Mississippi about to turn up the stupid?

[Full-Auto]

Life begins when the sperm burrows in and takes hold. That is science fact.

Try something else straw man.

What straw man? I don't think you know what that means.

When you say "life begins" you mean that a human being begins? Because if you're going to be so broad and vague as to simply say "life" then the truth is that the sperm and ova are, independently "life." Perhaps you'd like to extend legal personhood to both of those?

In truth, a fertilized egg is NOT a human being. All of our science rejects that notion. A human being does not come into existence until some other point along the way.

Is that the first stage of human development?

You are not very bright, please try harder.

 

[Steelplate]

In the case of risk to a mother's life, like ectopic pregnancy specifically, I'd imagine that an abortion procedure would fall under self defense laws, which already cover those "him or me" kind of scenarios. I find it unlikely that any prosecutor would push those cases into court.

In the case of miscarriage, under this you would handle it like any other death is handled. If there were signs of foul play you look at a manslaughter or murder investigation and charges.

Invitro is done under this. Making that process comply with the law would make it outrageous. Birth control is in really strange waters with this, as the pill can cause fertilized eggs to fail to implant.

Once you hear the ultrasound, most rational folks agree that the baby is, well, a baby. I agree with the idea, but codifying it into law seems like it opens pandora's box.

I'm thinking a much better use of time and cash is giving kids some condoms and making them care for a kid for a few days. Guarantee the demand for abortions and the unmarried birth rate would go down.

Ahhh... but how far are we going to go with this? Let's see... in the bible God Punished Onan with death for "spilling his seed on the ground", thereby wasting it instead of ejaculating into his brother's wife as God told him to do.

So Condoms would be the equivalent of spilling your seed on the ground.... and let's not forget masturbation.... I guess we're all killers.

Now that makes no sense at all.

Was Onan punished for spilling his seed onto the ground or for disobeying God when he was told to ejaculate into his brother's wife?

To make an example. Had God not told Onan to do anything, and he spilled his seed on the ground would it still be a sin? The sin was in disobeying, not in the act.

You know what? You're probably right. Show me in the Bible where ending a pregnancy is a sin.

Here, I'll help you out a little. Exodus 21...22 “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. (NIV)

So... if a fetus dies, recompense is determined in a monetary fashion. If the woman dies, it reverts back to an eye for an eye. In short... Unborn fetuses are NOT the equivalent of a fully born human being.

Now... as a disclaimer... I am not pro-abortion. I AM however, pro-choice. I firmly believe that in situations such as abortion... that those choices and consequences are firmly between the person making the choice and God. You or I have no business judging them.

 

[Dragon]

There is no scientific theory that defines a fertilized human egg as anything other than a human being.

There is no scientific theory that defines it AS a human being, either. In fact, there is no scientific theory that defines "human being."

It is not a different species that somehow becomes a human being later.

It is not a different species, no, but that which is "human" is not necessarily a "human being." Every cell of my body is human, but none of them is a human being. The same is true for a zygote or embryo.

It takes as much religious belief (or more) that a fertilized human egg is something other than a human being as it does to say that it is a human being.

True, because "human being" is not something established by science; it is a core value judgment. For me, in order to be a "human being," an organism must be more than just biologically human and alive (note the cells of my body, once again). It must have a personality, thoughts, feelings, the capacity to feel pleasure and pain, hope and fear. An absolute requirement for these things is that it have a functioning cerebral cortex, which an embryo at conception does not.

This is not a scientific judgment. It is a value judgment, and that is how we must make this decision.

 

[Inthemiddle]

In the case of risk to a mother's life, like ectopic pregnancy specifically, I'd imagine that an abortion procedure would fall under self defense laws, which already cover those "him or me" kind of scenarios. I find it unlikely that any prosecutor would push those cases into court.

In the case of miscarriage, under this you would handle it like any other death is handled. If there were signs of foul play you look at a manslaughter or murder investigation and charges.

