Is in vitro fertilization murder?

[AllieBaba]

Once it's cloned, you bet. Just like an egg turns into a human being when it's fertilized.

 

[Shogun]

Having different beliefs is one thing. I can believe in God, and you can not believe in God, and I could care less because that belief in and of itself doesn't hurt anybody.

But claiming that a human being has no right to live because it's a nuisance, or because it may fail later in life, is condoning murder, and eugenics, and there's no telling where it will end.

Well, actually, history tells us where disregard of life leads us.

oh NOW you want to whip out the History card?




No, a zygote has not more "right" to live than sperm on a cum rag. An abortion of a ZYGOTE is no more murder than is menstruation. Acting like chicken little screaming that the sky is falling won't make your position any less stupid.

 

[Shogun]

No, you're not. But if it makes you feel important, being nothing but a girly girl, I'll let you take the points if you want them.

a girly girl? where the hell did that come from? Oh yea.. Your frustration at my intellectual tapdance on your forehead.


don't blame me if throwing out a shit head answer before thinking about what I said makes you feel stupid.

 

[Shogun]

If it's not human...what is it? Non-human? Chimpanzee? Mule deer?

Of course it's human. Genetically it's a complete human, moron.

yea.. just like a watermelon seed IS A FUCKING WATERMELON!

 

[Shogun]

Only if it can develop a consciousness and exist as a human.

ZYGOTES are CONSCIOUS now?

They exist as HUMANS??

 

[Abelian Sea]

Physically, conception seems a pretty logical starting place for life.

A cell, after all, is alive, in a purely physical sense, even if it can't survive on its own.

A fertilized egg is a living cell that is genetically distinct from its parents. Internally, it is as equipped as any organism to develop to maturity. In a simplistic sense, it is an individual. And by its DNA it is a homo sapien.

That's pretty straightforward, but not necessarily helpful, since the million dollar question is whether it is "human." Is it a person?

That, I think is the crux of the matter; not when physical life begins, but when personhood begins. At what point should we attribute to a cluster of h.s. cells (and we're each of us just a cluster of cells, physically speaking) those "inalienable rights" which we recognize as proper to human beings?

For myself, I'm just not sure. Sitting here in my computer chair, it's easy to think, "well, why not just when physical life begins, at conception?" It's simple and clear, conceptually. I'm not sure that I'd feel entirely sane, though, looking a woman in the eye and telling her what she can and can't do because of the rights of a microscopic unconscious animal incapable of independent life.

What I can say firmly, though, about both abortions and creating embryos that will most likely be destroyed, is that it is distinctly ghoulish. That's not quite to say that it's immoral, but I will never be comfortable with it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Damn, I'm just too quick for you today, Shogun. The girly-girl reference was a throwback to the misogynist comment.

And a watermelon seed is a watermelon, it just needs to grow. It's already fertilized, it's ready to go.

Nobody said zygotes were conscious. I said they develop consciousness, which they do. Though I'm not saying they need to "be" conscious to be human.

You go ahead and tell yourself that embryos and fetuses and unborn babies aren't human, Shogun, if that alleviates any of the stress you feel over the issue. Don't get so worked up over it. It's just a belief, right?

 

[Dr Grump]

Having different beliefs is one thing. I can believe in God, and you can not believe in God, and I could care less because that belief in and of itself doesn't hurt anybody.

But claiming that a human being has no right to live because it's a nuisance, or because it may fail later in life, is condoning murder, and eugenics, and there's no telling where it will end.

Well, actually, history tells us where disregard of life leads us.

And that is just your OPINION...this is why I keep on saying you are trying to foist your beliefs on others.s Have your beliefs - don't have an abortion. Just don't tell others what to do or try and legislate. The bottom line - and whether you'll admit it or not is another thing altogether - is that your belief is enshrined in religious dogma. Keep it out of my life thank-you.

