Abortion

[ding]

Your standards are inconsistent.

There are tons of stories about people describing a neighbourhood that they've never been to half way across the world. And the person who would know all these things died the day the new person was born. Fascinating stuff. Or kids who are born knowing how to play the piano expertly... Sure, not rock solid proof, but way more than you can prove about your god of the book.

Do you know what the Hindu’s believe?

That extra-terrestrials are our real gods.

They believe that we are free to pursue fame, fortune, power and pleasure through multiple lives and do. But none of those things satisfy us because we were made for more.

So they believe in reincarnation. And aliens. Good for them.

I don’t think they believe in aliens, just reincarnation. The thing is that people who believe in reincarnation typically believe that there is a reason and purpose to it.

 

[ding]

Do you have any proof of their authenticity?

So your claim is that they are all lying? There are thousands of accounts like that, and they can check out what they say. And if it's documented that that person has never been to that part of the world... And what about a toddler who knows math or piano... How do they fake that?

All I asked is if you had any proof that their claims are authentic? Do you?

You’d have to look up how they did the studies. But from what I could tell, they seem legit.

Studies? You can’t study that.

Look it up if you’re interested.

I’m more interested in what evidence you accept for it and whether or not you believe it is purpose driven.

 

[Taz]

There are tons of stories about people describing a neighbourhood that they've never been to half way across the world. And the person who would know all these things died the day the new person was born. Fascinating stuff. Or kids who are born knowing how to play the piano expertly... Sure, not rock solid proof, but way more than you can prove about your god of the book.

Do you know what the Hindu’s believe?

That extra-terrestrials are our real gods.

They believe that we are free to pursue fame, fortune, power and pleasure through multiple lives and do. But none of those things satisfy us because we were made for more.

So they believe in reincarnation. And aliens. Good for them.

I don’t think they believe in aliens, just reincarnation. The thing is that people who believe in reincarnation typically believe that there is a reason and purpose to it.

Maybe there is no reason except to travel through time with something to do.

 

[ding]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ Taz, et al,

Yes, It is a hard concept.

I don't understand your chimp in a box thing. But here, I'll give you an example of what I mean. Nobody remembers being in the womb, so no consciousness yet, which some people equate with the soul. So until consciousness, not a real human yet.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the Black Box is the case where you cannot tell the difference (in terms of "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → the ability to "self-reflect" or "awareness") between a newborn human and a newborn chimp. We simply cannot explain the qualitities and characteristics of "life."

(REMEMBER)

The issue of a human having a "soul" (something that is supernatural) is a "faith-based concept."

Most Respectfully,
R

What is not a hard concept is when human life begins.

Which is when according to you?

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

That’s not human life, that’s a tiny embryo or fetus.

Not according to the definition of life and not according to science.

 

[Taz]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ Taz, et al,

Yes, It is a hard concept.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the Black Box is the case where you cannot tell the difference (in terms of "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → the ability to "self-reflect" or "awareness") between a newborn human and a newborn chimp. We simply cannot explain the qualitities and characteristics of "life."

(REMEMBER)

The issue of a human having a "soul" (something that is supernatural) is a "faith-based concept."

Most Respectfully,
R

What is not a hard concept is when human life begins.

Which is when according to you?

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

That’s not human life, that’s a tiny embryo or fetus.

Not according to the definition of life and not according to science.

An egg isn’t a chicken.

Got a link to science?

 

[ding]

Do you know what the Hindu’s believe?

That extra-terrestrials are our real gods.

They believe that we are free to pursue fame, fortune, power and pleasure through multiple lives and do. But none of those things satisfy us because we were made for more.

So they believe in reincarnation. And aliens. Good for them.

I don’t think they believe in aliens, just reincarnation. The thing is that people who believe in reincarnation typically believe that there is a reason and purpose to it.

Maybe there is no reason except to travel through time with something to do.

Is that why you exist now? Why do you need something to do? Why would your existence be important?

 

[Chuz Life]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ Taz, et al,

Yes, It is a hard concept.

