Science says life begins at conception.

[Chuz Life]

Doesn't it make sense that a new organisms life begins when its aging begins?


Old before your time: Study suggests that aging begins in the womb

Summary:
The process of aging begins even before we are born, according to an international team of researchers. In a study using rats to model pregnancy and fetal development, the researchers also found that providing mothers with antioxidants during pregnancy meant that their offspring aged more slowly in adulthood.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Chuz Life:
Can you prove when a person's soul, consciousness, or will is created?
When does THAT enter the body that is forming physically.

Can you prove if a person's soul or will consents or doesn't agree to be born?
What remains "faith based" is when does the soul or will of
the unborn baby or person ENTER into the physical.

If that part of the person is still detached from the body forming,
it is still possible to terminate the physical body or pregnancy
and not kill or harm the conscious will, soul, spirit or personality
if that part remains separate from the body.

Now if that part of the person is already JOINED to the physical body,
yes, this causes harm to forcibly and unnaturally terminate and kill that body and the life in it.

But at what point does this entrance or connection occur?

You can point to the physical life energy starting at conception.
But how can we prove when the person's will and consciousness
that makes them a sentient being ENTERS and CONNECTS with that body?

This is still faith based.
And that's why people don't agree on govt setting the policy for defining this.
And it's also why the laws are argued as discriminating against women
because after pregnancy occurs, this is going to affect women more
than men. Although men are equally responsible for the decision to
have sex and cause pregnancy, if not MORE responsible in cases of
rape, coercion, abuse or other nonconsensual sex and pregnancy.

Instead of arguing on faith based points Chuz Life
why not focus on where women and men might agree:
why not focus on banning sex where one or both partners
don't consent to either pregnancy or abortion?

Ban the sex, make it a form of sexual abuse,
relationship abuse, or some degree of statutory rape.

So that way you stop it at the onset of when the
wrong decision was made in the first place, whether
by abuse or coercion etc. where BOTH the MEN and the women
are equally responsible for reporting "relationship abuse"
or "sexual abuse" and not enabling it. To the point of unwanted pregnancy or abortion.

Why not hold BOTH partners responsible,
where if complaints of abuse are reported,
BOTH partners are subject to counseling to
identify and resolve any conflicts or complaints.
So if there is criminal level violence, abuse, rape or
other misconduct going on, this can be identified and stopped.

Since this approach would also catch domestic/sexual abuse
upon first complaint or signs of problems, the women's
groups should support this instead of approaches that
target or punish women more than men, especially in
cases of coercion or abuse blamed on the men. Why not target that?

 

[Chuz Life]

What's a soul?

Can you provide any evidence to prove one exists?

 

[emilynghiem]

What's a soul?

Can you provide any evidence to prove one exists?

^ AGREE Chuz Life EXACTLY - so that's another way of saying
this is faith based and can't be decided or regulated by govt ^

 

[Chuz Life]

What's a soul?

Can you provide any evidence to prove one exists?

^ AGREE Chuz Life EXACTLY - so that's another way of saying
this is faith based and can't be decided or regulated by govt ^

No.

It's another way of saying we don't need talk of faith or "souls" to know when a human (or any other ) organisms life begins.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

No. It doesn't make sense. If both egg and sperm were alive before they joined, then clearly life began before then

No. Neither the egg or sperm contain the genetic material to GROW INTO A HUMAN BEING.

INDIVIDUALLY, they are not human and can never become human.

ONLY the fertilized egg, at CONCEPTION is a living human being. That's why it's CONCEPTION.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Both the egg and the sperm were alive. End of story.

Sorry, NO.
The topic is about ...

HUMAN LIFE.

The egg, and sperm can NEVER develop into a Human without the other.

The fertilized egg IS the very BEGINNING of the HUMAN life, which is the topic.

 

[buttercup]

Once again I'm amazed that anyone is still bringing up the asinine "but the sperm and egg are human too" line, not understanding the difference between a part of of human being and an actual human being.

Chuz, I think you're much more patient than I am, ha ha


Again I'll post an excerpt from an article:

A. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.


..................

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions — and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, 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.

Libertarians for Life - Abortion and the Question of the Person​

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Once again I'm amazed that anyone is still bringing up the asinine "but the sperm and egg are human too" line, not understanding the difference between a part of of human being and an actual human being.

Chuz, I think you're much more patient than I am, ha ha


Again I'll post an excerpt from an article:

A. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.


..................

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions — and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, 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.

Libertarians for Life - Abortion and the Question of the Person​

Science is tough for these flat earthers.

 

[koshergrl]

What's a soul?

Can you provide any evidence to prove one exists?

^ AGREE Chuz Life EXACTLY - so that's another way of saying
this is faith based and can't be decided or regulated by govt ^

He's not talking about *person* which is a fake term used to divert attention away from the fact that...

a human becomes an individual human at the moment of conception.

 

[koshergrl]

Once again I'm amazed that anyone is still bringing up the asinine "but the sperm and egg are human too" line, not understanding the difference between a part of of human being and an actual human being.

Chuz, I think you're much more patient than I am, ha ha


Again I'll post an excerpt from an article:

A. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.


..................

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions — and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, 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.

Libertarians for Life - Abortion and the Question of the Person​

Science is tough for these flat earthers.

