It's a medical fact. Life begins at conception.

[BlindBoo]

At some magical point, even pro-abortionists agree the child in the womb is a human who cannot be arbitrarily murdered.

They just pick a date. Presto! You're a human now!

Nothing magical about it. Who exactly every said the fetus in a womb is not human? Late term abortion are rare as it should be.

Oh, it is most certainly magical. I just proved that at least half of all pro-choicers are against second trimester abortions. The other half choose a later date at which they decide you have life.

It's all fucking arbitrary. Magical.

Life at conception is at least unequivocal.

Arbitrary yes, magical no.

Life before conception is also unequivocal. The little swimmers are alive and so is their objective.

 

[Chuz Life]

Life obviously doesn't begin at conception, being it existed before conception.

Claims that a human being is formed at conception are purely subjective opinions, no matter who makes them.

Humanity over all of human history has used "human, born and alive" to define a human being. Claims such as the OP makes are very recent historical revisionism from the pro-life crowd.

Human life began when the sperm fertilized the egg.

So? By design, not every fertilized egg makes it to the womb or birth.

What does the fact that many children die immediately following their first days of life have to do with the way their life began?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well. I'm out of here. after 271 replies, no one has actually tried to respond to that what I posted. I'm getting nothing but deflection, or people simply refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that medical science has spoken, and a human life begins at conception.

Nonsense.

As usual you and others on the right don't like the facts presented to you because the facts conflict with conservative dogma.

 

[Mac1958]

Of course life begins at conception. That's what conception is.

For some reason, many pro-choicers just have to be dishonest about this. The most common strategy is to change the term from "human life" to "person" or "human being" or "individual" or "baby" or "child".

Just be honest, for fuck's sake. It's human life.

And I'm pro choice.
.

 

[BlindBoo]

Life obviously doesn't begin at conception, being it existed before conception.

Claims that a human being is formed at conception are purely subjective opinions, no matter who makes them.

Humanity over all of human history has used "human, born and alive" to define a human being. Claims such as the OP makes are very recent historical revisionism from the pro-life crowd.

Human life began when the sperm fertilized the egg.

So? By design, not every fertilized egg makes it to the womb or birth.

And? That's stating the obvious but has nothing to do with the instant human life begins.

It is the moment a new unique human DNA cell is formed. So what? It has a long journey to make it to birth. Everyone alive today was formed this way but not every fertilized egg makes it out alive. My niece has about 10 fertilized eggs frozen right now. They will be destroyed in about 4 more years. So what?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

At some magical point, even pro-abortionists agree the child in the womb is a human who cannot be arbitrarily murdered.

They just pick a date. Presto! You're a human now!

Nothing magical about it. Who exactly every said the fetus in a womb is not human? Late term abortion are rare as it should be.

Oh, it is most certainly magical. I just proved that at least half of all pro-choicers are against second trimester abortions. The other half choose a later date at which they decide you have life.

It's all fucking arbitrary. Magical.

Life at conception is at least unequivocal.

Arbitrary yes, magical no.

Life before conception is also unequivocal. The little swimmers are alive and so is their objective.

A human has 46 chromosomes so a sperm or egg isn't human until the egg is fertilized. You knew that.

 

[Chuz Life]

Of course life begins at conception. That's what conception is.

For some reason, many pro-choicers just have to be dishonest about this. The most common strategy is to change the term from "human life" to "person" or "human being" or "individual" or "baby" or "child".

Just be honest, for fuck's sake. It's human life.

And I'm pro choice.
.

A pregnant woman is also said to be "with child."

Correct?

 

[Mac1958]

Of course life begins at conception. That's what conception is.

For some reason, many pro-choicers just have to be dishonest about this. The most common strategy is to change the term from "human life" to "person" or "human being" or "individual" or "baby" or "child".

Just be honest, for fuck's sake. It's human life.

And I'm pro choice.
.

A pregnant woman is also said to be "with child."

Correct?

I'm fine with that, the semantics are irrelevant to me.
.

 

[Chuz Life]

Of course life begins at conception. That's what conception is.

For some reason, many pro-choicers just have to be dishonest about this. The most common strategy is to change the term from "human life" to "person" or "human being" or "individual" or "baby" or "child".

Just be honest, for fuck's sake. It's human life.

And I'm pro choice.
.

A pregnant woman is also said to be "with child."

Correct?

I'm fine with that, the semantics are irrelevant to me.
.

And our fetal HOMICIDE laws.

You are fine with those too?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Prior to birth, one is at liberty to decide for himself when "personhood" begins; the state may not compel such belief through force of law.

 

[emilynghiem]

And that’s the importance of privacy rights jurisprudence: it safeguards each individual’s right to decide for himself, consistent with his own good faith and good conscience, when life begins, free from unwarranted interference from the state, absent coercion by government.

Wow C_Clayton_Jones Thanks!
And when does this "importance of privacy rights"
and safeguards of "individual right to decide"
Apply to freedom to choose health care
without being penalized, regulated, mandated and coerced by govt?

Americans can decide to have as much or as little healthcare insurance as they want.

