Abortion

[xBiophagex]

Murder is a legal term and abortion is not murder, in a legal sense. I think the question really being argued here is whether she should have the choice at all. If you take the position that the right to life supercedes all other rights, then my right to life supercedes your right to your body. If it does not, then the right to life does not supercede all other rights and the right to life of the fetus does not supercede the right to personal sovereignty of the woman. Whether or not she wishes to allow the fetus to use her body is her choice. Her reasons for that decision are no one else's business.

Where am I granted a 'right to my body'? But yes, your right to life supersedes every one of my rights. As an example, you cannot kill someone who breaks into your house unless they represent a threat to your life.

If one is going to take a moral position, especially if one intends to impose that position upon others, then that position needs to be consistent. I firmly believe a fetus should have all of the rights of any other human being, but no other human being has the right to use the body of another without that person's consent. I do not believe a fetus holds rights beyond that of other human beings, or that a pregnant woman somehow loses rights others have.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that the mother's actions are directly responsible for the situation the unborn is in, you are not granted the right to murder simply because one of your rights is violated.

As to choices. You can choose to offer me your kidney in order to save my life. However, you can - at the very last moment - change your mind and refuse to give it to me. Even if that last minute decision results in my death. Because I have no claim to your body without your consent regardless of any promise or prior decision. You can even change your mind on your death bed and I would have absolutely no claim to your corpse, even if that meant my death.

So this argument that the right to life is paramount does not stand up.

In the example you provided, your right to life would not have been violated, as in no one would be taking your life away from you. You are not legally compelled to save someone's life unless a crime is being committed. However if my kidney was forcibly taken from me, and I later killed you, I would go to jail, because having a right violated does not give you the right to murder someone else.

 

[PratchettFan]

Murder is a legal term and abortion is not murder, in a legal sense. I think the question really being argued here is whether she should have the choice at all. If you take the position that the right to life supercedes all other rights, then my right to life supercedes your right to your body. If it does not, then the right to life does not supercede all other rights and the right to life of the fetus does not supercede the right to personal sovereignty of the woman. Whether or not she wishes to allow the fetus to use her body is her choice. Her reasons for that decision are no one else's business.

Where am I granted a 'right to my body'? But yes, your right to life supersedes every one of my rights. As an example, you cannot kill someone who breaks into your house unless they represent a threat to your life.

If one is going to take a moral position, especially if one intends to impose that position upon others, then that position needs to be consistent. I firmly believe a fetus should have all of the rights of any other human being, but no other human being has the right to use the body of another without that person's consent. I do not believe a fetus holds rights beyond that of other human beings, or that a pregnant woman somehow loses rights others have.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that the mother's actions are directly responsible for the situation the unborn is in, you are not granted the right to murder simply because one of your rights is violated.

As to choices. You can choose to offer me your kidney in order to save my life. However, you can - at the very last moment - change your mind and refuse to give it to me. Even if that last minute decision results in my death. Because I have no claim to your body without your consent regardless of any promise or prior decision. You can even change your mind on your death bed and I would have absolutely no claim to your corpse, even if that meant my death.

So this argument that the right to life is paramount does not stand up.

In the example you provided, your right to life would not have been violated, as in no one would be taking your life away from you. You are not legally compelled to save someone's life unless a crime is being committed. However if my kidney was forcibly taken from me, and I later killed you, I would go to jail, because having a right violated does not give you the right to murder someone else.

What you are describing is what I call convenient morality. It allows you to impose upon others standards you do not wish imposed upon yourself. If the right to life is paramount, then the reason for death is irrelevant. If you deny me the use of your body and, as a result, I die, then I have been denied the right to life. Anything else is only justification to ignore the inconveniences of your moral position.

BTW. Murder is a legal term. If you are going to use a legal term then you should use it properly. Legally, abortion is not murder. Calling it murder is incorrect.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well a person should be able to eat, drink and function on their own.

A fetus cannot do that.

So your answer would be, "Fuck, no, I don't do that 'evidence' shit. It's all about how I FEEL. Science and logic are for pussies!"

Noted. Move along.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well a person should be able to eat, drink and function on their own.

A fetus cannot do that.

Feel free to provide any credible science to suggest that doing any of the above is a prerequisite to being considered a human being, and thus a person.

