Roe vs Wade vs facts

[Moonglow]

My question is, WTF is there fifteen damn abortion frickin' threads in Politics forums?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Roe Vs Wade Vs facts
Abortion is not legal under American constitutional law.
Too bad the founders of the nation can't come back to tell us what a bunch of idiots we are.
For the U.S. government to execute someone, or give authority to execute someone, a person has to be found guilty of committing a crime in a court of law.
The U.S. government was never given authority to randomly choose people to be executed.
No state that authorizes abortion can do so without being in violation of federal constitutional rights.
There is no greater form of corruption that one innocent person having to die because another person claims they have a RIGHT under the law.
The Atheist Democrats have an answer for everything, they say "it's not a person until it's born"
OK well, i'm going to go to the Ford plant and drive a truck off the property without paying for it, before they install the antenna, because it's not a truck yet.
What are we? 12 years old?
I guess bullsht is more believable when it comes from someone in a suit with a big title.
We know the Democrats are going to take the side of evil, but what is staggering to think about is how many Republicans have been going along with this.
Every politician who considers themselves a proponent of the Constitution should have been banging pots and pans together in every interview, saying we need to stop these unconstitutional executions.
The Democrats took a few horror stories of "back alley abortions" and legalized a holocaust with them.
We call ourselves a Christian nation and we kill far more people than the pagans did in human sacrifice, and we have surpassed barbarism of the Aztecs ripping someone's heart out and pushing them down a pyramid.
The whole time the Atheist Democrats are laughing their ass off of what they do to our country.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
People say there may be a time when a woman has to choose between her life and the kid's.
Well, i guess that decision is up to her, but if the Democrats are going to use that to get their foot-in-the-door for an abortion clinic on every corner, then we have to stop it completely.

Let's be reminded that Ron Paul has been a doctor his whole life, and never saw one case where a woman had to choose between her life or the baby's life.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If we're going to be telling woman they're not going to be having abortions, then we're going to have to do an emergency clean up of the adoption / foster care system.
Currently 70% to 80% of children who enter the system suffer some form of abuse.
The child molester Democrats are going to be standing by waiting to expand
their control over that too.
We're going to need wise people in politics to solve these problems, not these dopes in suits we got.

Except you missed out the part that life is considered to start when the baby is born.

Oppsie, missed that one.

Life magically starts when the umbilical cord is cut huh? Neato.

According to some of the blind fools posting on this thread, apparently so.

So when does life start?

Production of sperm and the egg?

 

[buttercup]

So when does life start?

Production of sperm and the egg?

Is this a sincere question? I have a hard time believing anyone could be that unaware of basic biology.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So when does life start?

Production of sperm and the egg?

Is this a sincere question? I have a hard time believing anyone could be that unaware of basic biology.

It's a sincere question.

Is a sperm alive or not?

Are Sperm and Egg Cells Alive?

Here's a site that's arguing that life begins at conception.

"A sperm has twenty-three chromosomes; even though it is alive and can fertilize an egg, it can never make another sperm. "

They have admitted that a sperm IS ALIVE.

The difference here is that sperm can't reproduce. So, it's not alive.

Well, a fetus can't reproduce. In fact it takes until puberty for reproduction. So, I doubt being able to reproduce is the technical requirement for something to be alive.

"Sperm and egg cells in themselves are not complete. If left alone they will die after a few days,"

Which is true. However leave a fetus alone without the mother for a few days, and it'll be dead.

 

[buttercup]

So when does life start?

Production of sperm and the egg?

Is this a sincere question? I have a hard time believing anyone could be that unaware of basic biology.

It's a sincere question.

Is a sperm alive or not?

Are Sperm and Egg Cells Alive?

Here's a site that's arguing that life begins at conception.

"A sperm has twenty-three chromosomes; even though it is alive and can fertilize an egg, it can never make another sperm. "

They have admitted that a sperm IS ALIVE.

The difference here is that sperm can't reproduce. So, it's not alive.

Well, a fetus can't reproduce. In fact it takes until puberty for reproduction. So, I doubt being able to reproduce is the technical requirement for something to be alive.

"Sperm and egg cells in themselves are not complete. If left alone they will die after a few days,"

Which is true. However leave a fetus alone without the mother for a few days, and it'll be dead.

