Alderic posts: 180

Would you be more clear? Are you saying that personally you're against having an abortion, but that you support others who choose to kill their baby by having an abortion?

El duderino,

Gotcha.....Note the highlighted.....You use the word "it's" to describe "baby"....

So, a fetus is a baby, not a parasite. Women don't give birth to parasites...what comes out of the womb at birth was in the womb during pregnancy and that would be a baby.

What you're saying here is that since a fetus doesn't look like a newborn baby, he/she is not worth protecting like a newborn baby.  

Yes, really. And that's why willful abortion--at any stage--amounts to the destruction of human life is murder.

 World renown geneticists and gyneologists of various backgrounds and various religions publically attest that life begins at the moment of conception, that is, at fertilization, when the sperm and the egg unite. That genetically, everything that we will ever be becomes present at conception; that distinct heartbeats can be heard at 4 weeks, that all organs are formed at 6 to 7 weeks, and that a fetus of 10 weeks is not essentially different from one of 20 or 30 weeks.

KINGBEE POSTS:

Check out http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html .

Firstly, STUDY does not apply here, it is impossible to make a STUDY that will determine weather or not a zygote is a human being. Science involves many things, experiments, observation, classification, calculations, studies... and studies are the least valid and most error prone form of science, moreover they are completely impossible to apply to this simple yes no question.

Lula is saying "I don't care about science, religiously I think it is a human being because of the nature of soul as i interpert form the bible", I disagree with his interpretation

Scientifically, this would be a matter of looking and understanding WHAT a human is, and then looking at the various stages of development and deciding "does this qualify". The most obvious options are: sperm/eggs, fertalized egg, implanted egg, moment of development of organ X (typically brian), birth, moment of development of conscious thought (which occurs after birth). So looking at it from a biological perspective a human is a colony of genetically identical cells which are each alive, they require each other for continued survival, but can survive removed from the body in the right conditions (replicated in a lab usually). Those cells form a colony, that is a multicellular organism, which has been named "human" and all the creatures it can cross breed with are considered to be of the same species.

A new human thus forms when a zygote forms... the call of when that human gets rights is completely arbitrary though, because even though a new human forms in conception, MANY do not even make it to birth (not due to abortion mind you, I mean failed pregnancies), and they only develop sentience a few years after being born.

That bundle of cells "no different than a tapeworm" as you call it is a genetically unique individual with human DNA, it is genetically different then the host, and it will grow until it is given the legal rights of a human unless it dies or is killed.

Question is, is it moral to kill it... answer is, depends. Let me give you an example, ancephelus is a condition when a fetus develops with no brain. If born, it will immediately die because without a brain the lungs dont work, if kept on life support it will never be an individual because it has no brain.

It is a genetically unique individual, but it is not and never going to be a person because it has no brain.

Secondly (in regards to the quote asking for a peer reviewed study prooving that a fertalized egg is a human), publishing such a study is as much of a career suicide as doing a study about the difference in intellgience between <insert group here> and <insert group here>

Not to mention that peer review is the least important bit about science, its a combination of three notions: "all ideas are public domain", and "if everyone beleives it, it must be true" and most importantly, for there to be progress you must share your knowledge, otherwise it will be lost. As a society we advance because we scientists share their knowledge instead of hoarding it and calling themselves alchemists and wizards. But if an alchemist invented a weapon (say, greek fire) it works just as well, and is as true, as one invented by a person who later published it for all to know.

When the galileo said the world was round, none of his peers agreed, didn't change the fact that the world was indeed round. More recently, when a team of 3 doctors said that ulcers were caused by a bacteria and not by stress, none of their peers agreed, they had to heal hundreds of people using antibiotics, as well as infect themselves with the bacteria in question, get ulcers, and then heal themselves with it before someone even started to take them seriously. On many issue scientists disagree. The point of it all is, science is about not taking things by faith, but instead looking only at the data, facts, and experiments.

This is one of the most bothersome things, men have been such second class citizens that they have absolutely no right anymore to their children. be it in terms of abortion, or in terms of courts automatically awarding custody to the mother in devorce, and so on.

