Zone1 Let it be said that legalized abortion on demand cheapens/ devalues life.

[JoeB131]

I never said it was. I said a fertilized zygote is. Read carefully. At the moment of syngamy, it forms a unique genome of its own. Syngamy occurs typically about 24 hours after conception. When the first mitotic split occurs shortly thereafter, it becomes an embryo proper.

I don't think you understand what a "fertilized zygote" is. A zygote, by definition, is fertilized. (Before that, it's an ovum waiting for a sperm to fertilize it.) And it will probably divide MANY times before it attaches to the Uterine wall.. except 2/3 of them never do.

However, syngamy establishes the genetic uniqueness of the zygote/embryo. Science and personal beliefs are not compatible. Correct and factually confirmed science is immutable, your political stances on abortion notwithstanding.

Um, you are using big words you don't understand.

A zygote is unique when it is conceived, because it is that unique combination of the female's 23 chromosomes and the male's 23 chromosomes. But that uniqueness doesn't mean anything because a high percentage of them never attach, miscarry, become ectopic, or get aborted electively. With the advent of mifepristone and misoprostol, it's not even an issue of anyone even knowing for sure. Is the period late? Pop a pill. Woke up next to a guy whose name you don't remember? Pop a pill.

Mice do not have the most complex brains of any animal on earth, or in the known universe, either. This is a red herring that you introduced on your own, sir. Let's kindly stick to the point, as you so reminded me to do.

No, mice and other animals have no compunction about killing their young... I could give you many examples from nature (such as when a new male big cat takes over a pride, he kills all the cubs belonging to the previous alpha male. Survival is as much about destroying as creating.

If we were to apply this logic to the human species, it would cease to exist. We would destroy each other in one enormous, immutable instant of violence. What separates us from the rest of animalia is our ability to recognize and place immeasurable value on the life we create.

Um yeah, we don't do a very good job of that. So we'll either end up nuking ourselves out of existence or just destroying the whole biosphere out of corporate greed. Say what you want about animals, they don't take more than what they need.

If I were to employ this logic, I would be compelled to walk up to the nearest person I see and strike them down in cold blood, because "individual human lives aren't that valuable, except to the person living it." That line of reasoning wouldn't go over well in my murder trial, mister.

Um, okay, that's kind of dumb. Every time there's a mass shooting, you are one of the first to get on here screaming about not wanting gun control. Hey, they might be mowing down preschoolers, but at least they weren't aborted!!!

Your logic is almost sociopathic, bordering on psychopathy. Respectfully, I find it uniquely disturbing that you can freely argue this kind of premise on an open forum without one modicum of conviction, all because of this all-consuming, all-encompassing need to have an unfettered right to abortion on demand without apology.

Who owes you an apology? It's her body, it's her choice.

(I also find it amusing that the guy who can't hold down steady employment due to self-described mental problems wants to cast aspersions on my mental state. )

My logic is that no woman is going to ruin her life and health over a baby she doesn't want that a man she didn't care that much for put there.

When the right to "choose" becomes so paramount to you that you sacrifice any or all ethical reasoning to attain it, is it truly worth attaining?

Actually, it's called "Pragmatism". If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she'll find a way to not be pregnant, and all the moralizing you do won't change that.

I'm all for changing the culture to have less unwanted pregnancies end in abortion, but at the end of the day, her body, her choice.

 

[Chuz Life]

Except that two-thirds of fertilized zygotes never attach to the uterine wall. We don't hold funerals over tampons.

Some Zygotes attach themselves to the wall of the Fallopian Tube, and they have to be removed like a dangerous tumor.

No, a zygote isn't the same as a person, and it would be laughable to treat them as such.

 

[JoeB131]

View attachment 1145917

The absurd person was Twinkie trying to claim Zygotes were the same as people.

Now, I am perfectly fine with restrictions on abortion after viability. (Roe was probably fine, but Doe v. Bolton was too far reaching)

 

[JohnDB]

See, I like the Catholic position...

Life begins at conception.
No death penalty or Euthanasia.

Simple, clear, and a brick wall.

God gives life and/or takes it away. God is responsible for our days on Earth. Intervening is unadvisable at the least.

Others try to get fancy, and legislating that would be a nightmare and fraught with unintended loopholes.

 

[Chuz Life]

The absurd person was Twinkie trying to claim Zygotes were the same as people.

