Do You Support A Woman's Right To Choose?

[wamose]

At what point does a cell become a baby?

It's different to different people but for me, it's when the fetus has a heartbeat. I think that's the point where abortion is taking a life.

 

[danielpalos]

It is not really cheating if there is no penetration, right? Women can be Good and Moral and help prevent any need for the abortion of a potential human being.

And, women can "blame the right-wing" due to their insistence on a work ethic from the Age of Iron.

 

[ding]

I already acknowledged the genetics


One cell does not a human being make. It is a POTENTIAL human being that may or may not develop.

Not according to every single embryology text book ever written.

There's a reason you can't back up YOUR OPINION with any facts. None exist.

“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.

An embryology textbook describes how birth is just an event in the development of a baby, not the beginning of his/her life.

“It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.”

F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi

“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

******

“Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.”

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1

 

[Blues Man]

Not according to every single embryology text book ever written.

There's a reason you can't back up YOUR OPINION with any facts. None exist.


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

An embryology textbook describes how birth is just an event in the development of a baby, not the beginning of his/her life.


F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi


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

******


The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1

Show me a one celled human living and thriving outside the womb.

I really don't care about an embryo until it is actually viable outside the womb

 

[ding]

Show me a one celled human living and thriving outside the womb.

I really don't care about an embryo until it is actually viable outside the womb

You are arguing viability. Not humanness. The human life cycle begins at conception and ends at death. Every point along that continuum he or she is fully human and has the appropriate characteristics, traits and attributes for that stage of the human life cycle.

Life begins at conception. This isn't based upon an opinion. This is based upon scientific facts. I have posted at least six expert opinions on this so far. There are many more.

 

[JoeB131]

I think there needs to be a point where the child is protected by law. It's just stupid to say that one week before birth that the fetus isn't a child but one second after it is.

Except no one is having abortions a week before birth.

Very few women have them in the third trimester, and if they do, it's because something has gone horribly wrong in the pregnancy.

Interesting you have to go to the Philippines to argue for abortion in the U.S.

The Philippines are one of the few countries that actually imposes the kind of crazy laws you people want. Most Filipinos I know are wonderful people, but they are very religious and fanatically Catholic. I mean, seriously, they nail themselves to crosses to celebrate Easter.

The point is, if a country with a very religious population and a limited grasp on human rights and freedom can't make an abortion ban work, what chance do we have?

There is a big difference between a principle- it would be nice if there were no more abortions - and implementing it as policy - making abortion illegal.

You'd have to have one of two things. A country like the Philippines, where the laws are on the books and regularly ignored, or you'd have to have a police state where we have no privacy in our own homes or our doctors' offices.

Neither sounds like a good alternative to me.

 

[Blues Man]

You are arguing viability. Not humanness. The human life cycle begins at conception and ends at death. Every point along that continuum he or she is fully human and has the appropriate characteristics, traits and attributes for that stage of the human life cycle.

Life begins at conception. This isn't based upon an opinion. This is based upon scientific facts. I have posted at least six expert opinions on this so far. There are many more.

I never said a fertilized egg wasn't alive.

I said it wasn't a person yet just a potential person.

I'm a bit more concerned about the people living in the world right now than I am about an embryo.

 

[Meriweather]

There is a big difference between a principle- it would be nice if there were no more abortions - and implementing it as policy - making abortion illegal.

I have never said anything about making abortion illegal. Nor should death be the solution to people abandoning their children. My stance has always been tied to the Milgram experiment. The Milgram experiment shows that when people in authority announce that something clearly wrong is right, sixty-five percent of the population will follow what those in authority say. (The lemming in us, I suppose.)

My position is that government should be firm in its stance that it in no way supports taking an innocent life, because it is any government's responsibility to protect life. While it abhors abortion and believes the taking of an innocent life to be wrong, government will not waste time prosecuting. Abortion is not a right. However, if that is the type of person/citizen you wish to be...shrug, but government stands as a protector.

In short, every single one of us should keep in mind that people in authority can convince 65% (the greater majority of us) to do something wrong. Bet we can come up with quite a list of things the government has convinced us is not wrong. Slavery and abortion head the list.

 

[ding]

I never said a fertilized egg wasn't alive.