Basically, lula correctly identifies a zygote as a human life, he just does so based on his interpretation of the bible (which I think is a wrong interpretation) instead of any scientific reason. While scientifically speaking, I would contend that human life starts at conception, but that early conception human life is not a person yet, and does not carry the same full rights as a person, despite being a living human. Your contention that scientifically speaking life begins at birth or an arbitrary "trimester" period (rather then, say, formation of the brain, or formation of independant organ system, or some actual developmental checkpoint) is based solely on the desire to justify killing such a being because you cannot accept that it is possible for it to be a human, and yet not have the same rights as a person does.

How am I not understanding you? I'm interpreting you as saying you wouldn't have one, but support other people's right to have an abortion (and hence are pro-abortion, since you're supporting people using in some cases outside of where the mothers life is in danger). If I have somehow misunderstood this and you're saying something different then please correct me.

I guess another way of interpreting it is that you're saying you wouldn't have an abortion, and don't think anyone else should have an abortion, and disagree with people who do have abortion, but don't think it should be banned, but the result of not banning it is that you are in effect supporting it being used by other people.

Then that's a terrible reason to keep abortion legal in my opinion. There are many rare medical conditions out there ,and there are specialists able to deal with them. Conducting an abortion when the mothers life is in danger wouldn't be that rare (~23k abortions in the US are carried out when the mother's life is in danger a year I think, although I didn't bother checking more deeply into those statistics to see what sorts of things qualified), and hence you will have some specialists able to perform the procedure. It could also simply be made a requirement of being a qualified doctor that you are able to perform one properly, meaning that every doctor will have the basic training and know-how to perform one for the event that a specialist for some reason isn't available.

They are making that choice though - that is, they choose to end the life of their child, break the law, and endanger their own life, because they want to avoid the inconvenience of a baby. It's regrettable, but I don't believe it justifies letting people legally end the life of their child. Ultimately though I guess it hinges on how many babies/unborn children's lives the mothers is worth if justifying it for the backstreet abortion reason - if making abortion illegal means that you'd have say 600k fewer abortions a year, but you'd also have say 500 mothers die from backstreet abortions, then you'd be saying that you'd consider the life of the mother that chooses to break the law and use a backstreet abortionist despite being aware of the risks as more valuable than roughly 1,200 unborn children.

Taltimer posts:

Actually that study that you describe as impossible has already been done.

C. Ward Kischer, a human embryologist, explains it all very well ....He essentially says that not only science, but reason and common sense tells us that life begins with fertilization.

The case for fertilization of the human sperm/egg was made intuitively by observing the process in mammals more than 100 years ago. And direct observation of the process in the human was made in about 1968. The significance of this was resolved experimentally with subsequent growth of the new individual and successful implantation with completion of development to birth. This was accomplished with the birth of baby Louise Brown in England in July, 1978. Other successes soon followed.

The facts above,along with the constancy of the time of gestation, approx. 38 weeks, reasonably declare that the life of the new individual human being begins with fertilization. Virtually every human empbryologist and ever major textbook of Human Embryology state that fertilization marks the beginning of the life of the new individual human being.

The reason why this is true is the following:

from the moment when the sperm makes contact with the oocyte, under conditions we have come to understand and describe as normal, all subsequent development to birth of a living newborn is a fait accompli. That is to say, after that initial contact of spermatozoon and oocyte there is no subsequent moment or stage which is held in arbitration or abeyance by the mother, or the embryo or fetus. Nor is a second contribution, a signal or trigger, needed from the male in order to continue and complete development to birth. Human development is a continuum in which so - called stages overlap and blend one into another. Indeed, all of life is contained within a time continuum. Thus, the beginning of a new life is exacted by the beginning of fertilization, the reproductive event which is the essence of life.

Herein lies the importance of distinguishing between the science of developmental biology and the science of Human Embryology. Within the science of Human Embryology, the continuum of life is more fully appreciated. The fact that development and developmental principles do not cease with birth becomes more fully realized. So, the continuum of human development does not cease until death, whenever that may occur, in utero or at 100 years of age.

For the lay person it is not important to remember embryological terms, ....it is the continuum of life which is important as a biological fact......