Now, I am perfectly fine with restrictions on abortion after viability. (Roe was probably fine, but Doe v. Bolton was too far reaching)

You have offered nothing but ridicule over the idea that a person is a person, even when that person is only in the first moments of their life. (conception)

You've been asked many times, "Were YOU conceived?"

If you were not YOU (a human being/ person) when YOU were conceived. . . what then is it that makes your biological parents (especially your biological father) YOUR biological parent?

When did YOUR biological AGING begin?

Are you going to resort to ridicule again? Joey?

We see right through it, you know.

 

[JoeB131]

See, I like the Catholic position...

Life begins at conception.
No death penalty or Euthanasia.

Simple, clear, and a brick wall.

God gives life and/or takes it away. God is responsible for our days on Earth. Intervening is unadvisable at the least.

Others try to get fancy, and legislating that would be a nightmare and fraught with unintended loopholes.

A little bit of a problem with that.

For most of its history, the Catholic Church was fine with the death penalty and even carried it out against Heretics and other sinners.

In fact, the Church didn't come out against Capital Punishment until 1969 under Pope Paul VI.

Catholic Church and capital punishment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Church also hasn't been consistent on abortion.

Changing beliefs about the moment the embryo gains a human soul have led to changes in canon law in the classification of the sin of abortion.
In particular, scholars such as John M. Riddle, Joan Cadden, and Cyril C. Means, Jr. have written that prior to the 19th century most Catholic authors did not regard abortion before "quickening" or "ensoulment" as sinful, and in fact "abortion" was commonly understood to mean post-quickening termination of pregnancy.Historian John Noonan writes that some Catholic clerics saw nothing wrong with compiling lists of known abortifacient herbs and discovering new ones.<
In the 13th century, physician and cleric Peter of Spain, who according to some sources became Pope John XXI in 1276, wrote a book called Thesaurus Pauperum (Treasure of the Poor) containing a long list of early-stage abortifacients, including rue, pennyroyal, and other mints.

Similarly, the medicinal writings of Hildegard of Bingen included abortifacients such as tansy.<

Some theologians, such as John Chrysostom and Thomas Sanchez, believed that post-quickening abortion was less sinful than deliberate contraception, and Chrysostom believed that contraception was worse than murder.<


Now growing up Catholic, I knew some girls who had the same kind of thinking, that taking the pill every day was committing a sin every day, but having an abortion was only one sin.

 

[JoeB131]

You have offered nothing but ridicule over the idea that a person is a person, even when that person is only in the first moments of their life. (conception)

You've been asked many times, "Were YOU conceived?"

If you were not YOU (a human being/ person) when YOU were conceived. . . what then is it that makes your biological parents (especially your biological father) YOUR biological parent?

When did YOUR biological AGING begin?

Are you going to resort to ridicule again? Joey?

We see right through it, you know.

Yeah, because your concept is absurd. I was conceived. So, there were probably a dozen or so zygotes that my parents managed to create, and at least one miscarriage between my two older sisters.

Yet only the five of us who were born got names. My mother wore a "Motherhood Ring with five gems in it, one with the birthstones of her five kids. (Two in September, Two in May, one in June.)

Getting conceived isn't an accomplishment. About two-thirds or more of zygotes that are conceived never attach to the Uterine wall, but we don't hold funerals over tampons.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yeah, because your concept is absurd. I was conceived. So, there were probably a dozen or so zygotes that my parents managed to create, and at least one miscarriage between my two older sisters.

Yet only the five of us who were born got names. My mother wore a "Motherhood Ring with five gems in it, one with the birthstones of her five kids. (Two in September, Two in May, one in June.)

Getting conceived isn't an accomplishment. About two-thirds or more of zygotes that are conceived never attach to the Uterine wall, but we don't hold funerals over tampons.

And we all know that because so many newly conceived human beings (children) die so early in life... that means they aren't children at all!

At least not until their statistical numbers for survival goes way up.

Right Joey?

Remind us again about why statistics trumps the biological facts, on this.

 

[JohnDB]

A little bit of a problem with that.

For most of its history, the Catholic Church was fine with the death penalty and even carried it out against Heretics and other sinners.

In fact, the Church didn't come out against Capital Punishment until 1969 under Pope Paul VI.

Catholic Church and capital punishment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Church also hasn't been consistent on abortion.

