Why is the left so happy about abortions?

[alang1216]

Do you agree that (according to our Constitution) a child's right to the equal protections of our laws should begin when their life does?

Or do you think their rights should only begin when the rest of society can not stomach or otherwise justify the denial of their rights anymore?

No and yes.

Legal rights are granted by societies, I don't believe in any God-given rights. As such a zygote/embryo/fetus/child/adult human is entitled to the rights granted by society.

 

[alang1216]

A human sperm or an egg cell, un-united, have ONLY a potential to become a human organism.

A human being, even in the zygote stage of their life, already IS one.

A zygote has, in my opinion, only the potential to become a person capable of feelings, emotions, thoughts, and everything else that makes humans unique in the world. Until they develop to (some) point they are no different than any other animal on the planet and not entitled to the legal protections of society.

 

[alang1216]

I'm connect to my father by a microscopic amount of proteins. You can play all the semantic games you choose, that tiny set of DNA proteins has no magic to it. It could neither think nor feel. Removed from that sperm cell would it even be considered to be alive? There were trillions of other sets of proteins that lost the race that night. So what?

Were you or were you not an organism, when you were in the zygote stage of your life?

I was. Is there something magical about 'organism'? Amoeba and bacteria are organisms.

Are amoeba and bacteria also human organisms with HUMAN biological parents?

If you have to sequence their DNA to answer that question I don't see how it matters.

 

[Chuz Life]

A human sperm or an egg cell, un-united, have ONLY a potential to become a human organism.

A human being, even in the zygote stage of their life, already IS one.

A zygote has, in my opinion, only the potential to become a person capable of feelings, emotions, thoughts, and everything else that makes humans unique in the world. Until they develop to (some) point they are no different than any other animal on the planet and not entitled to the legal protections of society.

You are losing that argument too.

I suggest you google court cases involving children with no ability to think, see, feel pain or emotions at all.

As they are still children and human beings, they are PERSONS under the law.

The Constitution says ALL persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

It does not place any of the requirements that you do.

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm connect to my father by a microscopic amount of proteins. You can play all the semantic games you choose, that tiny set of DNA proteins has no magic to it. It could neither think nor feel. Removed from that sperm cell would it even be considered to be alive? There were trillions of other sets of proteins that lost the race that night. So what?

Were you or were you not an organism, when you were in the zygote stage of your life?

I was. Is there something magical about 'organism'? Amoeba and bacteria are organisms.

Are amoeba and bacteria also human organisms with HUMAN biological parents?

If you have to sequence their DNA to answer that question I don't see how it matters.

Sequence as much dna as you like.

Show me an amoeba with a human being as its biological father.

 

[Chuz Life]

Do you agree that (according to our Constitution) a child's right to the equal protections of our laws should begin when their life does?

Or do you think their rights should only begin when the rest of society can not stomach or otherwise justify the denial of their rights anymore?

No and yes.

Legal rights are granted by societies, I don't believe in any God-given rights. As such a zygote/embryo/fetus/child/adult human is entitled to the rights granted by society.

Well thank Gawd society is way beyond those denials.

Get back to me when you succeed in overturning any fetal homicide laws with them.

 

[alang1216]

The Constitution says ALL persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

It does not place any of the requirements that you do.

This argument was settled years ago and I'm on the winning side. As the Harvard Law states in Abortion and the Fetal Personhood Fallacy:

Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee, and other politicians continue to assert a common fallacy about abortion—because human life begins at conception, fetuses are persons, and abortion must be prohibited. Indeed, Huckabee and Rubio claim that the U.S. Constitution requires such a result.

But they are wrong. And not just because people disagree about the beginning of personhood. The flaw in the Rubio/Huckabee logic was pointed out more than 40 years ago, even before the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. In “A Defense of Abortion,” Professor Judith Jarvis Thomson correctly observed that even if we assume that personhood begins at conception, it does not follow that abortion must be banned before the fetus is viable. Indeed, as she wrote, a ban on abortion before fetal viability would be inconsistent with basic principles of law.

How is that so? While opponents of abortion typically characterize the procedure as a “killing,” it also can be viewed as a withdrawal of assistance. A pregnant woman seeking an abortion is saying that she no longer wants to give of her body to sustain the life of her fetus. And nowhere in American law do we require some people to give of their bodies to sustain the lives of other persons. We do not even require parents to donate their organs or their bone marrow to save the lives of their children.