Also re abortions after six months. Please find scientific evidence - with peer reviews - about the number and reasons for abortions after 8 weeks. How many and for what reasons. Take your time. If you are going to answer "I don't have to", or give me some personal, unprovable anecdote of a one-off example that you "saw", don't bother. That isn't proof, but suposition.

 

[Dr Grump]

Damn, I'm just too quick for you today, Shogun. The girly-girl reference was a throwback to the misogynist comment.

And a watermelon seed is a watermelon, it just needs to grow. It's already fertilized, it's ready to go.

Nobody said zygotes were conscious. I said they develop consciousness, which they do. Though I'm not saying they need to "be" conscious to be human.

You go ahead and tell yourself that embryos and fetuses and unborn babies aren't human, Shogun, if that alleviates any of the stress you feel over the issue. Don't get so worked up over it. It's just a belief, right?

No, a watermelon seed is a watermelon seed. It wouldn't be called that otherwise...

 

[Shogun]

Damn, I'm just too quick for you today, Shogun. The girly-girl reference was a throwback to the misogynist comment.

And a watermelon seed is a watermelon, it just needs to grow. It's already fertilized, it's ready to go.

Nobody said zygotes were conscious. I said they develop consciousness, which they do. Though I'm not saying they need to "be" conscious to be human.

You go ahead and tell yourself that embryos and fetuses and unborn babies aren't human, Shogun, if that alleviates any of the stress you feel over the issue. Don't get so worked up over it. It's just a belief, right?

Allie doll, you WISH you were running at my pace.

And no, a watermelon seed is not a watermelon. It's a SEED to a plant, not the fruit of the plant. See, THAT is what quickness looks like.. Hook, line and sinker, yo.


and when do zygotes have the earliest posibility of developing a conciousness, Allie? Say it with me: AFTER THE HEART BEATS AS INDICATION OF A CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM. AFTER the zygote stage.

Oh, im not worked up.. I enjoy sparring.. even if I have to move like a quadriplegic to spar with you.

 

[AllieBaba]

Poor deluded misogynist.

A watermelon seed doesn't "change" into a watermelon. It just grows. It's a watermelon all along.

 

[Steerpike]

A watermelon seed is neither a watermelon, which is the "fruit" of the watermelon plant, nor even a watermelon plant. It must undergo further development before it becomes either one. That should be fairly self-evident I think.

If all the seed did was grow, then you'd just have a big seed at the end. Instead, the cells have to differentiate, specialize, transform the seed into something it wasn't before.

 

[AllieBaba]

And we have to grow into adults from children.

We're still human when we're children, and as adults.

 

[Dr Grump]

And we have to grow into adults from children.

We're still human when we're children, and as adults.

But are sperm and egg human, even after initial fertilization? I think Shogun explains it best re having a brain and nervous system.

Still waiting for you to prove that 6-month abortions are endemic...

 

[AllieBaba]

I proved that there are no statistics because the abortionists refuse to provide them.

So there's no way to prove the claim that they are, or they aren't.

All I can go on is personal experience. I've been at an abortion clinic and personally saw a woman who was in a state of advanced pregnancy and I've taken one woman in a state of advanced pregnancy (6 months). Those two visits account for 2 of 4 visits I've made. Another involved a woman who, upon receiving her ultrasound, was found not to have an embryo but who received an abortion anyway.

But if you want to believe everything they fling at you, have at it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Here's a sort of interesting little something I ran across...the comparision of slavery to abortion.

http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/SlaveryAbortion.htm

Interesting.

 

[Dr Grump]

I proved that there are no statistics because the abortionists refuse to provide them.

So there's no way to prove the claim that they are, or they aren't.

All I can go on is personal experience. I've been at an abortion clinic and personally saw a woman who was in a state of advanced pregnancy and I've taken one woman in a state of advanced pregnancy (6 months). Those two visits account for 2 of 4 visits I've made. Another involved a woman who, upon receiving her ultrasound, was found not to have an embryo but who received an abortion anyway.

But if you want to believe everything they fling at you, have at it.

In other words, you have no answer...thanks for playing...

