Abortion

[ding]

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

Out-of-the-pulpit-and-into-the-womb zealots appear hypocritical from my perspective. 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 and/or religious zealots to impose their personal impression upon others is antithetical to what most Americans agree on.

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

Yes, that is his opinion.

Your extremist view and your desire to impose it upon others via state coercion is not the moral position of most Americans. If and when a fetus 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.

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”

Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974.

https://www.amazon.com/Human-Development-Span-George-Kaluger/dp/0801626110&tag=ff0d01-20?tag=usmb-20

Yes, you can cut and paste links to material you don't understand. However, that does nothing to support your extremist views.

“Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. was first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization:

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”

https://www.amazon.com/Rites-Life-Scientific-Evidence-Before/dp/0310279909&tag=ff0d01-20?tag=usmb-20

 

[Taz]

That’s not human life, that’s a tiny embryo or fetus.

Not according to the definition of life and not according to science.

An egg isn’t a chicken.

Got a link to science?

A Scientific View of When Life Begins | Charlotte Lozier Institute

"...The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications)..."

Not a real science site, just a bunch of religious nuts.

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

https://www.amazon.com/Human-Embryo...atten/dp/0070131503&tag=ff0d01-20?tag=usmb-20

So you’re saying that that’s when the soul is in the body?

 

[Chuz Life]

What is not a hard concept is when human life begins.

Which is when according to you?

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

Out-of-the-pulpit-and-into-the-womb zealots appear hypocritical from my perspective. 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 and/or religious zealots to impose their personal impression upon others is antithetical to what most Americans agree on.

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

Yes, that is his opinion.

Your extremist view and your desire to impose it upon others via state coercion is not the moral position of most Americans. If and when a fetus 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.

Are we to ignore the significance of our nation's nearly forty fetal HOMICIDE laws and how "viability" is not a requirement for MURDER charges to be brought against anyone who kills a "child in the womb" during a criminal act?

 

[Taz]

Which is when according to you?

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

That’s not human life, that’s a tiny embryo or fetus.

Which is when according to you?

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

That’s not human life, that’s a tiny embryo or fetus.

Biology Fail and denial is not an argument.

You should consider educating yourself about "placental mammals" (which includes humans) and also start educating yourself about how and when a mammals biological aging begins.

What does that have to do with anything?

If you are actually that clueless?

I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you.

So then go away, I didn’t invite you here.

 

[ding]

I don’t think they believe in aliens, just reincarnation. The thing is that people who believe in reincarnation typically believe that there is a reason and purpose to it.

Maybe there is no reason except to travel through time with something to do.

Is that why you exist now? Why do you need something to do? Why would your existence be important?

I’m agnostic about all those questions.

Exactly, which is why your beliefs are meaningless on these subjects. You don't care enough to dig deeper.

We can’t know those things yet.

You mean like reincarnation?

 

[Chuz Life]

Not according to the definition of life and not according to science.

An egg isn’t a chicken.

Got a link to science?

A Scientific View of When Life Begins | Charlotte Lozier Institute

"...The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications)..."

Not a real science site, just a bunch of religious nuts.

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

https://www.amazon.com/Human-Embryo...atten/dp/0070131503&tag=ff0d01-20?tag=usmb-20

So you’re saying that that’s when the soul is in the body?

Can you prove that souls exist?

 

[Hollie]

Out-of-the-pulpit-and-into-the-womb zealots appear hypocritical from my perspective. 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 and/or religious zealots to impose their personal impression upon others is antithetical to what most Americans agree on.

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

Yes, that is his opinion.

Your extremist view and your desire to impose it upon others via state coercion is not the moral position of most Americans. If and when a fetus 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.

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”

Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974.

https://www.amazon.com/Human-Development-Span-George-Kaluger/dp/0801626110&tag=ff0d01-20?tag=usmb-20

Yes, you can cut and paste links to material you don't understand. However, that does nothing to support your extremist views.

“Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. was first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization:

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”

I'm always suspicious when religious nutters cut and paste material they have edited.

The extremist religious nutters mewl that a single fertilized cell is a person and advocate that the State seize control of the womb at that point. The vast majority of rational Americans recognize that personhood evolves during gestation as brain waves are first evidenced and independent viability achieved. Thus, Rowe vs Wade is a reasonable compromise.

 

[ding]

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

That’s not human life, that’s a tiny embryo or fetus.

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

That’s not human life, that’s a tiny embryo or fetus.

Biology Fail and denial is not an argument.

You should consider educating yourself about "placental mammals" (which includes humans) and also start educating yourself about how and when a mammals biological aging begins.

What does that have to do with anything?

If you are actually that clueless?

I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you.

So then go away, I didn’t invite you here.

The medical textbook, Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects, states:

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.”

Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

https://www.amazon.com/Before-Are-Born-Essentials-Embryology/dp/1437720013&tag=ff0d01-20?tag=usmb-20

 

[playtime]

pro choice is not pro abortion.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ Taz, et al,

OH, is that true?

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

(QUESTIONs)

Is DNA a lifeform?
Is a living, replicating cell from my hand a lifeform?
In my father's casket, there is DNA. Does that mean I buried him alive?

(COMMENT)

You use your definition of a "human" to suit your personal belief. But in reality, we do not know when our form becomes endowed with the lifeforce; when it becomes a "human being."