I'm going to post an excerpt of an article from l4l.org

....there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings — they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman's uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.​

If you sincerely want to learn, read the whole article here: Libertarians for Life - Abortion and the Question of the Person

And by the way, the article that you linked to says pretty much the same thing in different words. I'll bold the pertinent parts for you.

Individual sperm and egg cells are only alive in the same sense that any other human cell is "alive." Sagan knows this and plainly admits that sperm and egg cells are "not human beings." In the very next sentence, however, he makes an unfounded leap of faith, asserting that it is reasonable to argue that a fertilized egg is not a human being either. Interestingly, this is an argument he never bothers making. Instead he substitutes a biologically concrete term (human being) for a biologically fuzzy one (baby), and states that a fertilized egg is only a "potential baby or potential adult." This may be a true statement (depending on how you define "baby"), but its inconsequential. The fact that a fertilized egg is a potential adult, does not thereby make it a potential human.​

 

[frigidweirdo]

So when does life start?

Production of sperm and the egg?

Is this a sincere question? I have a hard time believing anyone could be that unaware of basic biology.

It's a sincere question.

Is a sperm alive or not?

Are Sperm and Egg Cells Alive?

Here's a site that's arguing that life begins at conception.

"A sperm has twenty-three chromosomes; even though it is alive and can fertilize an egg, it can never make another sperm. "

They have admitted that a sperm IS ALIVE.

The difference here is that sperm can't reproduce. So, it's not alive.

Well, a fetus can't reproduce. In fact it takes until puberty for reproduction. So, I doubt being able to reproduce is the technical requirement for something to be alive.

"Sperm and egg cells in themselves are not complete. If left alone they will die after a few days,"

Which is true. However leave a fetus alone without the mother for a few days, and it'll be dead.

I'm going to post an excerpt of an article from l4l.org

....there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings — they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman's uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.​

If you sincerely want to learn, read the whole article here: Libertarians for Life - Abortion and the Question of the Person

And by the way, the article that you linked to says pretty much the same thing in different words. I'll bold the pertinent parts for you.

Individual sperm and egg cells are only alive in the same sense that any other human cell is "alive." Sagan knows this and plainly admits that sperm and egg cells are "not human beings." In the very next sentence, however, he makes an unfounded leap of faith, asserting that it is reasonable to argue that a fertilized egg is not a human being either. Interestingly, this is an argument he never bothers making. Instead he substitutes a biologically concrete term (human being) for a biologically fuzzy one (baby), and states that a fertilized egg is only a "potential baby or potential adult." This may be a true statement (depending on how you define "baby"), but its inconsequential. The fact that a fertilized egg is a potential adult, does not thereby make it a potential human.​

And here's the problem.

There's a difference between sperm/egg phase, and sperm + egg phase, and 2 week phase, and 4 week phase, and 10 week phase etc.

We'll always find differences.

So at what point does life start?

Back in the day, before science knew this stuff, it was at birth. That was how religions saw it.

At the time human life was precious because only a few hundred years ago in London 75% of children died before their fifth birthday.

This has changed. Now the mortality rate has dropped drastically.

Basically the whole issue is an emotional one.

People who are "pro-life" are generally meat eaters who love a good execution and a good war (as long as they're winning it and it's not at home).

That's not pro-life at all.

They just pick and choose what they want life to be so they can get their own way, and their own way is what their religion tells them.

You do know that about 75% of fetuses get aborted BEFORE the woman even knows she's pregnant, right?

So, if you believe in God, then God is going around doing a lot of killing.

Oh, nice.

But really, where does life start? You can't give a definitive answer, you're not arguing that it's at conception because this is what you care about, you're arguing it's at conception because you're opposed to abortion.

But why be opposed to abortion in the modern era of TOO MANY humans on this planet?

 

[buttercup]

So when does life start?

Production of sperm and the egg?

Is this a sincere question? I have a hard time believing anyone could be that unaware of basic biology.

It's a sincere question.

Is a sperm alive or not?

Are Sperm and Egg Cells Alive?

Here's a site that's arguing that life begins at conception.