The first part is an interesting view on it, and I'm inclined to agree that it probably should go that way. However, as you point out in the latter case, investigations have to be held to determine such things, including self defense cases. The extreme nature of this law is going to throw privacy out the window. Every time a woman has to have a medically necessary abortion, even if it were covered under self defense laws, there would still need to be an investigation into it. Her medical history would have to become an open book in order to determine whether there was a risk to her life. And it would be up to a medical examiner to decide whether there was sufficient risk to justify the woman's self defense argument. In other words, the government will now be deciding whether a woman had a legal responsibility to risk death.

The same will be happening in miscarriages. A medical examiner and lawyer are going to decide whether a woman should have known she was pregnant, whether she should have eaten more of this or less of that, in order to decide whether she was negligent in causing the miscarriage. I simply cannot condone the government having such power or authority to dictate such intimate details of people's lives that eating certain things or not can become a crime.

Once you hear the ultrasound, most rational folks agree that the baby is, well, a baby. I agree with the idea, but codifying it into law seems like it opens pandora's box.

Agreed. This is my objection. It's an extreme measure that will produce extreme results, and create extreme intrusion by the government into people's lives.

I'm thinking a much better use of time and cash is giving kids some condoms and making them care for a kid for a few days. Guarantee the demand for abortions and the unmarried birth rate would go down.

Agreed again. But somehow, I don't think the folks in Miss are going to be down to teach their kids safe sex.

 

[Dragon]

Life begins when the sperm burrows in and takes hold. That is science fact.

False. Life does not begin then. It pre-exists that point, because both the unfertilized ovum and the sperm cell are alive. So are the organs that produce them. "Life" has no beginning, except the origin of life on this planet billions of years ago.

You cannot use biology to justify an anti-choice position. You must make a value judgment, based on what you view as defining a person.

 

[Inthemiddle]

You are not very bright, please try harder.

You're the one who has nothing but overly vague comments that reach near meaninglessness, who then tries to insert them to assert things that are rejected by science. Yet I'm the one not very bright?

 

[Full-Auto]

Life begins when the sperm burrows in and takes hold. That is science fact.

False. Life does not begin then. It pre-exists that point, because both the unfertilized ovum and the sperm cell are alive. So are the organs that produce them. "Life" has no beginning, except the origin of life on this planet billions of years ago.

You cannot use biology to justify an anti-choice position. You must make a value judgment, based on what you view as defining a person.

And once the egg is fertile.

Thanks for playing.............

 

[Full-Auto]

You are not very bright, please try harder.

You're the one who has nothing but overly vague comments that reach near meaninglessness, who then tries to insert them to assert things that are rejected by science. Yet I'm the one not very bright?

See the last post.

Then apply science stating it is not alive.

 

[Dragon]

And once the egg is fertile.

No, an unfertilized ovum is also alive. So is a sperm cell. Ask any doctor. There is no point when "life" begins, except, as I said, the origin of life on this planet. Everything else has been a continuum.

 

[Unkotare]

Your skill is made of cells. Take one of them, is that a human being? Under your "theory" yes, according to the scientific community, no. .

Are you stupid, or just dishonest?




or both?

 

[Full-Auto]

And once the egg is fertile.

No, an unfertilized ovum is also alive. So is a sperm cell. Ask any doctor. There is no point when "life" begins, except, as I said, the origin of life on this planet. Everything else has been a continuum.

a fertilized egg is the beginning of human development.

Please show where it is not.

 

[Steelplate]

Life begins when the sperm burrows in and takes hold. That is science fact.

False. Life does not begin then. It pre-exists that point, because both the unfertilized ovum and the sperm cell are alive. So are the organs that produce them. "Life" has no beginning, except the origin of life on this planet billions of years ago.

You cannot use biology to justify an anti-choice position. You must make a value judgment, based on what you view as defining a person.

And once the egg is fertile.

Thanks for playing.............

