are - without a doubt - 9 months (+/- depending on date of physical delivery) older than currently thought. How is that a debateable point?


What does it matter? Not only is age relative but so is time. Age is completely arbitrary but you are trying to look at it as an absolute.


Celestial time is not arbitrary.


I didn't say it was. I said age was arbitrary.





Link Posted: 9/17/2009 1:12:26 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2009 1:14:45 PM EST by DK-Prof]
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 1:13:32 PM EST
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Do you want your annual celebration to forever be a marker of the night your dad fucked your mom?


Desktop, meet spit coffee.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 1:23:26 PM EST
Conception day.

Your parents would be so proud.


Arfcom handled this one quite nicely.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 1:28:39 PM EST
Originally Posted By sterinn:
Originally Posted By AndrewS:
Originally Posted By ColonelHurtz:
Originally Posted By AndrewS:
Originally Posted By andrasik:
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Because that would be your conception day rather than your birthday.

Do you want your annual celebration to forever be a marker of the night your dad fucked your mom?


That's all a birthday is to begin with - a reminder of that day.

Either way, we have a misnomer for the term birthday then. But if someone truly believes that life begins at conception, then you are - without a doubt - 9 months (+/- depending on date of physical delivery) older than currently thought. How is that a debateable point?


What does it matter? Not only is age relative but so is time. Age is completely arbitrary but you are trying to look at it as an absolute.


Celestial time is not arbitrary.


I didn't say it was. I said age was arbitrary.


http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/zz2cc0ddf9.jpg





While you are romancing Palmela Handerson I will be getting paid to post on Arfcom.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 1:51:00 PM EST
.
oh have mercy.
Top Top