(EXPANDED THOUGHT)

When a human is born with a genetic defect (a genetic disorder caused by abnormality formed in the genome), is it a true - "genetically distinct human being" - or is it some alternative, a mutated lifeform?

​

Which one of these is genetically distinct from the others. Are all of these human? Are some of these human? Are any of these not human? Which one would be OK to kill?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

That’s not human life, that’s a tiny embryo or fetus.

That’s not human life, that’s a tiny embryo or fetus.

Biology Fail and denial is not an argument.

You should consider educating yourself about "placental mammals" (which includes humans) and also start educating yourself about how and when a mammals biological aging begins.

What does that have to do with anything?

If you are actually that clueless?

I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you.

So then go away, I didn’t invite you here.

The medical textbook, Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects, states:

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.”

Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

https://www.amazon.com/Before-Are-Born-Essentials-Embryology/dp/1437720013&tag=ff0d01-20?tag=usmb-20

It's a shame your heroes are such misfits.

http://www.quranandscience.com/human/135-dr-keith-moore-confirms-embryology-in-quran.html

 

[Taz]

Maybe there is no reason except to travel through time with something to do.

Is that why you exist now? Why do you need something to do? Why would your existence be important?

I’m agnostic about all those questions.

Exactly, which is why your beliefs are meaningless on these subjects. You don't care enough to dig deeper.

We can’t know those things yet.

You mean like reincarnation?

Yes. I think it’s a leading candidate, but not irrefutable proof yet.

 

[ding]

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

Yes, that is his opinion.

Your extremist view and your desire to impose it upon others via state coercion is not the moral position of most Americans. If and when a fetus 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.

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”

Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974.

https://www.amazon.com/Human-Development-Span-George-Kaluger/dp/0801626110&tag=ff0d01-20?tag=usmb-20

Yes, you can cut and paste links to material you don't understand. However, that does nothing to support your extremist views.

“Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. was first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization:

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”

I'm always suspicious when religious nutters cut and paste material they have edited.

The extremist religious nutters mewl that a single fertilized cell is a person and advocate that the State seize control of the womb at that point. The vast majority of rational Americans recognize that personhood evolves during gestation as brain waves are first evidenced and independent viability achieved. Thus, Rowe vs Wade is a reasonable compromise.

“The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation, and fertilization … The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.”

Eric Pastuszek. Is the Fetus Human? (Rockford, Illinois: Tan books And Publishers Inc., 1991)

9780895554864: Is the Fetus Human? - AbeBooks - Eric J. Pastuszek: 0895554860

 

[Taz]

An egg isn’t a chicken.

Got a link to science?

A Scientific View of When Life Begins | Charlotte Lozier Institute

"...The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications)..."

Not a real science site, just a bunch of religious nuts.

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

https://www.amazon.com/Human-Embryo...atten/dp/0070131503&tag=ff0d01-20?tag=usmb-20

So you’re saying that that’s when the soul is in the body?

Can you prove that souls exist?

Look up reincarnation.

 

[ding]

Is that why you exist now? Why do you need something to do? Why would your existence be important?

I’m agnostic about all those questions.

Exactly, which is why your beliefs are meaningless on these subjects. You don't care enough to dig deeper.

We can’t know those things yet.

You mean like reincarnation?

Yes. I think it’s a leading candidate, but not irrefutable proof yet.

Exactly. You have no proof.

 

[Taz]

That’s not human life, that’s a tiny embryo or fetus.

That’s not human life, that’s a tiny embryo or fetus.

Biology Fail and denial is not an argument.

You should consider educating yourself about "placental mammals" (which includes humans) and also start educating yourself about how and when a mammals biological aging begins.

What does that have to do with anything?

If you are actually that clueless?

I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you.

So then go away, I didn’t invite you here.

The medical textbook, Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects, states:

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.”

Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

https://www.amazon.com/Before-Are-Born-Essentials-Embryology/dp/1437720013&tag=ff0d01-20?tag=usmb-20

Never said they weren’t.

 

[Taz]

I’m agnostic about all those questions.

Exactly, which is why your beliefs are meaningless on these subjects. You don't care enough to dig deeper.

We can’t know those things yet.

You mean like reincarnation?

Yes. I think it’s a leading candidate, but not irrefutable proof yet.

Exactly. You have no proof.

Not no proof, just not enough.

 

[ding]

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

Out-of-the-pulpit-and-into-the-womb zealots appear hypocritical from my perspective. 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 and/or religious zealots to impose their personal impression upon others is antithetical to what most Americans agree on.

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

Yes, that is his opinion.

Your extremist view and your desire to impose it upon others via state coercion is not the moral position of most Americans. If and when a fetus 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.

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”

Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974.

https://www.amazon.com/Human-Development-Span-George-Kaluger/dp/0801626110&tag=ff0d01-20?tag=usmb-20

Yes, you can cut and paste links to material you don't understand. However, that does nothing to support your extremist views.

My "extremist" view is that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has been created. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. Science confirms this because DNA confirms this.

 

[Chuz Life]

pro choice is not pro abortion.

Yes it is.

Look it up.

It's even in Webster's

 

[ding]

Exactly, which is why your beliefs are meaningless on these subjects. You don't care enough to dig deeper.

We can’t know those things yet.

You mean like reincarnation?

Yes. I think it’s a leading candidate, but not irrefutable proof yet.

Exactly. You have no proof.

Not no proof, just not enough.

None, zero, nada, zilch.

Present your evidence.