Human *being* is not a scientific term.

And btw, a zygote is not *part* of a human. That is also, scientifically speaking, not true.

 

[buttercup]

Once again I'm amazed that anyone is still bringing up the asinine "but the sperm and egg are human too" line, not understanding the difference between a part of of human being and an actual human being.

Chuz, I think you're much more patient than I am, ha ha


Again I'll post an excerpt from an article:

A. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.


..................

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions — and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, 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.

Libertarians for Life - Abortion and the Question of the Person​

Science is tough for these flat earthers.

Human *being* is not a scientific term.

And btw, a zygote is not *part* of a human. That is also, scientifically speaking, not true.

Who were you directing that to? That's exactly what the article said, that a zygote is not part of a human, but an actual human (for those who claim that a sperm or egg is akin to a zygote.)

The only one objecting to that on this thread was WHITEHOT, but I don't see his posts anymore, so maybe he deleted them.

 

[deanrd]

Doesn't it make sense that a new organisms life begins when its aging begins?


Old before your time: Study suggests that aging begins in the womb

Summary:
The process of aging begins even before we are born, according to an international team of researchers. In a study using rats to model pregnancy and fetal development, the researchers also found that providing mothers with antioxidants during pregnancy meant that their offspring aged more slowly in adulthood.

So eggs and sperm are dead?

One question.
The area known as Appalachia covers 13 Republican states. The infant mortality rate in that area is 16% higher than the national abortion rate.

My question is:

Why do Republicans care about a fetus but do nothing to help babies once they are born?

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Once again I'm amazed that anyone is still bringing up the asinine "but the sperm and egg are human too" line, not understanding the difference between a part of of human being and an actual human being.

Chuz, I think you're much more patient than I am, ha ha


Again I'll post an excerpt from an article:

A. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.


..................

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions — and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, 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.

Libertarians for Life - Abortion and the Question of the Person​

Science is tough for these flat earthers.

Human *being* is not a scientific term.

And btw, a zygote is not *part* of a human. That is also, scientifically speaking, not true.

Who were you directing that to? That's exactly what the article said, that a zygote is not part of a human, but an actual human (for those who claim that a sperm or egg is akin to a zygote.)

The only one objecting to that on this thread was WHITEHOT, but I don't see his posts anymore, so maybe he deleted them.

I wondered that myself.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

So eggs and sperm are dead?

You're being intentionally dense.

We are talking about the beginning of HUMAN life, not single celled bacteria or amoeba.

Repeat after me...

HUMAN LIFE

HUMAN LIFE

HUMAN LIFE

 

[koshergrl]

Once again I'm amazed that anyone is still bringing up the asinine "but the sperm and egg are human too" line, not understanding the difference between a part of of human being and an actual human being.

Chuz, I think you're much more patient than I am, ha ha


Again I'll post an excerpt from an article:

A. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.


..................

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions — and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, 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.

Libertarians for Life - Abortion and the Question of the Person​

Science is tough for these flat earthers.

Human *being* is not a scientific term.

And btw, a zygote is not *part* of a human. That is also, scientifically speaking, not true.

Who were you directing that to? That's exactly what the article said, that a zygote is not part of a human, but an actual human (for those who claim that a sperm or egg is akin to a zygote.)

The only one objecting to that on this thread was WHITEHOT, but I don't see his posts anymore, so maybe he deleted them.

I posted that in response to a post about a zygote's "part human" status. I don't know how it got attached to that post...I wasn't paying super close attention maybe I replied to the wrong post.
I don't see the one I was responding to now...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Once again I'm amazed that anyone is still bringing up the asinine "but the sperm and egg are human too" line, not understanding the difference between a part of of human being and an actual human being.

Chuz, I think you're much more patient than I am, ha ha


Again I'll post an excerpt from an article:

A. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.


..................

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions — and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, 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.

Libertarians for Life - Abortion and the Question of the Person​

As a settled, accepted fact of law – beyond dispute – an embryo/fetus is not a person, and not entitled to Constitutional protections.

Seeking to compel a woman to give birth against her will violates the Constitution, and a woman’s right to privacy.

Individuals are at liberty to believe whatever they wish as to when life begins and ‘personhood’; they are not at liberty, however, to compel others to adhere to those subjective, personal beliefs through force of law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Doesn't it make sense that a new organisms life begins when its aging begins?


Old before your time: Study suggests that aging begins in the womb

Summary:
The process of aging begins even before we are born, according to an international team of researchers. In a study using rats to model pregnancy and fetal development, the researchers also found that providing mothers with antioxidants during pregnancy meant that their offspring aged more slowly in adulthood.

So eggs and sperm are dead?

One question.
The area known as Appalachia covers 13 Republican states. The infant mortality rate in that area is 16% higher than the national abortion rate.

My question is:

Why do Republicans care about a fetus but do nothing to help babies once they are born?

Because Republicans don’t care about an embryo/fetus – they care about keeping alive a hot-button political issue they can use as a partisan weapon and to appease the base.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Unless it is a developed human being who cares? We kill billions of life forms for the hell of it from sperm and eggs. What the fuck is the difference? I probably shoot out a few trillion a week!!!

 

[Coyote]

Is there a point to this thread?