 

[AllieBaba]

I think I proved my point that those who claim advanced term abortions are "rare" are full of shit, since there are no stats to support the claim.


Planned Parenthood Reports Record Abortions, High Profits
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
June 15, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Despite a drop in donations and the first fall in income from clinics in its history, the nation's biggest abortion provider made a high profit last year, thanks to the American taxpayer. Pro-lifers want this to stop.

During its 2005-2006 fiscal year, the nonprofit Planned Parenthood Federation of America performed a record 264,943 abortions, attained a high profit of $55.8 million and received record taxpayer funding of $305.3 million.

According to its annual report, income is divided roughly into three major categories: clinic income (fees charged to customers at clinics); donations (gifts from corporations, foundations and individuals); and taxpayer money (grants and contracts from federal, state and local government).

For the year July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, Planned Parenthood received $345.1 million in clinic income, $305.3 million in taxpayer funding and $212.2 million in donations. Total income reached $902.8 million while total expenses came to $847.0 million, leaving a profit of $55.8 million.

Numerous calls to Planned Parenthood offices in both New York City and Washington, D.C., seeking comment for this article, were not returned, but a statement on the organization's website says that the report "illustrates the achievements of an organization founded to prevent unintended pregnancy and protect women's health and safety."

"During a year of great change and growth, and in a political climate of increasing assaults on sexual and reproductive rights and health, Planned Parenthood continued to make enormous strides toward protecting and strengthening the reproductive health and rights of women and men worldwide," the statement adds.

Jim Sedlak, executive director of Stop Planned Parenthood (STOPP) International, told Cybercast News Service on Thursday that the flow of taxpayer dollars to the abortion provider "has to be stopped. Since our elected officials won't do their job, it's up to us."

"Clearly, it was a good overall year for Planned Parenthood," he said. "Total income went up 2.4 percent, passing $900 million for the first time."

At the same time, however, he said further analysis revealed "potential trouble spots" for the PPFA.

The report showed that income from clinics was down about $1.5 million from the previous year -- the first such decline in the organization's 50-year history -- while donations also fell by $3.6 million.

So why was Planned Parenthood able to report such a high profit?

"The final category of Planned Parenthood revenue sources is you and me -- the American taxpayer," Sedlak said. He noted that the amount of taxpayer funding reported by PPFA exceeded that of the previous year by $32.6 million, or 12 percent.

"The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood is losing donations, its clinic income is down, and you and I are being forced to pay more so the organization can kill our children through abortion and spread its perverted ideology throughout the land," Sedlak said.

"Everyone is getting the message: Stay away from Planned Parenthood. Everyone, that is, except our elected officials," Sedlak stated. "Without the increase in taxpayer funds, Planned Parenthood would have had an overall decline in income this year."

The jump in taxpayer funding to the PPFA also drew criticism from Douglas Scott, Jr., president of Life Decisions International (LDI).

"This 'not-for-profit' entity ends every fiscal year with tens of millions of dollars in 'excess revenue over expenses,' which is known to regular people as 'profit,'" he said in a statement.

Referring to the closing date of the latest annual report, Scott noted that "on June 30, 2006, PPFA had net assets valued at $839.8 million, of which $330.9 million was unrestricted and another $116.6 million was temporarily restricted."

"This is essentially a savings account," he said. "The money is sitting in a bank and drawing interest that will further advance Planned Parenthood's deadly agenda."

Ratio of abortions to adoptions

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, noted that while the PPFA reported carrying out a record number of abortions in 2005-2006, it "did not record a single adoption referral."

In the previous year, PPFA reported 1,414 adoption referrals, which Sedlak said amounted to one adoption for every 180 abortions.

The fact that the organization chose not to release a number for adoptions in the latest fiscal year, he said, meant that "we can only assume the number was so low that Planned Parenthood didn't want to embarrass itself by revealing it."

"You will not find the word 'adoption' anywhere in the PPFA's 2005-2006 Annual Report," Scott observed.