When the sperm fuses with the secondary oocyte fertilization takes place. The fusion is referred to as a zygote, a single cell but with two pronuclei, each one containing either the maternal or the paternal chromosomes. The former are provided by the oocyte and the latter by the sperm. These pronuclei come together to reconstitute the proper number of chromosomes for our specie (called diploid), which is 46 chromosomes, including 2 sex chromosomes. From this coming together the single cell divides into two cells, and division continues until a cluster or ball of cells is formed called the morula. Soon thereafter, the cells in the morula divide and cluster so that a small cavity is formed, above which is a mass of cells. This is called the blastula, and when the cavity becomes larger the embryo is called the blastocyst and the mass of cells above it is called the inner cell mass or the ICM. Other events have taken place since fertilization, especially movement of the embryo down the fallopian tube, assumming fertilization has taken place in the upper third of the tube, which is optimal, so that the embryo is positioned properly within the uterus and ready for implantation. This takes 5 to 6 days. The outer rim of cells of the embryo has special properties allowing it to "invade" the lining of the uterus. Among the many simultaneous events occurring are changes in the cells of the embryo which "regulate" its destiny. Such regulation actually began at probably the first cell division of the embryo when an unusual but significant production of an immunosuppresant takes place, the early pregnancy factor. This prevents rejection of the "foreign" embryo by the mother.

In addition, the "regulation" taking place among the cells of the early embryo has to do with communications between the cells, which allow for movement of materials, providing signals or directions to a cell or cells prompting them to divide or not to divide, or to respond in general or specific ways which can direct their destiny or potentials.

One often hears the rallying cry from prochoice advocates: "my body, my choice". Certainly, they exercise a choice, but, it is not just "my body". There are two bodies, each genetically distinct, and each "foreign" to the other. It should be recognized that the body of the early embryo is very active in its daily rituals of survival.

Every moment of development blends into the next succeeding moment. But, even common sense tells one that this so-called development does not cease at birth. It continues until death. At any point in time, during the continuum of life, there exists a whole, integrated human being. This is because over time from fertilization to a 100 year old senior, all of the characteristics of life change, albeit at different rates at different times: size, form, content, function, appearance, etc.

Pregnancy

Human embryologist Bruce Carlson, in his 1994 textbook: "Human Embryology and Developmental Biology", states in his opening sentence: "Human pregnancy begins with the fusion of the egg and the sperm. . ."[2]. This is so because the concern of Human Embryology is the human embryo whether it be in the fallopian tube, uterus, ectopically placed or in a petri dish. Additionally, for a pregnant woman, the expected time of delivery, fertilization age, time of gestation, or, the period of confinement is always calculated so that the time of pregnancy begins at fertilization.

-----------------------------

Scientists in the fields of genetics, biology and human embryology have done their jobs well. It's just that some have turned science into political correctness and human life and all its elements have been/is being  manipulated by those with the attitude that "abortion on demand" must be kept "legalized" at all costs.   

Taltimir you have no idea who you are dealing with.  This is Lula's domain and she's very good at it. 

exactly.  Where did Galileo get his information? Are you sure Galileo had nobody that believed him?  Did you know that the round earth theory was well known before Galileo?  Did you know the bible all along said the earth was round?  Or that Aristoltle believed it was round way before Galileo?   Too bad those ignorant religious leaders didn't know their own book (bible).   It was in there the whole time.   

The Early Theory of a Round Earth

The truth of the matter is that ever since Pythagoras first postulated that the Earth must be a sphere way back in 570 BC, the theory has been quite alive among scientists, and not nearly as taboo as we may have been led to believe. There were surely some holdouts whose superstitions led them to believe otherwise, but to the scientific elite, there was very little question.

Such famed thinkers as Plato and Aristotle (both performing their work in the third and fourth centuries B.C.) agreed with the Pythagorian theory regarding the shape of the Earth (not to be confused with the Pythagorian theorem regarding right triangles, which is a different story altogether), based on observations of the curved horizon at sea as well as the shape of the Earth when seen casting a shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse.

In the third century B.C., the Greek mathematician Eratosthenes even measured the circumference of the Earth using the shadows cast by the sun during the summer solstice at different locations and performing a bit of clever geometry. His estimate is thought to be within 10% of today’s value, which is truly remarkable for the time.

From this point on, the shape of the Earth was in constant debate among philosophers, astronomers, Mathematicians and general thinkers alike (during the middle ages, many people fell back into a belief in a flat Earth). While it took Columbus' voyage to finally allow the divergent opinions to mesh together into a unified whole, he wasn't exactly breaking any new ground, scientifically – just proving what had already been theorized for more than two thousand years.