????
Nope NYcarbineer
there are fines and penalties attached if the insurance level or health shares group "doesn't meet federally approved requirements"

!

Dead wrong. The Supreme Court ruled the so-called penalty to be a TAX. You can be exempt from the tax if you prove you have insurance.
That is no different than, for example. the child tax credit, where you must pay X amount of taxes unless you have children, which you can use to exempt yourself from X amount per child.

OKAY NYcarbineer
so let's compare this "tax" with a similar "tax" being
applied to abortion and birthcontrol CHOICES, like it is being
applied to health care choices.

the difference being that one REQUIRES you to buy "health insurance"
and FINES ANY OTHER CHOICES EXCEPT APPROVED BY GOVT,
and the other "tax" would penalize people for choosing abortion
and buying birth control instead of rewarding people with exemptions
for choosing "abstinence from sex" and avoiding abortion.

Are you okay with comparing taxes and penalties this way?

If so, then what is the difference between
* a govt imposed tax penalty where people who BUY INSURANCE
or BUY MEMBERSHIPS in RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS
APPROVED BY FEDERAL GOVT REGULATIONS
get "exempted" while others who don't get fined or penalized/punished by paying out of their income or tax returns
* a govt imposed tax penalty where people who BUY
MEMBERSHIPS in PROLIFE PROGRAMS and comply
with or INVEST IN abstinence education instead of birth control and
(instead of CHOOSING abortion and FUNDING Planned Parenthood instead of prolife organizations and programs)
GET FINED where the PENALTY money goes into PROLIFE programs RUN BY GOVT

Wouldn't you OPPOSE penalizing people with "TAX penalties"
who prefer to fund PROCHOICE programs, because of
govt mandates and "TAX policies"
that only exempt people "PAYING FOR PROLIFE PROGRAMS"

NYcarbineer and C_Clayton_Jones wouldn't you argue AGAINST such
a TAX PENALTY/POLICY that DISCRIMINATES AGAINST PROCHOICE
PEOPLE WHO WANT EQUAL CHOICE TO FUND PROCHOICE PROGRAMS
WITHOUT GETTING FINED FOR IT?

If we equate "right to health care" and insurance as mandatory
TO PAY FOR TO BE EXEMPTED FROM TAX PENALTIES
with "right to life" and abstinence/prolife programs as mandatory
to pay for "to be EXEMPTED from Tax Penalties that go INTO PROLIFE programs NOT prohoice programs,

can you understand why taxpayers who want to pay for FREE MARKET health care by free choice
don't want to be fined for not choosing govt health care mandates they don't believe in and don't want to be forced to fund?

C_Clayton_Jones
Is this closer?

Is this ONLY difference whether the Supreme Court ruled on it or not?

So NYcarbineer and C_Clayton_Jones
are you HONESTLY telling me that IF the Supreme Court RULED
it was "constitutional" for GOVT TO FORCE YOU
to pay fines and tax penalties if you
didn't choose to buy shares in PROLIFE programs
because you wanted to pay for PROCHOICE alternatives that don't qualify for exemptions,
you would accept THIS as "constitutional"?

Just because the courts ruled on it 5-4?
Or would you contest it, and say it's unconstitutional
to force prochoice people to pay for prolife policies
and be disqualified for exemptions (while prolife people get to fund their program
and force taxpayers to pay for it)?

Wouldn't YOU argue that the 4 dissenting votes were CORRECT
and the 5 voting for it were biased and wrong in violation of Constitutional principles?
If the 5 were voting that it was "constitutional" to
pass and enforce a TAX BILL that fines prochoice people
and exempts prolife people, by forcing "everyone to
pay or buy memberships in PROLIFE programs approved by
govt' OR ELSE BE FINED WITH TAX PENALTIES.

 

[Chuz Life]

Prior to birth, one is at liberty to decide for himself when "personhood" begins; the state may not compel such belief through force of law.

Funny how not even Roe supports that bullshit line of thinking.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Life obviously doesn't begin at conception, being it existed before conception.

Claims that a human being is formed at conception are purely subjective opinions, no matter who makes them.

Humanity over all of human history has used "human, born and alive" to define a human being. Claims such as the OP makes are very recent historical revisionism from the pro-life crowd.

Human life began when the sperm fertilized the egg.

So? By design, not every fertilized egg makes it to the womb or birth.

And? That's stating the obvious but has nothing to do with the instant human life begins.

It is the moment a new unique human DNA cell is formed. So what? It has a long journey to make it to birth. Everyone alive today was formed this way but not every fertilized egg makes it out alive. My niece has about 10 fertilized eggs frozen right now. They will be destroyed in about 4 more years. So what?

Sure it does and the other 249,999,999 million sperm die during this process. I wish nothing but the best for your niece.

 

[Mac1958]

Of course life begins at conception. That's what conception is.

For some reason, many pro-choicers just have to be dishonest about this. The most common strategy is to change the term from "human life" to "person" or "human being" or "individual" or "baby" or "child".

Just be honest, for fuck's sake. It's human life.

And I'm pro choice.
.

A pregnant woman is also said to be "with child."