"A sperm has twenty-three chromosomes; even though it is alive and can fertilize an egg, it can never make another sperm. "

They have admitted that a sperm IS ALIVE.

The difference here is that sperm can't reproduce. So, it's not alive.

Well, a fetus can't reproduce. In fact it takes until puberty for reproduction. So, I doubt being able to reproduce is the technical requirement for something to be alive.

"Sperm and egg cells in themselves are not complete. If left alone they will die after a few days,"

Which is true. However leave a fetus alone without the mother for a few days, and it'll be dead.

I'm going to post an excerpt of an article from l4l.org

....there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings — they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman's uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.​

If you sincerely want to learn, read the whole article here: Libertarians for Life - Abortion and the Question of the Person

And by the way, the article that you linked to says pretty much the same thing in different words. I'll bold the pertinent parts for you.

Individual sperm and egg cells are only alive in the same sense that any other human cell is "alive." Sagan knows this and plainly admits that sperm and egg cells are "not human beings." In the very next sentence, however, he makes an unfounded leap of faith, asserting that it is reasonable to argue that a fertilized egg is not a human being either. Interestingly, this is an argument he never bothers making. Instead he substitutes a biologically concrete term (human being) for a biologically fuzzy one (baby), and states that a fertilized egg is only a "potential baby or potential adult." This may be a true statement (depending on how you define "baby"), but its inconsequential. The fact that a fertilized egg is a potential adult, does not thereby make it a potential human.​

And here's the problem.

There's a difference between sperm/egg phase, and sperm + egg phase, and 2 week phase, and 4 week phase, and 10 week phase etc.

We'll always find differences.

So at what point does life start?

Back in the day, before science knew this stuff, it was at birth. That was how religions saw it.

At the time human life was precious because only a few hundred years ago in London 75% of children died before their fifth birthday.

This has changed. Now the mortality rate has dropped drastically.

Basically the whole issue is an emotional one.

People who are "pro-life" are generally meat eaters who love a good execution and a good war (as long as they're winning it and it's not at home).

That's not pro-life at all.

They just pick and choose what they want life to be so they can get their own way, and their own way is what their religion tells them.

You do know that about 75% of fetuses get aborted BEFORE the woman even knows she's pregnant, right?

So, if you believe in God, then God is going around doing a lot of killing.

Oh, nice.

But really, where does life start? You can't give a definitive answer, you're not arguing that it's at conception because this is what you care about, you're arguing it's at conception because you're opposed to abortion.

But why be opposed to abortion in the modern era of TOO MANY humans on this planet?

It sounds like you didn't read the article I linked for you. To answer your question, it is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception. You just can't wrap your mind around that, because to you human beings have to look a certain way. What you aren't getting is that the zygote/embryo/fetus IS a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and me. At that stage of life, human beings are supposed to look that way… Just as newborns are supposed to look a certain way, and toddlers, children, adolescents, adults, etc.

This is not an emotional issue, it is a scientific one.

As to what you said about prolifers, that is a red herring, it has nothing to do with whether or not abortion is homicide. But for the record, I am a vegan… I don't eat meat, and I am generally anti-war, except for when it is absolutely necessary, like defending against an invasion. I am anti-violence, and against "might makes right" which is exactly what abortion is… It is the violent killing of the most innocent and vulnerable among us.

As for what you said about 75% of fetuses, I hope you're not implying that because miscarriages happen, abortion is OK? It sounds like you blame God, but the reality is that God is the ONLY being of all who has the right/authority to take life, as He sees fit. We human beings do not have that right. Period.

 

[JBvM]

It’s an unborn child. It’s no different than any other child except where it resides....

Resides? A fetus does not reside in a womb. Look up the definition of the term 'reside'

a fetus is not a child. look up the definition of 'child'

your seriously creepy obsession with fetuses is disturbing. People like you have shot up and bombed clinics and killed or maimed living human beings in the name of some imbecilities

Really it doesn’t reside in a womb, so tell me where does it reside...hammerspace?

Those assholes who bomb abortion clinics are no better than the abortionists themselves. They are criminals & do not represent the Pro-Life movement. Murder is murder...

It’s an unborn child...there’s not a fish growing in there. It’s human....