If the law insisted that pregnant women continue their pregnancies until delivery, pregnant women would be singled out for a legal responsibility that no one else must assume. And that is something the U.S. Constitution does address. The equal protection clause protects people from being treated differently than other people.

As Thomson also observed, the analysis changes at viability, for then the woman can withdraw her assistance while still allowing the fetus to survive.

Of course, one can argue that the relationship between pregnant women and their fetuses is different from all other human relationships—even parent-child relationships—and so it is permissible to impose greater duties on pregnant women than on other people. But that is a very different argument than is being made by Rubio, Huckabee, and like-minded persons. And it is an argument that has counter-arguments too.​

 

[alang1216]

Sequence as much dna as you like.

Show me an amoeba with a human being as its biological father.

If I showed you an egg cell you would not know if it was fertilized or even human, let alone know its' biological father.

 

[alang1216]

Well thank Gawd society is way beyond those denials.

Get back to me when you succeed in overturning any fetal homicide laws with them.

I have no desire to overturn any fetal homicide laws. So far as I know they are unrelated to the abortion issue. They may be an attempted end around but so far an unsuccessful one I believe.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Dems are talking about birthing babies and setting them aside before discussing their murder.

 

[Chuz Life]

The Constitution says ALL persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

It does not place any of the requirements that you do.

This argument was settled years ago and I'm on the winning side. As the Harvard Law states in Abortion and the Fetal Personhood Fallacy:

Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee, and other politicians continue to assert a common fallacy about abortion—because human life begins at conception, fetuses are persons, and abortion must be prohibited. Indeed, Huckabee and Rubio claim that the U.S. Constitution requires such a result.

But they are wrong. And not just because people disagree about the beginning of personhood. The flaw in the Rubio/Huckabee logic was pointed out more than 40 years ago, even before the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. In “A Defense of Abortion,” Professor Judith Jarvis Thomson correctly observed that even if we assume that personhood begins at conception, it does not follow that abortion must be banned before the fetus is viable. Indeed, as she wrote, a ban on abortion before fetal viability would be inconsistent with basic principles of law.

How is that so? While opponents of abortion typically characterize the procedure as a “killing,” it also can be viewed as a withdrawal of assistance. A pregnant woman seeking an abortion is saying that she no longer wants to give of her body to sustain the life of her fetus. And nowhere in American law do we require some people to give of their bodies to sustain the lives of other persons. We do not even require parents to donate their organs or their bone marrow to save the lives of their children.

If the law insisted that pregnant women continue their pregnancies until delivery, pregnant women would be singled out for a legal responsibility that no one else must assume. And that is something the U.S. Constitution does address. The equal protection clause protects people from being treated differently than other people.

As Thomson also observed, the analysis changes at viability, for then the woman can withdraw her assistance while still allowing the fetus to survive.

Of course, one can argue that the relationship between pregnant women and their fetuses is different from all other human relationships—even parent-child relationships—and so it is permissible to impose greater duties on pregnant women than on other people. But that is a very different argument than is being made by Rubio, Huckabee, and like-minded persons. And it is an argument that has counter-arguments too.​

Justice Potter Stewart and other Supreme Courts justices have said otherwise and I agree with them.

To paraphrase, you can not invite a person (esp a child) into your home in sub zero weather and then change your mind and kick them out into the cold for them to freeze to death and then hide that behind a so called right to privacy or choice.

Thompson's legal arguments have been defeated so many times, I am surprised that leftardz still try to ressurect them.

 

[alang1216]

Justice Potter Stewart and other Supreme Courts justices have said otherwise and I agree with them.

To paraphrase, you can not invite a person (esp a child) into your home in sub zero weather and then change your mind and kick them out into the cold for them to freeze to death and then hide that behind a so called right to privacy or choice.

Thompson's legal arguments have been defeated so many times, I am surprised that leftardz still try to ressurect them.

I'm not a lawyer and certainly no legal scholar but, so far as I know, viability is still the law of the land.

 

[Chuz Life]

Well thank Gawd society is way beyond those denials.

Get back to me when you succeed in overturning any fetal homicide laws with them.

I have no desire to overturn any fetal homicide laws. So far as I know they are unrelated to the abortion issue. They may be an attempted end around but so far an unsuccessful one I believe.

