Medical fact. Life begins at conception.

[Votto]

Life at conception may start at conception, but men never change. Until the men in America change (disrespectful of women's equality) the face of abortion won't change.

Oh, and the little fact that there is a billion dollar abortion industry.

That may have a tad bit to do with it.

It seems to be the only time we like those rich fat cats.

 

[irosie91]

Ova and spermatozoans----constitute HUMAN LIFE

Not until they actually unite, they don't.

wrong-----the Ovum of a lady monkey is not
"human life"-----the Ovum of a HOMO SAPIEN
lady------is HUMAN

Yes.

A human egg or a human sperm (un-united) are undeniably "human."

However, un united sperm and egg cells are not organisms. They are only the haploid reproductive cells from a human organism.

Once they unite... they ARE or they become a NEW human organism (being)

so what?

 

[Chuz Life]

Ova and spermatozoans----constitute HUMAN LIFE

Not until they actually unite, they don't.

wrong-----the Ovum of a lady monkey is not
"human life"-----the Ovum of a HOMO SAPIEN
lady------is HUMAN

Yes.

A human egg or a human sperm (un-united) are undeniably "human."

However, un united sperm and egg cells are not organisms. They are only the haploid reproductive cells from a human organism.

Once they unite... they ARE or they become a NEW human organism (being)

so what?

So what, what?

I'm not clear on what more you are seeking from me.

 

[abu afak]

Life at conception may start at conception, but men never change. Until the men in America change (disrespectful of women's equality) the face of abortion won't change.

Oh, and the little fact that there is a billion dollar abortion industry.

That may have a tad bit to do with it.

It seems to be the only time we like those rich fat cats.

Welfare, Police, Courts, Prisons, is a Hundred of Billions of dollars Industry whose costs can and have been significantly reduced by abortion.
A $1000 'free' abortion can and has saved $1 million+.
Exponentially the best Investment/savings the Govt has Ever made.
`

 

[Votto]

Life at conception may start at conception, but men never change. Until the men in America change (disrespectful of women's equality) the face of abortion won't change.

Join in the RedGreen prayer for men.

"I'm a man...................I can change....................If I have to...........................................................................I guess"

 

[SaxxyBlues]

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 to impose their personal (usually religious) coercion upon others is antithetical to what the majority of Americans want.

The extremists’ view and their desire to impose it upon others via state coersion is not the moral position of most Americans. If and when a fœtus 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, hence, Roe vs. Wade

Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother- nothing more. It neither requires them enforce or concede those interests, nor does it limit the circumstances in which a state may have an interest to just those. It merely presents a set of limitations relevant to the statute at hand- strict prohibition of abortion under any circumstances. It is providing one argument why that one law was unconstitutional.

The section regarding the second trimester dictates the point in which the state's interest in the mother's health can override her unrestrained privacy rights. Essentially, it represents the point at which the state can regulate certain aspects of abortion to protect the mother from herself.

The viability issue is completely separate- it represents the point at which the state's interest in protecting fetus's rights can be argued to override the mother's. Although the third trimester is generally held up as the benchmark for this, it was a compromise- the medical definition of viability clearly out-weighs any artificial timeline, and, given sufficiently advanced medical technology, can clearly kick in before the state's interest in the mother- i.e. if it became medically routine for a fetus to live outside the womb at the age of two weeks, that would be the new test for when the state could, but not necessarily must, impose its interests in protecting the fetus over the privacy rights of the mother. The viability issue would then render the interests in the mother’s health moot, if the state chooses to peruse it.

This is not a religious issue. It's a scientific fact that our lives begin at conception. That's why there are prolife atheists. Take a look at these groups, please:

Secular Pro-Life
Pro-Life Atheists

Women do not have to be an incubator if they dont want to be. It is not compulsory to have children.

 

[buttercup]

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 to impose their personal (usually religious) coercion upon others is antithetical to what the majority of Americans want.

The extremists’ view and their desire to impose it upon others via state coersion is not the moral position of most Americans. If and when a fœtus 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, hence, Roe vs. Wade

Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother- nothing more. It neither requires them enforce or concede those interests, nor does it limit the circumstances in which a state may have an interest to just those. It merely presents a set of limitations relevant to the statute at hand- strict prohibition of abortion under any circumstances. It is providing one argument why that one law was unconstitutional.

The section regarding the second trimester dictates the point in which the state's interest in the mother's health can override her unrestrained privacy rights. Essentially, it represents the point at which the state can regulate certain aspects of abortion to protect the mother from herself.

The viability issue is completely separate- it represents the point at which the state's interest in protecting fetus's rights can be argued to override the mother's. Although the third trimester is generally held up as the benchmark for this, it was a compromise- the medical definition of viability clearly out-weighs any artificial timeline, and, given sufficiently advanced medical technology, can clearly kick in before the state's interest in the mother- i.e. if it became medically routine for a fetus to live outside the womb at the age of two weeks, that would be the new test for when the state could, but not necessarily must, impose its interests in protecting the fetus over the privacy rights of the mother. The viability issue would then render the interests in the mother’s health moot, if the state chooses to peruse it.