It should also be noted that at this point in history, the size of the Earth was thought to be much smaller than it actually is. This is why Columbus erroneously thought that he could sail all the way to India in order to open up a new shipping lane for the valuable spices and goods from the East. Had he not “accidentally” come across the new world, he surely would have died at sea after such a miscalculation.

Apart from a few ignorant holdouts (for an amusing example of this, click here) who have for one reason or another continued to assert, despite the obvious proofs, that the Earth continues to be flat, after the time of Columbus it was pretty well accepted by all that the Earth was, indeed, round.

Read more: "From a Flat to a Round Earth: The History behind the Determination of the Shape of the Planet" - http://ancienthistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/from_a_flat_to_a_round_earth#ixzz0APrAoZPv

So let's just change what you said a bit.

Lula and I say that there is a personal God,  most of their JU peers do not agree, doesn't change the fact that there is indeed a God! 

mmm... it MIGHT be an observational study, since you observe to understand. I only looked at the interventional study definition when stating that you cannot have a study to determine conception.

And KFC, why is an 8 1/2 month old fetus entitled to legal protection?

The thing is, it is obviously a human the moment an egg is fertalized, but when does it get legal protection? When SHOULD it get legal protection? the laws are very iffy about this whole issue, as are peoples personal and moral beleifs. It requires so much effort to explain the full system of beleifs (which vary between people who agree on the outcome) needed to reach the conclusion of why it is ok not to extend such legal protection to very early fetuses that it is easier to simply hide behind the claim "it is not a human yet"

Taltimer,

First, it's a little thing, but just so you know...I'm a she.

And yes, I do care about science, always have and always will...true or pure science, that is. I have no quarrel with the proved facts of science on the authority of various specialists in their given field. 

Biological and human embryological science have conclusively shown that human life begins at fertilization. Now, without appealing to religion, apply that scientific fact together with the principle upon which the US was founded, namely, that each person has an inalienable right to life, and yet ever since the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, abortion denies a particular group of human beings the inalienabe right to life.

And do you know how the pro-abortion crowd keep abortion going...by lying to us. In order to keep abortion on demand "legal", the facts of when human life begins, and terms such as "human being", "person", even "life" have been changed to mean something else. Human embryo isn't really human life we are told, it is a "clump of cells",  pro-abortion is pro-choice, killing a baby is "terminating a fetus" or "terminating an unplanned pregancy", and on and on.

And these are the lies they teach our children in public classrooms all over the country...in order to teach k-12th grade children about abortion and contraception, sex education classes come under  "family planning" ...."Health" has been changed to "reproductive health education" and yet you don't reproduce something by killing it. The pro-abortionists have only one choice in mind at family planning centers and it ain't choosing life because it would be bad for business.

For all you pro-abortionists, I have a few questions originally posed by Dr. Bahra of Michigan.

Since science has confirmed the embryo, and later the fetus, is a distinct developing person, why isn't he/she under Constitutional protection?

Why does a woman's "right to privacy" used as legal justification for the destruction of her child, depend on her short birth canal?

Why should that short birth canal be the dividing line between an unborn "nonperson" without constitutional protection and a newborn person with a life fully protected by the Constitution?

 Why are all of us rightfully enraged at any cruelty to animals, yet so few are shocked by the merciless cruelty to our unborn?

once again, for those who've somehow managed to miss or have chosen to ignore this point: supporting access to legal abortions is worlds different from being pro-abortion--just as supporting access to legal plastic surgery or tattooing or medically supervised treatment for drug addicion is not the same as being pro-plastic surgery, pro-tattooing or pro-addiction.

i was incorrect (or more correctly inaccurate) when asking for scientific proof that life begins at conception.  what i meant to question was your assertion that science has determined a point prior to ex-utero viability at which a fetus, zygote, embryo might reasonably be considered a person with all the rights that status entails. 

you've once again made that assertion as if it were fact and then undercut your own argument by asking the same question i posed dozen of replies earlier. 

why, indeed, is there no constitutional protection for zygotes?  why is obama's place of birth more important to you than his place of conception?  why is there no official catholic ritual for the miscarried zygote?  why is there no official certificate of non-birth and/or death certificate issued and recorded?

why--for thousands of years--did the church claim the unborn were relegated to somewhere other than heaven?

it is impossible for there to be an inalienable right, at some point it will contradict itself or another inalienable right.

for example, inalienable right for life... except, when a person is shooting up a school, it is a matter of shooting him to protect the inalienable right to life of his victim, or letting the murderer continue murdering to protect the murderer's inalienable right to life.