So? It's still not a human being. It's a fertilized egg. Fuck, You ever get eggs from a farm instead of a supermarket? You probably get a fertilized egg one out of every couple of dozen you purchase. Just because that egg is fertilized doesn't make it a chicken.... and it certainly doesn't mean that if you were to eat that egg, that you had a chicken dinner. The truth is... when you come across a fertilized egg... you say.. "oh fuck" and throw the damned thing away.

BTW... you can tell it's fertilized because it will have a little splash of blood in the yolk.... in case you are a city dweller who hasn't seen one.

 

[USArmyRetired]

Life begins when the sperm burrows in and takes hold. That is science fact.

False. Life does not begin then. It pre-exists that point "Life" has no beginning, except the origin of life on this planet billions of years ago.

.

No. If life has no beginning as you say, then how did it ever get started?

 

[Unkotare]

Life begins when the sperm burrows in and takes hold. That is science fact.

False. Life does not begin then. It pre-exists that point, because both the unfertilized ovum and the sperm cell are alive. So are the organs that produce them. "Life" has no beginning, except the origin of life on this planet billions of years ago.

You cannot use biology to justify an anti-choice position. You must make a value judgment, based on what you view as defining a person.

For such an uneducated little kid you sure do talk alot, punk.

 

[Full-Auto]

False. Life does not begin then. It pre-exists that point, because both the unfertilized ovum and the sperm cell are alive. So are the organs that produce them. "Life" has no beginning, except the origin of life on this planet billions of years ago.

You cannot use biology to justify an anti-choice position. You must make a value judgment, based on what you view as defining a person.

And once the egg is fertile.

Thanks for playing.............

So? It's still not a human being. It's a fertilized egg. Fuck, You ever get eggs from a farm instead of a supermarket? You probably get a fertilized egg one out of every couple of dozen you purchase. Just because that egg is fertilized doesn't make it a chicken.... and it certainly doesn't mean that if you were to eat that egg, that you had a chicken dinner. The truth is... when you come across a fertilized egg... you say.. "oh fuck" and throw the damned thing away.

BTW... you can tell it's fertilized because it will have a little splash of blood in the yolk.... in case you are a city dweller who hasn't seen one.

LOL We need to throw fits to excuse killing the unborn.

YAWN...................

 

[Dr.Traveler]

In the case of risk to a mother's life, like ectopic pregnancy specifically, I'd imagine that an abortion procedure would fall under self defense laws, which already cover those "him or me" kind of scenarios. I find it unlikely that any prosecutor would push those cases into court.

The first part is an interesting view on it, and I'm inclined to agree that it probably should go that way. However, as you point out in the latter case, investigations have to be held to determine such things, including self defense cases. The extreme nature of this law is going to throw privacy out the window. Every time a woman has to have a medically necessary abortion, even if it were covered under self defense laws, there would still need to be an investigation into it. Her medical history would have to become an open book in order to determine whether there was a risk to her life. And it would be up to a medical examiner to decide whether there was sufficient risk to justify the woman's self defense argument. In other words, the government will now be deciding whether a woman had a legal responsibility to risk death.

I typed that, did the dishes, and on the way into work realized I was wrong. A medically necessary abortion wouldn't fall under self defense, as she isn't the one terminating the pregnancy in that case. It would fall under the existing triage scenarios.

For a parallel, consider if a doctor arrives on the scene of an accident and there are two patients with life threatening injuries. The doctor can only treat one, and in such circumstances the law doesn't punish the doctor for having to make a decision to save one and not the other. We don't even investigate it.

In the case of a life threatening pregnancy, it's a similar situation. You now have two human beings, both with a life threatening scenario playing out, but if the doctor can only save one, then the doctor has the responsibility to choose who to treat.

Miscarriages are trouble under this law. That's such an emotionally devastating event, do we really want a police investigation involved? But under this, it looks like we'd have to.

 

[Dragon]

a fertilized egg is the beginning of human development.

Please show where it is not.