You should have defined "credible" and "science" for them. And "prerequisite"? Dude, are you TRYING to explode their heads?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There is a hierarchy of rights, and the right to life supersedes every other right. For instance, if someone breaks into your garage and begins to steal your car, you cannot shoot them unless they're presenting some direct threat to your life.

Depends where you live.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Can any pro-choicer provide credible science that an unborn is anything other than a human, and thus legal person?

Black's Law Dictionary 9th edition, Person: A human being.

Nealis v. Baird, 996 P.2d 438, 453 (Okla. 1999) “Contemporary scientific precepts accept as a given that a human life begins at conception.” (citing KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 14 (5th ed. 1993); SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE 49 (1992); MICHAEL R. HARRISON ET AL., THE UNBORN PATIENT: PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT 14 (1984); DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS 286–99 (1990)

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology”
T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. 1990.

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

"Not only is it a life, but, by its intrinsic biological nature, it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else.”
E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE,]16–17

" A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.(Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.



T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. (1990): "the proposition that an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology"

(“Contemporary scientific precepts accept as a given that a human being's life begins at conception.”
KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 14 (5th ed. 1993)
SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE 49 (1992)
MICHAEL R. HARRISON ET AL., THE UNBORN PATIENT: PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT 14 (1984)
DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS 286–99 (1990)

Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, HUMAN EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY , (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55. "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed"

E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii. "Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597 "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983."Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE 16–17 (1977) "Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else."

Carlson, Bruce M. Patten, Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3); "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, as an individual member of that species."

Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The developing Human 6th ed 2;" :Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). "

Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. "[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote marks the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55. Human Embryology & Teratology "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote ... is a unicellular human being... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc is not used in this book."

No argument. A fetus is a human being. Any argument to the contrary has no basis in science and is purely subjective.

That being said, is it your position that one human being has the right to use the body of another human against that human being's will?

Is it YOUR position that 1) biology gives a fat, furry DAMN about "rights", and 2) laws should somehow "correct" nature to suit human notions? You DO know that cosmic justice is just an ignorant invention of your own fevered mind, not a reality or reachable goal, right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Can any pro-choicer provide credible science that an unborn is anything other than a human, and thus legal person?

Black's Law Dictionary 9th edition, Person: A human being.

Nealis v. Baird, 996 P.2d 438, 453 (Okla. 1999) “Contemporary scientific precepts accept as a given that a human life begins at conception.” (citing KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 14 (5th ed. 1993); SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE 49 (1992); MICHAEL R. HARRISON ET AL., THE UNBORN PATIENT: PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT 14 (1984); DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS 286–99 (1990)

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology”
T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. 1990.

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

"Not only is it a life, but, by its intrinsic biological nature, it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else.”
E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE,]16–17

" A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.(Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.



T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. (1990): "the proposition that an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology"

(“Contemporary scientific precepts accept as a given that a human being's life begins at conception.”
KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 14 (5th ed. 1993)
SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE 49 (1992)
MICHAEL R. HARRISON ET AL., THE UNBORN PATIENT: PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT 14 (1984)
DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS 286–99 (1990)

Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, HUMAN EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY , (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55. "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed"

E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii. "Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597 "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983."Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE 16–17 (1977) "Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else."

Carlson, Bruce M. Patten, Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3); "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, as an individual member of that species."

Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The developing Human 6th ed 2;" :Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). "

Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. "[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote marks the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55. Human Embryology & Teratology "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote ... is a unicellular human being... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc is not used in this book."

No argument. A fetus is a human being. Any argument to the contrary has no basis in science and is purely subjective.

That being said, is it your position that one human being has the right to use the body of another human against that human being's will?

The entire argument is subjective.

So?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No argument. A fetus is a human being. Any argument to the contrary has no basis in science and is purely subjective.

That being said, is it your position that one human being has the right to use the body of another human against that human being's will?

There is a hierarchy of rights, and the right to life supersedes every other right. For instance, if someone breaks into your garage and begins to steal your car, you cannot shoot them unless they're presenting some direct threat to your life.