In this case there are several inalienable rights that directly contract the inalienable right of the fetus to life, which results in decisions for when to choose one right over another.

The justification of right to privacy is patently absurd, its the right to self governship of your own body. The reason the right to privacy was used for that legistlation from the bench is because it is not explicitely stated that a person has an inalienable right to their body in the bill of rights, so a right that was stated was chosen instead; but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

it was assumed that such obvious things did not need to be mentioned in the constition (for example, the constitution also does not mention murder, etc).

But it's not worlds different - I support peoples right to get plastic surgery, or tattooing, or medically supervised treatment for drug addiction. I wouldn't do any of those things myself. That makes me pro-those things, in that I'm against banning them (and support peoples right to use them).

Similarly, if I was to support peoples right to have abortions, even if I wouldn't use that right myself, I would be pro-abortion.

exactly.  Like I said you're either for it or against it.  There isn't really a middle ground even though some are trying desparately to remain in the middle.  You're either for it or against it. 

If you're for it for others' sakes.......then you're for it.  Period. 

I'm against abortion for everyone except in cases of medical emergencies when there is no other alternative.....which I believe to be quite rare btw. 

We seem to forget there are silent voices involved.  Maybe it's time we pay attention to them instead of all the clamoring for our rights and voices to be heard.   

if you believe people have a right to engage in sexual activity with others of the same sex, that makes you pro-homosexual?

i have no interest in tattooing, plastic surgery or sex with other males nor would i recommend any of the those to anyone else. i have no interest in constraining others from any or all. 

i'm no more pro-tattoo, pro-plastic surgery nor pro-homosexual than i am pro-cricket, pro-bunji jumping, pro-nascar or a whole catalog of things i would not restrict and am not against. 

consider the root of the words "pro" and "anti".

agreeing that others should be able to choose things makes me pro-choice as opposed to anti-choice.  accepting that people may choose to terminate a pregnancy with the assistance of a medical professional does not make me--or anyone else--pro-abortion any more than acceptig people may choose to be treated medically for addiction makes me pro-addiction.

religion has always invested far too much in voices only it claims to hear.

Yes - you believe it should be allowed (assuming the alternative here is having it banned), just as if you believe abortions should be allowed then you are pro abortion.

With abortions, there's not much middle ground when looking at whether they should be allowed (the only contentious areas are with rape and when the mothers life is in danger, which to avoid complications I'll ignore for the next bit) - either you think they should be allowed to take place, or you don't. Either you're pro-abortion, or you're anti-abortion, or alternatively, either you're pro-life, or anti-life. They key factor in this isn't whether you would want to have an abortion yourself, it's whether you believe other people should be able to have an abortion. If you believe they should, that means you're pro abortion. If you believe they shouldn't, that means you're anti-abortion. To occupy the middle ground of not being pro or anti, you'd basically have to say you have no opinion on the matter/don't feel strongly either way. That is, that you neither believe abortions should be legal or illegal. However that's not what has been said in this case.

technically if you beleive people have the right to do something you never will its called TOLERANT OF not PRO. Pro is someone who supports it, tolerating something means you DON'T like it but accept that banning it is wrong, SUPPORTING something means you think it is a wonderful beutiful thing. I do NOT think homosexual relationships are a wonderful beutiful things, I think they are disgusting, but I fully support peoples right to do so, I TOLERATE their homosexuality. Those who wish to opress them do not tolerate them, and many are pushing the agenda that gay is in.

No it's not a fact I have to come to grips with.  As I have stated for me that fetus is not a true life until it is able to live outside the womb (with or without life support).  Until that point it is a potential life at best.  In the first trimester I don't see it as anything more than a parasite.