I don't understand your chimp in a box thing. But here, I'll give you an example of what I mean. Nobody remembers being in the womb, so no consciousness yet, which some people equate with the soul. So until consciousness, not a real human yet.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the Black Box is the case where you cannot tell the difference (in terms of "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → the ability to "self-reflect" or "awareness") between a newborn human and a newborn chimp. We simply cannot explain the qualitities and characteristics of "life."

(REMEMBER)

The issue of a human having a "soul" (something that is supernatural) is a "faith-based concept."

Most Respectfully,
R

What is not a hard concept is when human life begins.

Which is when according to you?

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

That’s not human life, that’s a tiny embryo or fetus.

RE: Abortion
⁜→ Taz, et al,

Yes, It is a hard concept.

I don't understand your chimp in a box thing. But here, I'll give you an example of what I mean. Nobody remembers being in the womb, so no consciousness yet, which some people equate with the soul. So until consciousness, not a real human yet.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the Black Box is the case where you cannot tell the difference (in terms of "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → the ability to "self-reflect" or "awareness") between a newborn human and a newborn chimp. We simply cannot explain the qualitities and characteristics of "life."

(REMEMBER)

The issue of a human having a "soul" (something that is supernatural) is a "faith-based concept."

Most Respectfully,
R

What is not a hard concept is when human life begins.

Which is when according to you?

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

That’s not human life, that’s a tiny embryo or fetus.

Biology Fail and denial is not an argument.

You should consider educating yourself about "placental mammals" (which includes humans) and also start educating yourself about how and when a mammals biological aging begins.

 

[ding]

What is not a hard concept is when human life begins.

Which is when according to you?

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

That’s not human life, that’s a tiny embryo or fetus.

Not according to the definition of life and not according to science.

An egg isn’t a chicken.

Got a link to science?

A Scientific View of When Life Begins | Charlotte Lozier Institute

"...The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications)..."

 

[Hollie]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ Taz, et al,

Yes, It is a hard concept.

Yeah, I agree to a point.

(DIRECT QUESTION UP FRONT)

What biological-machine function turns on the qualities of a "Human Being" (humanity) that without them ⟴ you are not a "human being?"

(COMMENT)

This is based on what? I say that not to be argumentative, but to understand what constitutes a "human" from other species. That is "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → "life."

Do the "black box" experiment. Put a newborn human in a black box, and then put a newborn chimpanzee in a black box right beside it. Then describe the essential characteristic deferences in "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → "human life." between the two. Is the ability to "self-reflect" or "awareness" part of that determination?

I do not disagree with your final assessment; I just don't understand how you arrive at those conclusions.

(COMMENT)

" Soul! " What is a "soul?" Legally and Medically, what are a sound and valid definition of a "soul." I suggest that a "soul" is a faith-based concept; not a scientifically or medically valid.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't understand your chimp in a box thing. But here, I'll give you an example of what I mean. Nobody remembers being in the womb, so no consciousness yet, which some people equate with the soul. So until consciousness, not a real human yet.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the Black Box is the case where you cannot tell the difference (in terms of "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → the ability to "self-reflect" or "awareness") between a newborn human and a newborn chimp. We simply cannot explain the qualitities and characteristics of "life."

(REMEMBER)

The issue of a human having a "soul" (something that is supernatural) is a "faith-based concept."

Most Respectfully,
R

What is not a hard concept is when human life begins.

Which is when according to you?

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

Out-of-the-pulpit-and-into-the-womb zealots appear hypocritical from my perspective. Most folks do not support State womb control before that stage of gestation where personhood has developed, and few believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously.

People can believe whatever they choose to believe, but to evoke the coercive power of the State and/or religious zealots to impose their personal impression upon others is antithetical to what most Americans agree on.

 

[ding]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ Taz, et al,

Yes, It is a hard concept.