I like that you called a fetus "It" progress


and a fetus does not 'reside' - look up the term

 

[JBvM]

It’s an unborn child.

Unborn is the key phrase

 

[JBvM]

Biology ....

all of a sudden people like you believe in science?

Yes, when it’s not being weaponized by you idiots on the left to fit some agenda. The biological beginning of life starts at conception. It’s a proven fact.

all of a sudden people like you believe in science?

yet you still do not fully grasp the most simple things in science. life? a seed in the ground that gets watered is the beginning of life too

 

[JBvM]

Life magically starts when the umbilical cord is cut huh? Neato.

According to some of the blind fools posting on this thread, apparently so.

personhood. stop lying about what people say. life? stop confusing life.

a plant is life. a seed watered is the beginning of life

a fetus is an unborn thing

 

[frigidweirdo]

So when does life start?

Production of sperm and the egg?

Is this a sincere question? I have a hard time believing anyone could be that unaware of basic biology.

It's a sincere question.

Is a sperm alive or not?

Are Sperm and Egg Cells Alive?

Here's a site that's arguing that life begins at conception.

"A sperm has twenty-three chromosomes; even though it is alive and can fertilize an egg, it can never make another sperm. "

They have admitted that a sperm IS ALIVE.

The difference here is that sperm can't reproduce. So, it's not alive.

Well, a fetus can't reproduce. In fact it takes until puberty for reproduction. So, I doubt being able to reproduce is the technical requirement for something to be alive.

"Sperm and egg cells in themselves are not complete. If left alone they will die after a few days,"

Which is true. However leave a fetus alone without the mother for a few days, and it'll be dead.

I'm going to post an excerpt of an article from l4l.org

....there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings — they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman's uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.​

If you sincerely want to learn, read the whole article here: Libertarians for Life - Abortion and the Question of the Person

And by the way, the article that you linked to says pretty much the same thing in different words. I'll bold the pertinent parts for you.

Individual sperm and egg cells are only alive in the same sense that any other human cell is "alive." Sagan knows this and plainly admits that sperm and egg cells are "not human beings." In the very next sentence, however, he makes an unfounded leap of faith, asserting that it is reasonable to argue that a fertilized egg is not a human being either. Interestingly, this is an argument he never bothers making. Instead he substitutes a biologically concrete term (human being) for a biologically fuzzy one (baby), and states that a fertilized egg is only a "potential baby or potential adult." This may be a true statement (depending on how you define "baby"), but its inconsequential. The fact that a fertilized egg is a potential adult, does not thereby make it a potential human.​

And here's the problem.

There's a difference between sperm/egg phase, and sperm + egg phase, and 2 week phase, and 4 week phase, and 10 week phase etc.

We'll always find differences.

So at what point does life start?

Back in the day, before science knew this stuff, it was at birth. That was how religions saw it.

At the time human life was precious because only a few hundred years ago in London 75% of children died before their fifth birthday.

This has changed. Now the mortality rate has dropped drastically.

Basically the whole issue is an emotional one.

People who are "pro-life" are generally meat eaters who love a good execution and a good war (as long as they're winning it and it's not at home).

That's not pro-life at all.

They just pick and choose what they want life to be so they can get their own way, and their own way is what their religion tells them.

You do know that about 75% of fetuses get aborted BEFORE the woman even knows she's pregnant, right?

So, if you believe in God, then God is going around doing a lot of killing.

Oh, nice.

But really, where does life start? You can't give a definitive answer, you're not arguing that it's at conception because this is what you care about, you're arguing it's at conception because you're opposed to abortion.

But why be opposed to abortion in the modern era of TOO MANY humans on this planet?

It sounds like you didn't read the article I linked for you. To answer your question, it is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception. You just can't wrap your mind around that, because to you human beings have to look a certain way. What you aren't getting is that the zygote/embryo/fetus IS a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and me. At that stage of life, human beings are supposed to look that way… Just as newborns are supposed to look a certain way, and toddlers, children, adolescents, adults, etc.

This is not an emotional issue, it is a scientific one.

As to what you said about prolifers, that is a red herring, it has nothing to do with whether or not abortion is homicide. But for the record, I am a vegan… I don't eat meat, and I am generally anti-war, except for when it is absolutely necessary, like defending against an invasion. I am anti-violence, and against "might makes right" which is exactly what abortion is… It is the violent killing of the most innocent and vulnerable among us.