And you do the same thing.  Your bible says "Thou shalt not kill".  That seems rather straight forward, don't kill anyone.  But members of your religion draw lines there as well, it's ok to kill someone during war time.  It's ok to kill someone who has killed others (capital punishment).  It's ok to kill someone if they were attacking you and it was either you or them (self defense).  So it's ok for you to draw lines but not me?  Sorry that doesn't work.

Isn't it convenient that you use "science" here but when it comes to evolution vs. creationism science isn't good enough for you.

the evolutionary theory changes all the time but facts do not change.  It is a fact, and proven that life begins at conception.  It fits all the criteria for life. 

it all falls under sanctity of human life El-D.  All of it.  Think about it. 

It's all very consistent.  The pro-abort people are NOT consistent.  They ok murder in the womb but oppose war and capitol punishment.  Makes no sense to kill someone before they had a chance and not kill someone after they abused their chance. 

you bring up a good point Taltimir. 

There are two diff views of tolerance.  The first view is the old view and that was you would be considered still tolerant if you disagreed with something but let it be.  In cases of homosexuality it was tolerated but not accepted by the majority.  They were considered queer but tolerated.  That's how it was when I grew up. 

Today we have a diff view of tolerance.  In cases of homosexuality you are considered intolerant if you do not accept this as legitimite.  We are being forced to accept this as an alternative lifestyle whether we agree or disagree.  To disagree is to be labeled intolerant. 

 And you are showing here that you are a product of the new view of tolerance which means we have to accept this to be considered tolerant.  I'm afraid that's what's going down in today's culture. 

It has nothing to do with what the thing looks like but everything to do with it's abilities.  In the first trimester it is nothing more than a parasite living off of the woman like a tapeworm does taking nutrients and growing.  But once it is able to survive on it's own outside the womb it doesn't "need" the woman to survive, medicine can jump in and finish the job if necessary.

Not true.  The "arbitrary trimester" is more easy to assign then when the formation of some arbitrary organ is because some of them are extremely difficult to see on an ultrasound. 

If a man has a 5 o'clock shadow would you consider it a beard?  All the material is there for the beard, the whiskers and whatnot, in fact soon after the man shaves there is hair growing in.  At what length of whisker would you consider it a full beard?  Why not just claim that all men have beards since all the necessary "materials" are present?

I've got a question for you.  If an illegal alien happens to be in the US when they conceive a child is that child automatically a US citizen?  Meaning if they are deported before they give birth does that child have a right to claim US citizenship at some point even though it was born on foreign soil?

If life begins at conception why don't we have conception days instead of birthdays?

Well said.  There are more than two choices on just about every issue, few things in this world are black and white.

No it doesn't.  So just because you're on one side of a war the other side has less of a right to live?

Don't make absolute claims like that.  I am pro-choice but I am NOT anti-war or anti-capitol punishment.

How tolerant are people who hold up signs that says "God hates fags".  That's not tolerant in the least.  I'm not saying you are in that group I am merely using it as an example.  I for one would never tell you that you have to accept homosexuality but I would ask that you tolerate it and allow civil unions as part of that tolerance, again I'm not asking you to accept those civil unions as marriage just tolerate that they are allowed to file taxes jointly and be in the hostiptal rooms when the other member of the union is sick, etc.

this isn't rocket science.  Most people have no idea when the conception date is.  I had three children yet I couldn't tell you (invisible to me) when the conception took place.  I may have an idea or even a week in mind but couldn't be dogmatic about it.  Just because I don't know the date doesn't make it less than life.  I don't know your birthday either.  Doesn't mean you're not alive.  This is a ridiculous argument El-D.  No disrespect really.  Just speaking my mind.   

Yes it does.  War is between two groups who are fully capable of protecting and arming themselves for it.   That's not the case with a yet unborn baby.  The safest spot in all the world should be a mother's womb.  Sad to say, today we have made it a battlefield with alot of innocent blood shed.  That baby is not capable of protecting itself.  You're comparing apples and oranges here. 

of course.  I didn't mean to...but there is a pattern for this.  Many pro-abortion people are against war and capitol punishment.  I never said all nor do I believe that to be the case. 

this is ridiculous.  You have to go to the extreme to reply to what I said?  I agree with you on this because that is not being tolerant whether the old view or the new view. 

Again you are asking me to tolerate something by ACCEPTING it.  That's the new wave of tolerance.