Cybercast News Service previously reported that Planned Parenthood has faced financial struggles for the past several years. The organization's 2003-2004 fiscal year report showed it was performing more abortions at fewer clinics than in the past.

Cecile Richards became the group's new president in February of 2006, just as the clinics in her home state faced cutbacks and even shutdowns because of budget amendments passed by the Texas legislature.

And last December, STOPP International said that 2006 had been "another year of struggle for Planned Parenthood" since the number of clinics the organization operated had dropped to its lowest level since 1987.

Several abortion rights groups Thursday declined to comment on the finances of another organization.

In a recent statement, PPFA President Cecile Richards argued that more funding was needed for its work.

"Currently, more than 17 million women in the U.S. need publicly-funded family planning services, and there is not enough funding to meet the need," she said. "Nearly 750,000 teenagers in the U.S. will become pregnant this year.

"As the leading advocate and provider of reproductive health care, Planned Parenthood knows that affordable health care services and access to medically accurate health information and education are the keys to reducing teen pregnancy and to building strong, healthy families," Richards said.

But on Thursday, Sedlak saw the PPFA's declining number of clinics as a silver lining in the organization's new report.

"This data should encourage all who fight Planned Parenthood in your community every day," he said. "Planned Parenthood is hurting. It is closing down clinics faster than it can open new ones, and its clinic income is down. Now is the time to rededicate ourselves to a tireless fight against Planned Parenthood."

FRC's Perkins agreed. "With assets totaling more than $839 million, Planned Parenthood hardly needs a government handout," he said.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200706/CUL20070615a.html

 

[Steerpike]

And we have to grow into adults from children.

We're still human when we're children, and as adults.

Yeah, and a watermelon seed is still a plant when it is a seed. But it isn't a watermelon.

 

[Gem]

I will begin by stating that I am pro-choice, by that I mean that abortion should be legal in limited circumstances...I believe - similarly to Mattskramer - that although I personally think that abortion is the murder of a human being in its earliest states, that in a nation full of diverse opinions and a million and one different situations....we can not have black and white laws like "no abortion ever."

Just like we understand that if you kill someone who was trying to murder you or your family you have not committed a crime worthy of life in prison...we also must have laws that understand that a 9 year old should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy caused by incest or rape, that a 30 year old married woman should not have to be faced with death in order to carry a baby to term...etc.

However...when it comes to the question of "when" a bunch of cells becomes a human...I feel that most people miss the obvious. Is it when the heart starts beating, is it when the brain function appears, when the baby is viable outside the womb, etc. etc. The problem with these questions is that - aside from being frustrating and debatable (as we have seen here) - with scientific breakthroughs...we have consistently have to push these times back...we now know that fetuses do things and develop at a much earlier stage than previously thought...and each year we see babies being born earlier and earlier...born viable and growing to live happy healthy lives...when less than 5 years ago some on this board would have called them safely non-human and therefore, abort-able.

With that in mind...there really is only one time in which we see an obvious and profound change...conception. That is the time in which - all of a sudden - an entire new entity has started...with its own DNA, often a different sex from the "host," and - if left to develop naturally and normally - will continue to follow the natural progression of life that we all are on...

We don't all of a sudden become human one day sometime between 4 months and 9 months...the moment we were conceived we started down the path that got us here...and will take us to our deaths.

This isn't a religious answer...I'm not a church-goer, and do not consider myself religious. I'm not ardently pro-life...as I stated earlier. I've just considered this issue thoroughly...and find that conception is the ONLY point in time that BEFORE it...nothing other than the mother and father is there...and AFTER it...there is something that will grow into a fetus, a baby, a toddler, a child, a teen, a young adult, an adult, a senior citizen, and...a dead person...

You would not call a toddler "non-human" because it wasn't a fully-formed adult yet...so the moment of conception is simply the very earliest stage of human development. Its human....just very, very, very early on.

And, in my opinion...the far more valid question is not "when does a fetus become human?" but rather..."under what circumstances is it appropriate to end a human life in its earliest stages?"