That explains why all the baby killer organizations opposed them so vehemently.

 

[alang1216]

I have no desire to overturn any fetal homicide laws. So far as I know they are unrelated to the abortion issue. They may be an attempted end around but so far an unsuccessful one I believe.

That explains why all the baby killer organizations opposed them so vehemently.

Again, I'm no legal scholar, but I'd guess it is the camel's nose that they fear.

 

[Chuz Life]

Justice Potter Stewart and other Supreme Courts justices have said otherwise and I agree with them.

To paraphrase, you can not invite a person (esp a child) into your home in sub zero weather and then change your mind and kick them out into the cold for them to freeze to death and then hide that behind a so called right to privacy or choice.

Thompson's legal arguments have been defeated so many times, I am surprised that leftardz still try to ressurect them.

I'm not a lawyer and certainly no legal scholar but, so far as I know, viability is still the law of the land.

So are fetal HOMICIDE laws, the law of the land and they make it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in ANY stage of development. Viable or not.

A significant number of lawyers see the conflict and double standard, even if you are personally too ignorant or otherwise blind to see it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A fertilized egg IS a baby. It is not a 9-month-developed baby, but it is still a baby. You're arguing age as though it makes a difference in kind.

This is always the point where lack of education and lack of logic make it impossible to speak rationally to someone.

My logic tells me there is little difference between a fertilized egg and any other human cell. Neither can think or feel whereas babies can both think an feel. Age makes ALL the difference. You just refuse to see the difference in their kind.

Don't feel too bad, with a little more education and some study of logic and you'll soon be able to speak rationally to anyone.

Your "logic" is based on an appalling lack of education and information, which makes it not logic at all. Likewise, your blind repetition of poetic romanticism as though it's an argument after already being told that it is not is illogical. Age makes all the difference to YOU . . . because you are an uneducated sheep substituting your "feelz" for knowledge, and actually congratulating yourself on how "smart" you are for doing so. YOU are Exhibit A of what I said: Most Americans are ignorant, barely-literate fools who think they know far more than they actually do.

DO feel bad. With any education at all and some study of logic, you will still be vastly less-educated than my 4th grader and should feel so ashamed of yourself at this moment that you start wearing a bag over your head in public.

You posted this earlier: ". . .good and reasonable people can disagree without being vilified."

I'm going to do you a favor. I'm going to explain the REAL logic and REAL education and REAL fact of the topic to you. And then, when you flatly refuse to read it, let alone respond to it, and simply keep parroting, "Feelings, pain, PERSONHOOD!" I will have also shown you that I was correct about you being a fool who thinks her ignorance is brilliance.

Let's start with your laughable statement about "My logic tells me there is little difference between a fertilized egg and any other human cell."

This statement tells me a number of things about your lack of education in biology, starting with the fact that you know almost nothing about cells, such as the fact that they are not all alike, not even close to it.

The Cells in Your Body - Science NetLinks

"There is no such thing as a typical cell. Your body has many different kinds of cells. Though they might look different under a microscope, most cells have chemical and structural features in common. In humans, there are about 200 different types of cells, and within these cells there are about 20 different types of structures or organelles."

So logically - REAL logic, not your "logic" - given that "any other human cells" is very different from all the others, do you think it's at ALL possible that a fertilized ovum might also be quite different from all the others?

Let's move on.

What's the Difference Between Zygote, Embryo & Fetus?

"By zygote or zygocyte we refer to the very first stage of life . . ." Interesting how, when separated from the emotions and profit factor of the abortion debate, medical science isn't at all confused or ambiguous on this point. But I continue.

You have probably heard of stem cells, and probably understood about as much regarding them as you do reproductive biology in general. They come in two types: embryonic and adult. The adult stem cell is the cell in a fully-developed human body which is most similar to a zygote, which would be an embryonic stem cell.

The differences between an adult stem cell and a normal cell are several:

• Stem cells have the ability to divide whereas normal cells may or may not have the ability to divide.

• All the stem cells have the ability to differentiate into normal cells whereas normal cells usually do not have this ability or the reverse is not true.

• Only function that stem cells do is dividing in order to differentiate into other types of cells whereas normal cells have various functions.

• Stem cells do not undergo meiosis whereas some normal cells do.