Changing beliefs about the moment the embryo gains a human soul have led to changes in canon law in the classification of the sin of abortion.
In particular, scholars such as John M. Riddle, Joan Cadden, and Cyril C. Means, Jr. have written that prior to the 19th century most Catholic authors did not regard abortion before "quickening" or "ensoulment" as sinful, and in fact "abortion" was commonly understood to mean post-quickening termination of pregnancy.Historian John Noonan writes that some Catholic clerics saw nothing wrong with compiling lists of known abortifacient herbs and discovering new ones.<
In the 13th century, physician and cleric Peter of Spain, who according to some sources became Pope John XXI in 1276, wrote a book called Thesaurus Pauperum (Treasure of the Poor) containing a long list of early-stage abortifacients, including rue, pennyroyal, and other mints.



Some theologians, such as John Chrysostom and Thomas Sanchez, believed that post-quickening abortion was less sinful than deliberate contraception, and Chrysostom believed that contraception was worse than murder.<


Now growing up Catholic, I knew some girls who had the same kind of thinking, that taking the pill every day was committing a sin every day, but having an abortion was only one sin.

It does eliminate the issue of snowflake babies. Frozen embryos waiting implantation. It doesn't help when some wackanoodle on a rampage destroys your embryos....and there's no chance of making more.

But I still like the Catholics current position of ALWAYS erring on the side of life.

Much more understandable than most people's position.

 

[JoeB131]

And we all know that because so many newly conceived human beings (children) die so early in life... that means they aren't children at all!

At least not until their statistical numbers for survival goes way up.

Right Joey?

Remind us again about why statistics trumps the biological facts, on this.

Or you take the simple position the law takes.

If you are born, you are a person.

If you are flushed out on the menstrual cycle, miscarried, aborted, or otherwise don't get the finish line, you aren't.

It does eliminate the issue of snowflake babies. Frozen embryos waiting implantation. It doesn't help when some wackanoodle on a rampage destroys your embryos....and there's no chance of making more.

But I still like the Catholics current position of ALWAYS erring on the side of life.

Much more understandable than most people's position.

I think that was a Law and Order Episode.

Here's the problem with the frozen embryo position. If you take the stance that Twinkie and Chuzzie want to take that you are a person from the minute of conception, then keeping an embryo frozen for years seems cruel. What happens to their "souls"? Are there souls frozen in limbo forever, or at least until the power goes out?

Yes, the Catholic believe that zygotes are people. And that lame stale bread becomes Jesus when the priest says a few magic words. And that all your sins are forgiven if you say a few Hail Marys.

Couldn't get away from those lunatics fast enough.

 

[JohnDB]

Or you take the simple position the law takes.

If you are born, you are a person.

If you are flushed out on the menstrual cycle, miscarried, aborted, or otherwise don't get the finish line, you aren't.




I think that was a Law and Order Episode.

Here's the problem with the frozen embryo position. If you take the stance that Twinkie and Chuzzie want to take that you are a person from the minute of conception, then keeping an embryo frozen for years seems cruel. What happens to their "souls"? Are there souls frozen in limbo forever, or at least until the power goes out?

Yes, the Catholic believe that zygotes are people. And that lame stale bread becomes Jesus when the priest says a few magic words. And that all your sins are forgiven if you say a few Hail Marys.

Couldn't get away from those lunatics fast enough.

The Law and Order episode either came from a real case or it inspired someone to do it. Either way it happened a few years ago. I don't watch Law and Order....never watched it.

And I Do NOT have all the answers....
Because you cannot legislate hearts and minds.

If I consider a pregnant woman to be two people and the pregnant woman (and husband/boyfriend) are anxiously awaiting the arrival of their baby....to kill that baby by either negligence or with malice aforethought is tantamount to infanticide. AKA murder.
Can you legislate that? At how many weeks?

Does it change the circumstances when a frozen embryo is forgotten or abandoned? Absolutely no clue there.

When does the father of an unborn baby ever get rights to speak for his child? Especially if the mother wants to terminate the pregnancy but the father is desperate to have a child? (Happens too often) At what point does the father gain parental rights of advocacy?

What about when the mother wants to abort because the doctors discover the child will have a cleft palate (hairlip) and the father says it is easily fixed later. (It is)
Who wins in such cases. Is it right?

Father's want children just as much if not more than women do these days. And considering the shortage of babies it's not unbelievable either. They are more of a rare commodity than they once were.

 

[JohnDB]

If not for children where else would we get these cute videos?