This is not a religious issue. It's a scientific fact that our lives begin at conception. That's why there are prolife atheists. Take a look at these groups, please:

Secular Pro-Life
Pro-Life Atheists

Women do not have to be an incubator if she does not want to be. It is not compulsory to have children.

Of course it's not compulsory to have children. But if you don't want to be a mom, or you aren't ready, the answer is not killing your child. I know it's politically incorrect to say this, but if you aren't mature enough to face the consequences of your own actions, then you aren't mature enough to have sex, imo.

 

[abu afak]

Of course it's not compulsory to have children. But if you don't want to be a mom, or you aren't ready, the answer is not killing your child. I know it's politically incorrect to say this, but if you aren't mature enough to face the consequences of your own actions, then you aren't mature enough to have sex, imo.

So your brilliant 'solution' is to stop immature people (13-43) from having sex.
Good luck.
Everyone else has to deal with reality.
`

 

[SaxxyBlues]

Hey my birthday needs to happen at conception. I guess we are older than our birth dates.

 

[forkup]

ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.

When Human Life Begins

Medical fact. Pregnancy, carries an inherent risk of death. Therefor demanding a person to carry a baby to term is demanding a person to risk her life. What right does ANYBODY have to demand that of ANYONE? Give me a field of endeavor where that DEMAND is required of anybody?

 

[Chuz Life]

Of course it's not compulsory to have children. But if you don't want to be a mom, or you aren't ready, the answer is not killing your child. I know it's politically incorrect to say this, but if you aren't mature enough to face the consequences of your own actions, then you aren't mature enough to have sex, imo.

So your brilliant 'solution' is to stop immature people (13-43) from having sex.
Good luck.
Everyone else has to deal with reality.
`

Including the reality that an abortion kills a child and the reality that legalized abortions un-Constitutionally deny rights and legal protections to the children being killed.

 

[abu afak]

Including the reality that an abortion kills a child and the reality that legalized abortions un-Constitutionally deny rights and legal protections to the children being killed.

Abortion is Constitutional and Legal.
See USSC, Roe v Wade.

You Deluded Forced-Lifers make me sick.


(PS: this thread belongs in the 'Abortion' section with all it's Religio-Rigid characters)
`

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course it's not compulsory to have children. But if you don't want to be a mom, or you aren't ready, the answer is not killing your child. I know it's politically incorrect to say this, but if you aren't mature enough to face the consequences of your own actions, then you aren't mature enough to have sex, imo.

So your brilliant 'solution' is to stop immature people (13-43) from having sex.
Good luck.
Everyone else has to deal with reality.
`

Including the reality that an abortion kills a child and the reality that legalized abortions un-Constitutionally deny rights and legal protections to the children being killed.

“Medical fact. Life begins at conception.”

Legal fact. One is not entitled to Constitutional protections until he is born.

‘…an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.’

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

The only thing relevant is the law.

Individuals are at liberty to decide the matter for themselves, free from unwarranted interference from the state, and free form interference from authoritarian conservatives hostile to the right to privacy.

 

[forkup]

ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.

When Human Life Begins

Medical fact. Pregnancy, carries an inherent risk of death. Therefor demanding a person to carry a baby to term is demanding a person to risk her life. What right does ANYBODY have to demand that of ANYONE? Give me a field of endeavor where that DEMAND is required of anybody?

Wow, chuz. Marking a post as funny is the best argument you can give?

 

[mudwhistle]

Life at conception may start at conception, but men never change. Until the men in America change (disrespectful of women's equality) the face of abortion won't change.

Oh, and the little fact that there is a billion dollar abortion industry.

That may have a tad bit to do with it.

It seems to be the only time we like those rich fat cats.

Welfare, Police, Courts, Prisons, is a Hundred of Billions of dollars Industry whose costs can and have been significantly reduced by abortion.
A $1000 'free' abortion can and has saved $1 million+.
Exponentially the best Investment/savings the Govt has Ever made.
`

Yep.....murder them before they can do anything wrong.

Course that ignores the possible contributions they could have made in their lives. Imagine if everyone who was born into a poor family had been aborted before they got a chance to do great things simply because they weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouths.
They might turn to crime instead of pulling themselves out of the muck.

I've learned many people who do great things start out poor or live through difficult situations. Sometimes that gets their creative juices flowing.

A perfect example is Freddie Mercury.....lead singer for the rock group Queen.

The house in Zanzibar where Mercury lived in his early years​

 

[zaangalewa]

Including the reality that an abortion kills a child and the reality that legalized abortions un-Constitutionally deny rights and legal protections to the children being killed.

Abortion is Constitutional and Legal.
See USSC, Roe v Wade.

You Deluded Forced-Lifers make me sick.


(PS: this thread belongs in the 'Abortion' section with all it's Religio-Rigid characters)
`

Keeps a problem: The Supreme Court of the USA was wrong. No one has any natural right to kill a human being only because a father made pregnant a mother. Even Norma McCorvey (alias Jane Roe) on her own tried later to fight against this wrong decision of the Supreme Court of the USA.