I don't understand your chimp in a box thing. But here, I'll give you an example of what I mean. Nobody remembers being in the womb, so no consciousness yet, which some people equate with the soul. So until consciousness, not a real human yet.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the Black Box is the case where you cannot tell the difference (in terms of "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → the ability to "self-reflect" or "awareness") between a newborn human and a newborn chimp. We simply cannot explain the qualitities and characteristics of "life."

(REMEMBER)

The issue of a human having a "soul" (something that is supernatural) is a "faith-based concept."

Most Respectfully,
R

What is not a hard concept is when human life begins.

Which is when according to you?

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

Out-of-the-pulpit-and-into-the-womb zealots appear hypocritical from my perspective. Most folks do not support State womb control before that stage of gestation where personhood has developed, and few believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously.

People can believe whatever they choose to believe, but to evoke the coercive power of the State and/or religious zealots to impose their personal impression upon others is antithetical to what most Americans agree on.

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

The Developing Human - 10th Edition

 

[Taz]

That extra-terrestrials are our real gods.

They believe that we are free to pursue fame, fortune, power and pleasure through multiple lives and do. But none of those things satisfy us because we were made for more.

So they believe in reincarnation. And aliens. Good for them.

I don’t think they believe in aliens, just reincarnation. The thing is that people who believe in reincarnation typically believe that there is a reason and purpose to it.

Maybe there is no reason except to travel through time with something to do.

Is that why you exist now? Why do you need something to do? Why would your existence be important?

I’m agnostic about all those questions.

 

[Taz]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ Taz, et al,

Yes, It is a hard concept.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the Black Box is the case where you cannot tell the difference (in terms of "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → the ability to "self-reflect" or "awareness") between a newborn human and a newborn chimp. We simply cannot explain the qualitities and characteristics of "life."

(REMEMBER)

The issue of a human having a "soul" (something that is supernatural) is a "faith-based concept."

Most Respectfully,
R

What is not a hard concept is when human life begins.

Which is when according to you?

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

That’s not human life, that’s a tiny embryo or fetus.

RE: Abortion
⁜→ Taz, et al,

Yes, It is a hard concept.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the Black Box is the case where you cannot tell the difference (in terms of "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → the ability to "self-reflect" or "awareness") between a newborn human and a newborn chimp. We simply cannot explain the qualitities and characteristics of "life."

(REMEMBER)

The issue of a human having a "soul" (something that is supernatural) is a "faith-based concept."

Most Respectfully,
R

What is not a hard concept is when human life begins.

Which is when according to you?

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

That’s not human life, that’s a tiny embryo or fetus.

Biology Fail and denial is not an argument.

You should consider educating yourself about "placental mammals" (which includes humans) and also start educating yourself about how and when a mammals biological aging begins.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Hollie]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ Taz, et al,

Yes, It is a hard concept.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the Black Box is the case where you cannot tell the difference (in terms of "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → the ability to "self-reflect" or "awareness") between a newborn human and a newborn chimp. We simply cannot explain the qualitities and characteristics of "life."

(REMEMBER)

The issue of a human having a "soul" (something that is supernatural) is a "faith-based concept."

Most Respectfully,
R

What is not a hard concept is when human life begins.

Which is when according to you?

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

Out-of-the-pulpit-and-into-the-womb zealots appear hypocritical from my perspective. Most folks do not support State womb control before that stage of gestation where personhood has developed, and few believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously.

People can believe whatever they choose to believe, but to evoke the coercive power of the State and/or religious zealots to impose their personal impression upon others is antithetical to what most Americans agree on.

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

Yes, that is his opinion.

Your extremist view and your desire to impose it upon others via state coercion is not the moral position of most Americans. If and when a fetus achieves a stage of development where it is sentient and viable, it is recognized as a person and entitled to legal protection. Before that stage, a person does not yet exist. and the State must respect the prerogatives of the individual upon whom the developing entity is dependent.

 

[ding]

They believe that we are free to pursue fame, fortune, power and pleasure through multiple lives and do. But none of those things satisfy us because we were made for more.

So they believe in reincarnation. And aliens. Good for them.