 

[JoeB131]

The Law and Order episode either came from a real case or it inspired someone to do it. Either way it happened a few years ago. I don't watch Law and Order....never watched it.

Too bad. It was a great show back in the day. (Not so much the reboot).

And I Do NOT have all the answers....
Because you cannot legislate hearts and minds.

If I consider a pregnant woman to be two people and the pregnant woman (and husband/boyfriend) are anxiously awaiting the arrival of their baby....to kill that baby by either negligence or with malice aforethought is tantamount to infanticide. AKA murder.
Can you legislate that? At how many weeks?

You can't. The religious fanatics actually tried that shit in the cases of Purvi Patel and Bei-Bei Shaui, two immigrant women who lost their babies (one due to miscarriage, the other due to a suicide attempt). The courts threw them out.

Does it change the circumstances when a frozen embryo is forgotten or abandoned? Absolutely no clue there.

When does the father of an unborn baby ever get rights to speak for his child? Especially if the mother wants to terminate the pregnancy but the father is desperate to have a child? (Happens too often) At what point does the father gain parental rights of advocacy?

That's an easy one. Her body, her choice.

The reason why Roe tossed out the Abortion laws in 1973 was not because there were a bunch of women who wanted abortions. It was because a lot of women were getting abortions despite the law and becoming "criminals" for merely seeking health care. Providers were performing the abortion and writing down something else on the chart.

What about when the mother wants to abort because the doctors discover the child will have a cleft palate (hairlip) and the father says it is easily fixed later. (It is)
Who wins in such cases. Is it right?

Her Body, Her Choice.

Father's want children just as much if not more than women do these days. And considering the shortage of babies it's not unbelievable either. They are more of a rare commodity than they once were.

And when men can carry pregnancies to term, they can have a say.

I'll throw another thing out there. Surrogacy cases... largely unenforceable because- wait for it - the woman can change her mind if she decides she wants to abort the baby or keep the baby.

 

[JohnDB]

Too bad. It was a great show back in the day. (Not so much the reboot).



You can't. The religious fanatics actually tried that shit in the cases of Purvi Patel and Bei-Bei Shaui, two immigrant women who lost their babies (one due to miscarriage, the other due to a suicide attempt). The courts threw them out.



That's an easy one. Her body, her choice.

The reason why Roe tossed out the Abortion laws in 1973 was not because there were a bunch of women who wanted abortions. It was because a lot of women were getting abortions despite the law and becoming "criminals" for merely seeking health care. Providers were performing the abortion and writing down something else on the chart.



Her Body, Her Choice.



And when men can carry pregnancies to term, they can have a say.

I'll throw another thing out there. Surrogacy cases... largely unenforceable because- wait for it - the woman can change her mind if she decides she wants to abort the baby or keep the baby.

That's deception and a violation of the "good faith" laws also in the headlines of late concerning health care premiums and insurance companies.
Premiums were paid in good faith but the insurance company refuses to pay for routine Healthcare.

So you think Fathers NEVER should have rights? Uhhhh....that's sexist.
It is...it's blatant sexism. Ugly and disgusting attitude. Especially when women have shown an aptitude for manipulation and deception far exceeding men's usual levels.
Women are far from being the innocent little lambs they claim to be. Blake Lively is headlines for her abuse of the people around her and roping Ryan into the game as well.

Of course she is lying....it's obvious to all...except lawyers and the judge. Her and Ryan's careers are dead after this. Nobody will hire them to do anything. Nobody will invest in any movie they appear in.

In today's young people demographics....
Women complete their post-secondary educations and men do not. Women have student loan debt and higher taxes but men bring home almost equal pay without the costs associated. However....daycare is still expensive for young couples.

Men are parents too....regardless of your opinions. Often the better parent than women are. Women are more often more concerned with their careers than children whom are parented more by fathers than mothers.

Welcome to the new normal.

 

[Chuz Life]

See, I like the Catholic position...

Life begins at conception.
No death penalty or Euthanasia.

Simple, clear, and a brick wall.

God gives life and/or takes it away. God is responsible for our days on Earth. Intervening is unadvisable at the least.

Others try to get fancy, and legislating that would be a nightmare and fraught with unintended loopholes.

I appreciate the fact that you (or anyone else) can arrive at some of the same conclusions via your religious beliefs that I (and a lot of others) reached without it or even, despite it.

That said, I wish people wouldn't bring religion into these debates and discussions. The 1st Amendment forbids the Government from "establishing" any one religion over another, anyway.