Correct?

I'm fine with that, the semantics are irrelevant to me.
.

And our fetal HOMICIDE laws.

You are fine with those too?

Yes. Is there a point here?
.

 

[BlindBoo]

Life obviously doesn't begin at conception, being it existed before conception.

Claims that a human being is formed at conception are purely subjective opinions, no matter who makes them.

Humanity over all of human history has used "human, born and alive" to define a human being. Claims such as the OP makes are very recent historical revisionism from the pro-life crowd.

Human life began when the sperm fertilized the egg.

So? By design, not every fertilized egg makes it to the womb or birth.

What does the fact that many children die immediately following their first days of life have to do with the way their life began?

Fertilized eggs are not children.

 

[Esmeralda]

Admin closed this thread because it contained no original content. So here it is.

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.

So, if life begins at conception, doesn't that mean that it should be protected by the 14th Amendment? The only difference between a fully grown adult and a zygote is form, not nature. They both have a unique genetic identity. They are both members of the human species.

When Human Life Begins

If abortion is such an evil thing, why does God abort so many babies every year? Approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage; some estimates are as high as 1 in 3. If you include loss that occurs before a positive pregnancy test, some estimate that 40% of all conceptions result in loss. A miscarriage is just a natural abortion. God's a pretty bad guy, killing all those babies. If life begins at conception, God kills 40% of all the babies that are conceived. That's awful!

 

[BlindBoo]

At some magical point, even pro-abortionists agree the child in the womb is a human who cannot be arbitrarily murdered.

They just pick a date. Presto! You're a human now!

Nothing magical about it. Who exactly every said the fetus in a womb is not human? Late term abortion are rare as it should be.

Oh, it is most certainly magical. I just proved that at least half of all pro-choicers are against second trimester abortions. The other half choose a later date at which they decide you have life.

It's all fucking arbitrary. Magical.

Life at conception is at least unequivocal.

Arbitrary yes, magical no.

Life before conception is also unequivocal. The little swimmers are alive and so is their objective.

A human has 46 chromosomes so a sperm or egg isn't human until the egg is fertilized. You knew that.

I disagree. They are uniquely human to the humans they came from, and they are alive.

 

[BlindBoo]

Life obviously doesn't begin at conception, being it existed before conception.

Claims that a human being is formed at conception are purely subjective opinions, no matter who makes them.

Humanity over all of human history has used "human, born and alive" to define a human being. Claims such as the OP makes are very recent historical revisionism from the pro-life crowd.

Human life began when the sperm fertilized the egg.

So? By design, not every fertilized egg makes it to the womb or birth.

And? That's stating the obvious but has nothing to do with the instant human life begins.

It is the moment a new unique human DNA cell is formed. So what? It has a long journey to make it to birth. Everyone alive today was formed this way but not every fertilized egg makes it out alive. My niece has about 10 fertilized eggs frozen right now. They will be destroyed in about 4 more years. So what?

Sure it does and the other 249,999,999 million sperm die during this process. I wish nothing but the best for your niece.

Well one of them was successful and we have a great new addition to our family. If they choose to not use the other fertilized eggs does that mean they killed 10 humans?

No of course not.

 

[DrLove]

The American College of Pediatricians is listed as a hate group. You've posted their crap before.

The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States.[1] The group was founded in 2002 by a group of pediatricians, including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), as a protest against the AAP's support for adoption by gay couples.[2][3] The group's membership as of 2016 is estimated at 500 members.[4][5]

ACPeds describes itself as "a national organization of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals dedicated to the health and well-being of children... committed to fulfilling its mission by producing sound policy, based upon the best available research, to assist parents and to influence society in the endeavor of childrearing."[6] Founder Joseph Zanga has described it as a group "with Judeo-Christian, traditional values that is open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions" provided that they "hold true to the group's core beliefs: that life begins at conception; and that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children."[7]

The organization's view on parenting differ from the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which holds that sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and to raise healthy and well-adjusted children.[5][8][9] ACPeds has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, for "propagating damaging falsehoods about LGBT people".[10][11] A number of mainstream researchers, including the director of the US National Institutes of Health, have accused the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) of misusing or mischaracterizing their work to advance ACPeds' political agenda.[2][12]​

 

[LordBrownTrout]

At some magical point, even pro-abortionists agree the child in the womb is a human who cannot be arbitrarily murdered.

They just pick a date. Presto! You're a human now!

Nothing magical about it. Who exactly every said the fetus in a womb is not human? Late term abortion are rare as it should be.

Oh, it is most certainly magical. I just proved that at least half of all pro-choicers are against second trimester abortions. The other half choose a later date at which they decide you have life.

It's all fucking arbitrary. Magical.

Life at conception is at least unequivocal.

Arbitrary yes, magical no.

Life before conception is also unequivocal. The little swimmers are alive and so is their objective.

A human has 46 chromosomes so a sperm or egg isn't human until the egg is fertilized. You knew that.

I disagree. They are uniquely human to the humans they came from, and they are alive.

You cant disagree that they are not human. They carry the dna. Seriously, how can you come to that conclusion?