As for what you said about 75% of fetuses, I hope you're not implying that because miscarriages happen, abortion is OK? It sounds like you blame God, but the reality is that God is the ONLY being of all who has the right/authority to take life, as He sees fit. We human beings do not have that right. Period.

No, I didn't read the article you presented. I'm not here to debate with the people who wrote the article. I'm here to debate with you.

Scientific fact that life starts with conception. Are you saying that sperm and the egg aren't alive then?

No, I'm not saying that because most pregnancies end up in natural abortions that abortion is okay.

What I'm saying is that people with the gods are hypocritical.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

 

[cnm]

Life magically starts when the umbilical cord is cut huh? Neato.

Well before that. I hope you haven't been making god irate.

 

[JoeB131]

It is not a Federal issue. It is a state issue. I never said outlaw all abortion.

again, not really looking for the inbred clowns at the state level to tell anyone what they should do with their bodies.

 

[cnm]

It’s an unborn child. It’s no different than any other child except where it resides....

Except that it is not a person.

 

[JoeB131]

Science has never been on the side of the pro-aborts. As KGB said, it is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception.

But it's not viable life.

Again, if you outlaw abortion, women will still get them. They just won't get safe ones.

 

[J.E.D]

No state that authorizes abortion can do so without being in violation of federal constitutional rights.

Wrong

 

[Natural Citizen]

A Fetus is not a Citizen. It has no rights. Unless of course you want activists to step in and claim representation

An obstetrician is trained that they are treating two patients when treating a woman who is pregnant. Therefore two Individuals. Medically speaking anyway.

By the way. In terms of Legal rights, the unborn do have them. And theyre fully enforceable. the unborn will be represented in a court. We can start with inheritance rights if something happens to the parents. For one thing.

 

[J.E.D]

Roe Vs Wade Vs facts
Abortion is not legal under American constitutional law.
Too bad the founders of the nation can't come back to tell us what a bunch of idiots we are.
For the U.S. government to execute someone, or give authority to execute someone, a person has to be found guilty of committing a crime in a court of law.
The U.S. government was never given authority to randomly choose people to be executed.
No state that authorizes abortion can do so without being in violation of federal constitutional rights.
There is no greater form of corruption that one innocent person having to die because another person claims they have a RIGHT under the law.
The Atheist Democrats have an answer for everything, they say "it's not a person until it's born"
OK well, i'm going to go to the Ford plant and drive a truck off the property without paying for it, before they install the antenna, because it's not a truck yet.
What are we? 12 years old?
I guess bullsht is more believable when it comes from someone in a suit with a big title.
We know the Democrats are going to take the side of evil, but what is staggering to think about is how many Republicans have been going along with this.
Every politician who considers themselves a proponent of the Constitution should have been banging pots and pans together in every interview, saying we need to stop these unconstitutional executions.
The Democrats took a few horror stories of "back alley abortions" and legalized a holocaust with them.
We call ourselves a Christian nation and we kill far more people than the pagans did in human sacrifice, and we have surpassed barbarism of the Aztecs ripping someone's heart out and pushing them down a pyramid.
The whole time the Atheist Democrats are laughing their ass off of what they do to our country.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
People say there may be a time when a woman has to choose between her life and the kid's.
Well, i guess that decision is up to her, but if the Democrats are going to use that to get their foot-in-the-door for an abortion clinic on every corner, then we have to stop it completely.

Let's be reminded that Ron Paul has been a doctor his whole life, and never saw one case where a woman had to choose between her life or the baby's life.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If we're going to be telling woman they're not going to be having abortions, then we're going to have to do an emergency clean up of the adoption / foster care system.
Currently 70% to 80% of children who enter the system suffer some form of abuse.
The child molester Democrats are going to be standing by waiting to expand
their control over that too.
We're going to need wise people in politics to solve these problems, not these dopes in suits we got.

Except you missed out the part that life is considered to start when the baby is born.

Oppsie, missed that one.

What Republicans need to do is, deem all fetuses corporations, then they’ll be given rights as persons.