So your position is that if I require a blood transfusion that you should have no choice in the matter as a donor. I should be able to force you to donate your blood to me. If you had a particularly rare blood type, you should have to register with the state and be picked up, as the need arose, to tap you because the right to life of the person in need supercedes your right to your body. You think we should get rid of organ donor cards and just automatically harvest organs from dead people regardless of the desires of the person or the family. Is that about it?

So your position is that all biological situations are exactly the same, and the purpose and goal of the law should be to make the universe "fair" according to human perceptions, despite the fact that even humans don't agree about what's "fair"? Is that about it?

Have you always had this problem with megalomania, or is it new?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There is a hierarchy of rights, and the right to life trumps every other right. Feel free to point out any other circumstance where the right to life is taken away in protection of another right.

Clearly you are of the position that abortion should be illegal, so let me ask you this. Say hypothetically it does become illegal some day. What do you propose to do with a pregnant woman who is caught seeking out an abortion?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Can any pro-choicer provide credible science that an unborn is anything other than a human, and thus legal person?

It seems to me that almost all of the arguments I see on the issue of abortion center around whether or not life begins at conception. Here is an argument in favor of choice that concedes that life begins at conception. How do ya like THEM apples? Here goes . . .

I don't have too much trouble with the idea that life begins at conception. Seems to me it clearly does. But, on the issue of abortion, I don't see that as the critical issue. My view is that when it comes to unborn children, the situation of the mother (and, to some extent, the father as well) may, in certain circumstances, take precedence over continuing the unborn child to term in spite of the fact that the unborn child is a human life.

To put it another way, it seems to me the justification for abortion is simply that there are certain stages of human life that occur prior to birth, that should not be dealt with in the same fashion as human life following birth. Does this show a disregard for human life? Sure - but the stage of the human life involved is the critical factor. As mentioned, there are different stages to human life and, as I say, in certain circumstances, the well-being (and I am using that term in a very broad term) of the mother (and father) may assume a higher priority than the life of the unborn child.

While I at least appreciate your honesty, are you at least capable of understanding that, while YOU think you sound brilliant and logical, most people think you sound like a repulsive, despicable, immoral monster, and feel no desire whatsoever to emulate you? I mean, I would honestly like to know if you have even an inkling of how you appear, and why.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A fetus is human, and alive. No question about it. But it's not a person, and its life is not valued in the same way as a person.

^^this

Bitch, I don't see YOU as a person, or value your life in the same way as a bucket of warm spit, let alone as much as I would value a fetus. I don't think you want to go around pronouncing about who gets to live and who doesn't based on their value to others, ignorantly assuming that YOU are valuable.

 

[PratchettFan]

Can any pro-choicer provide credible science that an unborn is anything other than a human, and thus legal person?

Black's Law Dictionary 9th edition, Person: A human being.

Nealis v. Baird, 996 P.2d 438, 453 (Okla. 1999) “Contemporary scientific precepts accept as a given that a human life begins at conception.” (citing KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 14 (5th ed. 1993); SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE 49 (1992); MICHAEL R. HARRISON ET AL., THE UNBORN PATIENT: PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT 14 (1984); DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS 286–99 (1990)

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology”
T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. 1990.

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

"Not only is it a life, but, by its intrinsic biological nature, it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else.”
E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE,]16–17

" A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.(Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.



T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. (1990): "the proposition that an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology"

(“Contemporary scientific precepts accept as a given that a human being's life begins at conception.”
KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 14 (5th ed. 1993)
SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE 49 (1992)
MICHAEL R. HARRISON ET AL., THE UNBORN PATIENT: PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT 14 (1984)
DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS 286–99 (1990)

Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, HUMAN EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY , (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55. "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed"

E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii. "Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597 "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983."Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE 16–17 (1977) "Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else."

Carlson, Bruce M. Patten, Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3); "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, as an individual member of that species."

Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The developing Human 6th ed 2;" :Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). "

Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. "[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote marks the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55. Human Embryology & Teratology "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote ... is a unicellular human being... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc is not used in this book."

No argument. A fetus is a human being. Any argument to the contrary has no basis in science and is purely subjective.

That being said, is it your position that one human being has the right to use the body of another human against that human being's will?

Is it YOUR position that 1) biology gives a fat, furry DAMN about "rights", and 2) laws should somehow "correct" nature to suit human notions? You DO know that cosmic justice is just an ignorant invention of your own fevered mind, not a reality or reachable goal, right?