So, could you at least learn to support your religious beliefs with secular lines of reasoning and biological facts?


@Moderators, could we please have a "Rabbit hole" and maybe a "thread derail" emoji?

 

[Chuz Life]

It does eliminate the issue of snowflake babies. Frozen embryos waiting implantation. It doesn't help when some wackanoodle on a rampage destroys your embryos....and there's no chance of making more.

But I still like the Catholics current position of ALWAYS erring on the side of life.

The more facts and understanding of those facts society has, the less reliance anyone needs on "faith" and vague tendencies to "err on the side of life."

Life can be observed, detected, witnessed, verified, and even scientifically manipulated (IVF)

There is no need to "err on the side" of life.

 

[ding]

Her Body, Her Choice.

Seems you want to skip over the competing rights debate and go straight to life in the womb is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

 

[JohnDB]

I appreciate the fact that you (or anyone else) can arrive at some of the same conclusions via your religious beliefs that I (and a lot of others) reached without it or even, despite it.

That said, I wish people wouldn't bring religion into these debates and discussions. The 1st Amendment forbids the Government from "establishing" any one religion over another, anyway.

So, could you at least learn to support your religious beliefs with secular lines of reasoning and biological facts?

Actually I did in another post.
I used completely secular and logical reasoning for the position I hold. I'm not Catholic but that doesn't mean that I cannot appreciate the simplicity of their approach to the issue.

But to reiterate....
Our American culture is dying and evaporating slowly due to a declining birth rate and reluctance to have what is currently considered to be a large family. South Korea is looking directly at a complete societal collapse in a few years. Their age demographics is an inverted pyramid.

Ours should look like a pyramid too with children being the largest group of age demographics. But currently ours looks almost square with a narrowing of the bottom due to a 1.7 live births per woman. (2.1 is "Considered" stasis...it isnt, but that what they claim)
We need a growing culture like we had following WW2. Immigration is for the talent draining of other nations. (Zero skills and you were not granted access to USA)

Currently someone just reported an 11% NEET of USA young 20-somethings. Meaning no job, no education enrollment, and no training program enrollment. Basically sponging off of parents or government handouts.

As abortion is allowed on demand without regard for trimester, we have already seen people discussing Euthanasia as a viable option....whether voluntary or involuntary (as the Dutch currently have involuntary) gSenior citizen patients are scared to see their doctors who might proscribed involuntary Euthanasia.

And when a young couple try to do everything right but someone, by either negligence or malice, terminates the pregnancy....both parents are devastated by the loss of the unborn child.
And the "her body her choice" philosophy completely negates paternal rights. A father is not allowed any advocacy for his unborn progeny. (Science has not advanced to the point that a male plus female are not required to make a baby).

Meaning both parties must consent in some fashion. (Sexual Intercourse or sperm donor)

And verbal consent is contractual whether it is wished to be or not. If you engage in sexual intercourse, despite the use of birth control, you are consenting to the possibility of successful procreation.

And that potential is always present....
Whether you wish it to be or not.

So between paternal rights and unborn humanity rights...the other basic human rights are also up for grabs.

Back during 2020 our Federal Government seemed to completely ignore basic human rights by forcing people to get vaccinated by an experimental vaccine shortly after it had held a campaign against FGM practiced in other countries.
Very very hypocritical IMHO.

I expect consistency....not just oppositional politics on certain subjects.

 

[Chuz Life]

Seems you want to skip over the competing rights debate and go straight to life in the womb is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

Ask him why a woman's right to her body shouldn't begin when her body did.

 

[JoeB131]

So you think Fathers NEVER should have rights? Uhhhh....that's sexist.

They should have plenty of rights, AFTER the child is born.

Your derailing into Blake Lively aside (I barely know or care who that is), the reality is, it's her body, and her choice.

In today's young people demographics....
Women complete their post-secondary educations and men do not. Women have student loan debt and higher taxes but men bring home almost equal pay without the costs associated. However....daycare is still expensive for young couples.

Actually, the wage gap has tightened, but men still earn more. Partially because they aren't derailed in their careers by pregnancy.

Men are parents too....regardless of your opinions. Often the better parent than women are. Women are more often more concerned with their careers than children whom are parented more by fathers than mothers.

I detect a tad of bitterness there. But again, when men can bring children to term, then they can have a say about any fetuses growing inside of them... just not inside anyone else.