I don’t think they believe in aliens, just reincarnation. The thing is that people who believe in reincarnation typically believe that there is a reason and purpose to it.

Maybe there is no reason except to travel through time with something to do.

Is that why you exist now? Why do you need something to do? Why would your existence be important?

I’m agnostic about all those questions.

Exactly, which is why your beliefs are meaningless on these subjects. You don't care enough to dig deeper.

 

[ding]

What is not a hard concept is when human life begins.

Which is when according to you?

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

Out-of-the-pulpit-and-into-the-womb zealots appear hypocritical from my perspective. Most folks do not support State womb control before that stage of gestation where personhood has developed, and few believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously.

People can believe whatever they choose to believe, but to evoke the coercive power of the State and/or religious zealots to impose their personal impression upon others is antithetical to what most Americans agree on.

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

Yes, that is his opinion.

Your extremist view and your desire to impose it upon others via state coercion is not the moral position of most Americans. If and when a fetus achieves a stage of development where it is sentient and viable, it is recognized as a person and entitled to legal protection. Before that stage, a person does not yet exist. and the State must respect the prerogatives of the individual upon whom the developing entity is dependent.

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”

Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974.

https://www.amazon.com/Human-Development-Span-George-Kaluger/dp/0801626110&tag=ff0d01-20

 

[Taz]

Which is when according to you?

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

That’s not human life, that’s a tiny embryo or fetus.

Not according to the definition of life and not according to science.

An egg isn’t a chicken.

Got a link to science?

A Scientific View of When Life Begins | Charlotte Lozier Institute

"...The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications)..."

Not a real science site, just a bunch of religious nuts.

 

[ding]

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

That’s not human life, that’s a tiny embryo or fetus.

Not according to the definition of life and not according to science.

An egg isn’t a chicken.

Got a link to science?

A Scientific View of When Life Begins | Charlotte Lozier Institute

"...The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications)..."

Not a real science site, just a bunch of religious nuts.

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

https://www.amazon.com/Human-Embryology-Bradley-Merrill-Patten/dp/0070131503&tag=ff0d01-20

 

[Chuz Life]

What is not a hard concept is when human life begins.

Which is when according to you?

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

That’s not human life, that’s a tiny embryo or fetus.

What is not a hard concept is when human life begins.

Which is when according to you?

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

That’s not human life, that’s a tiny embryo or fetus.

Biology Fail and denial is not an argument.

You should consider educating yourself about "placental mammals" (which includes humans) and also start educating yourself about how and when a mammals biological aging begins.

What does that have to do with anything?

If you are actually that clueless?

I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you.

 

[Hollie]

Which is when according to you?

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

Out-of-the-pulpit-and-into-the-womb zealots appear hypocritical from my perspective. Most folks do not support State womb control before that stage of gestation where personhood has developed, and few believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously.

People can believe whatever they choose to believe, but to evoke the coercive power of the State and/or religious zealots to impose their personal impression upon others is antithetical to what most Americans agree on.

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

Yes, that is his opinion.

Your extremist view and your desire to impose it upon others via state coercion is not the moral position of most Americans. If and when a fetus achieves a stage of development where it is sentient and viable, it is recognized as a person and entitled to legal protection. Before that stage, a person does not yet exist. and the State must respect the prerogatives of the individual upon whom the developing entity is dependent.

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”

Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974.

https://www.amazon.com/Human-Development-Span-George-Kaluger/dp/0801626110&tag=ff0d01-20

Yes, you can cut and paste links to material you don't understand. However, that does nothing to support your extremist views.

 

[Taz]

So they believe in reincarnation. And aliens. Good for them.

I don’t think they believe in aliens, just reincarnation. The thing is that people who believe in reincarnation typically believe that there is a reason and purpose to it.

Maybe there is no reason except to travel through time with something to do.

Is that why you exist now? Why do you need something to do? Why would your existence be important?

I’m agnostic about all those questions.

Exactly, which is why your beliefs are meaningless on these subjects. You don't care enough to dig deeper.

We can’t know those things yet.