No. I think biology gives a woman the ability to terminate a pregnancy whenever she chooses. Rights are just our way of preventing other people from interfering with that ability.

 

[PratchettFan]

There is a hierarchy of rights, and the right to life supersedes every other right. For instance, if someone breaks into your garage and begins to steal your car, you cannot shoot them unless they're presenting some direct threat to your life.

So your position is that if I require a blood transfusion that you should have no choice in the matter as a donor. I should be able to force you to donate your blood to me. If you had a particularly rare blood type, you should have to register with the state and be picked up, as the need arose, to tap you because the right to life of the person in need supercedes your right to your body. You think we should get rid of organ donor cards and just automatically harvest organs from dead people regardless of the desires of the person or the family. Is that about it?

So your position is that all biological situations are exactly the same, and the purpose and goal of the law should be to make the universe "fair" according to human perceptions, despite the fact that even humans don't agree about what's "fair"? Is that about it?

Have you always had this problem with megalomania, or is it new?

Yes. That is my position. I assume your position is that laws should make sure you are protected but not those other people. You were saying about megalomania?

 

[SSDD]

I have not, nor has anyone else so far, denied that a fetus is human. You seem intent on drawing me into a debate about it, when I haven't disagreed with you.

In that, you are quite wrong. Roe v Wade, the very basis for abortion in the US today was decided upon the basis that an unborn was something other than a human being.

The descision was based on the court's claim that an unborn is the "potentiality of human life.

Fom the Roe v Wade decision:

Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother

[/quote]As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. [/quote]

The court further dodged their responsibility with this statement by Justice Blackmund:

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [410 U.S. 113, 160]

This statement was as untrue at the time as it is today. Medical science has known for a very long time that unborns, at any stage of development are living human beings.

Justice Blackmund further stated in is majority decision:

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Had they acknowledged that an unborn was a human being from the time he or she is concieved, then Blacks legal dictionary would have demanded that they not allow abortion since according to Blacks (THE legal dictionary) the only requirement for being a person is to be a human being.

Justice Blackmund then goes on to state that should the suggestion of personhood be established, the case would collapse based on the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution. The case for personhood has, at this point been established via case law as quite a number of people have been charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced for murder in the case of killing unborns. According to law, one can only be charged for murder if one kills a person.

Legally, abortion should have been banned, except in instances where the mother's right to self defense comes into play for legitimate health issues at the time the first person was found guilty for murder in the case of killing an unborn.

 

[AmyNation]

It's not a human being. It is, human.

 

[SSDD]

person[ pur-suh n ]
noun
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child.

A fetus is not a man, a woman, or a child.

A human fetus falls within the accepted defintion of child. It is pointless to attempt to defend abortion in that manner. If you believe abortion should be legal, the only rational, and honest argument you can make is that you believe one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced outweighs another human being's right to life.

 

[SSDD]

It's not a human being. It is, human.

Being is defined as: the fact of existing; existence

Do unborn humans exist in reality? If so, then they are by defnintion, human beings.

 

[AmyNation]

person[ pur-suh n ]
noun
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child.

A fetus is not a man, a woman, or a child.

A human fetus falls within the accepted defintion of child. It is pointless to attempt to defend abortion in that manner. If you believe abortion should be legal, the only rational, and honest argument you can make is that you believe one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced outweighs another human being's right to life.

No it doesn't. You are choosing to ignore the stages of development.

An embryo is not a fetus and a fetus is not a child.

 

[SSDD]

No it doesn't. You are choosing to ignore the stages of development.

An embryo is not a fetus and a fetus is not a child.

And a child is not an adolescent, and an adolescent is not an adult, and all adults are not septagenarians....but all are human beings regardless of the stage of delveopment so long as they are homo sapiens sapiens..

Are you going to argue that they aren't homo sapiens sapiens.

If you favor abortion, that is your right and perogative. Just argue in favor of it honestly. Why not simply state that you believe one human being's right to not be inconvenienced outweighs another human being's right to live? That is the only honest argument to be made in favor of abortion on demand. All others are one form of sophistry or another.

 

[AmyNation]

A fertalizied egg, is not a man. Nor is it a child.

It is not sentient being.