• Majority of the cells present in the early embryonic fetus (blastocyst) are mostly stem cells whereas with the development these cells will be outnumbered by normal cells.

• Stem cells lie at the beginning of the cell lineages whereas normal cells always lie at the end of the lineages.

• Life span of a stem cell is generally average when compared to normal cells some of which have shorter and very long life spans.

• Both cells can be cancerous cells, but stem cells have the potency.

• Stem cells are found only in several places whereas normal cells are found everywhere.

• Most of the multicellular organisms have stem cells whereas all the living organisms have normal cells.

Difference Between Stem Cells and Normal Cells | Stem Cells vs Normal Cells

Now then, these are the differences between an adult stem cell and an embryonic stem cell, eg. the original zygote:

• Embryonic stem cells are present only in very early embryos whereas adult stem cells are present in tissues of children and adults.

• Since the embryonic cells are unspecialized cells, they have the potential to develop into any cell type. In contrast, the adult stem cells are only capable of producing into tissue specific cell types.

• The adult stem cells are difficult to grow in culture. The Embryonic stem cells, in contrast, can be easily grown in culture.

• Unlike the adult stem cells, the embryonic stem cells can multiply indefinitely resulting in a very large number of daughter cells.

• The Embryonic cells can be easily obtained from the early embryos while the adult cells are very rare so that they are difficult to obtain from the body.

• The Embryonic stem cells have more potential to become cancerous while the adult stem cells have less potential to be so.

So yeah, your "logic" that told you a zygote has little difference from a normal body cell? It wasn't logic, and it certainly wasn't based on science. It was your own ignorance about microbiology, being paraded around as knowledge.

See my next post in this series for yet more ways that you have made yourself an utter fool by touting your ignorant "feelz" about reproduction as "logic" and "education".

 

[alang1216]

So are fetal HOMICIDE laws, the law of the land and they make it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in ANY stage of development. Viable or not.

A significant number of lawyers see the conflict and double standard, even if you are personally too ignorant or otherwise blind to see it.

I am ignorant of the law but I'd bet if they were used to stop an abortion they'd be declared unconstitutional.
<bye for now>

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because whatever you think with your glands, a fertilized egg is SCIENTIFICALLY SPEAKING the exact same organism as a birthed baby.

"Baby" and "child" are not defined by your emotional, romantic notions about "pain" and "feelings". Those are the purview of poets, not rational, factual people making designations about who should and shouldn't die.

There are questions that science can't answer. An example would be when is a minor to be treated as an adult? Another example would be what rights should a woman have?

Your "examples" can't be answered by science because they aren't scientific questions. They're subjective philosophical questions, aka "feelz". Bio-science CAN answer the question of "when is the human body fully grown?" The social sciences can even provide answers to the question of "What developmental signs identify maturity in an adolescent?"

It might help if you learn the difference between REAL science and the "this feels right and we can convince people with degrees to say so for money" pretend-science sheep like you are fed in the media.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've raised children. The feel pain, think, and show emotion, even when they are very young. Fertilized eggs don't. Why do you call a fertilized egg a baby or a child?

Because biology.

Do you not have a biological FATHER?

What makes HIM your biological father and not anybody else?

If conception makes him your father. . . Why does conception not make YOU his child?

I'm connect to my father by a microscopic amount of proteins. You can play all the semantic games you choose, that tiny set of DNA proteins has no magic to it. It could neither think nor feel. Removed from that sperm cell would it even be considered to be alive? There were trillions of other sets of proteins that lost the race that night. So what?

Were you or were you not an organism, when you were in the zygote stage of your life?

What the hell makes you think she knows?

 

[Chuz Life]

I've raised children. The feel pain, think, and show emotion, even when they are very young. Fertilized eggs don't. Why do you call a fertilized egg a baby or a child?

Because biology.

Do you not have a biological FATHER?

What makes HIM your biological father and not anybody else?

If conception makes him your father. . . Why does conception not make YOU his child?

I'm connect to my father by a microscopic amount of proteins. You can play all the semantic games you choose, that tiny set of DNA proteins has no magic to it. It could neither think nor feel. Removed from that sperm cell would it even be considered to be alive? There were trillions of other sets of proteins that lost the race that night. So what?

Were you or were you not an organism, when you were in the zygote stage of your life?

What the hell makes you think she knows?

I didn't.

But, I do have follow up questions, either way.