I said it wasn't a person yet just a potential person.

I'm a bit more concerned about the people living in the world right now than I am about an embryo.

DNA says otherwise. You do know what DNA is, right? They use it in courts all of the time to identify persons.

 

[Blues Man]

DNA says otherwise. You do know what DNA is, right? They use it in courts all of the time to identify persons.

A few cells does not a person make.

I already acknowledged that a fertilized egg is a genetically unique set of human cells.

But still not a person just a potential person.

 

[ding]

A few cells does not a person make.

I already acknowledged that a fertilized egg is a genetically unique set of human cells.

But still not a person just a potential person.

No. A fertilized eggs is a genetically distinct human being not a genetically unique set of human cells. So says Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner.

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...."

DNA says it is a person. A very specific person. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

Do you have citations from the scientific community that supports your position? Because you are making stuff up. You are spouting unsubstantiated opinions. Clearly you are rationalizing your beliefs to justify ending a human life. Abortion does not end human cells. Abortion ends a human life. Those genetically unique set of human cells - that you so callously refer to - are alive. They are a living human being in the early stage of their human life cycle. This is basic science.

 

[Cecilie1200]

All we can concern ourselves with is present day English terminology. What the Bible meant has absolutely on bearing on whether or not women will be able to get an abortion. I really don't care what definition flows from preexisting moral standards. We deal with the law as it is, not established moral standards. I guarantee you that no one either side of the abortion presentations in Congress or any state legislature will be mentioning the nuanced King James Bible.

Incorrect, and ridiculous. We are talking about a book written in languages other than English, and translating them into English. Only a xenophobic imbecile thinks, "We should only care about English" is applicable to that situation.

Furthermore, the topic happens to BE what the Bible says about abortion. And your belief that you don't have to care about the moral standards that inform the lives and decisions of your fellow citizens because the currently-existing law agrees with YOUR standards is narcissistic and short-sighted. I suggest you start learning to care about what the people around you think and believe and want, or at least gain the social skills and maturity to recognize that you SHOULD care, and your lack of concern is a serious deficit in you as a person.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Incorrect, and ridiculous. We are talking about a book written in languages other than English, and translating them into English. Only a xenophobic imbecile thinks, "We should only care about English" is applicable to that situation.

Furthermore, the topic happens to BE what the Bible says about abortion. And your belief that you don't have to care about the moral standards that inform the lives and decisions of your fellow citizens because the currently-existing law agrees with YOUR standards is narcissistic and short-sighted. I suggest you start learning to care about what the people around you think and believe and want, or at least gain the social skills and maturity to recognize that you SHOULD care, and your lack of concern is a serious deficit in you as a person.

The topic is Do you Support a Woman's Right to Choose? Nothing about what the Bible says about abortion, You sound really bollixed up.

Why should I care? Do you have an answer?

 

[danielpalos]

I support women nurses' right to choose to have their turn with me (for vaccination purposes).

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I support women nurses' right to choose to have their turn with me (for vaccination purposes).

No living woman would choose to have a turn with you.

 

[danielpalos]

No living woman would choose to have a turn with you.

Not even if she just wanted to meet her quota and I happened to be convenient?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Not even if she just wanted to meet her quota and I happened to be convenient?

Only if she were a corpse. Sex robots were made for you. Check out Robot Companion and save your pennies.

 

[danielpalos]

Only if she were a corpse. Sex robots were made for you. Check out Robot Companion and save your pennies.

You would have a better attitude if you were Happier.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You would have a better attitude if you were Happier.

But what would make me happy would make you very unhappy.

 

[Blues Man]

No. A fertilized eggs is a genetically distinct human being not a genetically unique set of human cells. So says Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner.



DNA says it is a person. A very specific person. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

Do you have citations from the scientific community that supports your position? Because you are making stuff up. You are spouting unsubstantiated opinions. Clearly you are rationalizing your beliefs to justify ending a human life. Abortion does not end human cells. Abortion ends a human life. Those genetically unique set of human cells - that you so callously refer to - are alive. They are a living human being in the early stage of their human life cycle. This is basic science.

Like i said I don't really worry about embryos that can't survive outside the womb.

Such a small percentage of pregnancies ever end in abortion that it doesn't even register on the population scale.