Before the egg can be fertilized, it and the sperm cell must be produced, as living cells, from living organs in living human bodies. The production of these cells is also part of human development, so no, a fertilized egg isn't the beginning of it. The sperm and egg each has unique DNA, derived from the parents but rearranged randomly so as to create something different from the parents. The parents' own DNA is the product of similar juggling and recombining going back through the generations to the origin of the human species, and beyond. Ultimately, the DNA comes from the first emergence of living things on Earth, which happened about 2 point something billion years ago (too lazy to look up the exact date).

There is no fixed point when human development begins. If you want to draw the line between what is and is not a human being, you must do so on some other basis.

 

[Katzndogz]

I take it that you support laws prohibiting abortion in all cases except where the woman's life is at stake.

No, I support laws that allow for individual liberty so people can decide on their own how to handle the situation. This is why "conservatives" of today all all phony. None of you care about individual liberty, you only care about people living as YOU say is okay.

There are competing rights! That's where your wagon's wheels fall off. You deny that the fetus has any rights at all, simply because it exists within its mother's womb and the woman is in the more powerful position. If the person in the position of superior power can take the life of another who is helpless where does it end? Can a baby be smothered in its crib for instance? Even if the act of smothering is an exercise of individual liberty. How about the rights of a man? He's more powerful than a pregnant woman. Should he be allowed to beat a woman into miscarriage with no penalty other than battery upon her person? If the fetus is not a human being, what is such crime? Animal cruelty?

I am not against abortion. In the beginning I was out there marching with the rest. I was a clinic defender, escorting women into the abortion clinic to have their procedures done. I believed, in those days, that I was fighting for the rights of truly desperate women for another chance. I had no idea of what this movement was going to become in those days. When weighed against a woman's last desperate chance at life, I can understand justifying the taking of the life of another human being. When weighed against a whim or convenience, I can't. The basic question isn't asked "Is the reason I want an abortion worth killing over?" You can't side step this by simply declaring a fertilized egg not a human being. If it isn't then what is it? What species is that fertilized egg? If you step on a butterfly larvae aren't you taking the life ultimately of a butterfly? We can understand this with plants, animals and insects, we can't when it comes to human beings because we wish it not so. Yet we idiotically pass endless laws protecting the reproductive rights of maggots! Are black people human beings? They were once not considered human. Can we simply deprive an entire class of persons the rights of a human being by a simple declaration that they are so weak and powerless that they don't deserve the title?

 

[Full-Auto]

a fertilized egg is the beginning of human development.

Please show where it is not.

Before the egg can be fertilized, it and the sperm cell must be produced, as living cells, from living organs in living human bodies. The production of these cells is also part of human development, so no, a fertilized egg isn't the beginning of it. The sperm and egg each has unique DNA, derived from the parents but rearranged randomly so as to create something different from the parents. The parents' own DNA is the product of similar juggling and recombining going back through the generations to the origin of the human species, and beyond. Ultimately, the DNA comes from the first emergence of living things on Earth, which happened about 2 point something billion years ago (too lazy to look up the exact date).

There is no fixed point when human development begins. If you want to draw the line between what is and is not a human being, you must do so on some other basis.

I guess the greater point went over your head.


Typical........

You wish to define when this is not life for destruction. Then you will say well it is life but not a viable human.

So fucking predictable.

 

[Katzndogz]

a fertilized egg is the beginning of human development.

Please show where it is not.

Before the egg can be fertilized, it and the sperm cell must be produced, as living cells, from living organs in living human bodies. The production of these cells is also part of human development, so no, a fertilized egg isn't the beginning of it. The sperm and egg each has unique DNA, derived from the parents but rearranged randomly so as to create something different from the parents. The parents' own DNA is the product of similar juggling and recombining going back through the generations to the origin of the human species, and beyond. Ultimately, the DNA comes from the first emergence of living things on Earth, which happened about 2 point something billion years ago (too lazy to look up the exact date).

There is no fixed point when human development begins. If you want to draw the line between what is and is not a human being, you must do so on some other basis.

Nonsense.

A sperm on its own is never going to be anything else. An egg on its own is never going to be anything else. We are not discussing sperm or eggs, but specifically eggs that have been fertilized by sperm.