"ABORTION NOT A HUMAN RIGHT EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE" - UN Security Council [W:231]

[tosca1]

Re: "ABORTION NOT A HUMAN RIGHT EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE" - UN Security Council

The sperm and the egg are just cells from its host. Nothing more and nothing less.

But combined, they become human.

 

[tosca1]

Re: "ABORTION NOT A HUMAN RIGHT EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE" - UN Security Council

The unborn's status should be determined on an objective basis, not on subjective or self-serving definitions of personhood.

The Fourteenth Amendment says that the state shall not deprive any person of life without due process of law. When that was written, the word human was a synonym for person and could just as easily have been used. The Supreme Court admitted in Roe v. Wade: [7]

If the suggestion of personhood [of the unborn] is established, the appellant's [proabortion] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus's right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [fourteenth] amendment.

To solve this problem, the court chose to abandon the historic meaning of personhood. In the years that have followed, a long series of subjective and artificial distinctions have been made by prochoice advocates to differentiate between humans and persons. Part of the reason for this is that the scientific fact that life begins at conception paints the pro-choice movement into a corner. The old and still popular argument that “this isn't human life” is privately known to be erroneous by thinking pro-choice people.

They realize it's only a matter of time before the public learns the truth. The newer strategy is to say “Okay, this is human life, but it isn't really a person.”
Fact #2: Every human being is a person.

 

[tosca1]

Re: "ABORTION NOT A HUMAN RIGHT EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE" - UN Security Council

Did God herself write the words you linked to, or did some people write them?

:roll:

What? You don't consider science books references from Princeton?

Life Begins at Fertilization
The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:

"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]

[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

MORE....

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception


If you Godless people don't even believe your science....what do you base your opinion on?
Yourselves? Anything you feel like it? Anything you imagined things to be - or wish for things to be?
See how most of you pro-choicers are! Here's another example how you guys "rationalize." :mrgreen:

Now, you're being silly.....because.....

.....you're stumped.

 

[tosca1]

Re: "ABORTION NOT A HUMAN RIGHT EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE" - UN Security Council

The scary part is not that some are out to la-la land when they try to justify killing a human being.
The scary part is the million(s) who easily gobble up and believe these few! And they mimic and parrot them, spewing out the same nonsense.

and FYI, there are psychologists who think that gorillas like Koko should be classed as persons.

No kidding.
Classing some people described above as "gorillas" would probably be deemed an insult to Koko and family. :lol:

 

[tosca1]

Re: "ABORTION NOT A HUMAN RIGHT EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE" - UN Security Council

Mississippi, the most pro-life state in the US, voted down a Personhood amendment

The american people have rejected the perverted and immoral views that tosca1 promotes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/opinion/mississippis-ambiguous-personhood-amendment.html?_r=0

So does that make killing a person right? Just because the law was tweaked around and now it says, "okay, let's put woman above this lowly person called, the fetus".....that makes it okay and acceptable?

Let's re-phrase that and do some fill-in-the-blanks.

The law got tweaked around and now it says:

let's put white people above this lowly person called, blacks.

let's put working people above this lowly person on welfare.

Healthy people above the chronically ill.

Productive people above the "parasites."

Young above the old.

Because the law was changed around to make it legal, therefore you must think that's okay.
Wait till the Taliban or something with Taliban-like ideology comes into power....then let's see if you guys will be singing the same tune.

 

[tosca1]

Re: "ABORTION NOT A HUMAN RIGHT EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE" - UN Security Council

And we know the law got tweaked around at Roe vs. Wade! Because of the strong feminist movement.

The unborn's status should be determined on an objective basis, not on subjective or self-serving definitions of personhood.

The Fourteenth Amendment says that the state shall not deprive any person of life without due process of law. When that was written, the word human was a synonym for person and could just as easily have been used. The Supreme Court admitted in Roe v. Wade: [7]

If the suggestion of personhood [of the unborn] is established, the appellant's [proabortion] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus's right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [fourteenth] amendment.

To solve this problem, the court chose to abandon the historic meaning of personhood.

Therefore, all you need is a strong movement as such, and things could go topsy-turvy for any group or minority. Don't ever be complacent or apathetic enough to lull yourselves in believing that it wouldn't, or couldn't happen.

All it takes is to be legally declared non-human, or sub-human

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Re: "ABORTION NOT A HUMAN RIGHT EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE" - UN Security Council

Yes. but a person is not created when the sperm and egg meet, and FYI, there are psychologists who think that gorillas like Koko should be classed as persons.

Exactly personhood doesn't have to do with species membership at all

The only thing he pointed out was just the species difference and didn't give any reasons or even a philosophical case for why the unborn should have personhood. He just mere asserts it thinking it's an innate characteristic to the human species while most of the developed nations that have abortion legal would disagree with that.

It wouldn't be surprising if koko is classed as a person because she surpasses some humans in the mental capabilities department especially over the profoundly severely mental retarded humans.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Re: "ABORTION NOT A HUMAN RIGHT EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE" - UN Security Council

1. They realize it's only a matter of time before the public learns the truth. The newer strategy is to say “Okay, this is human life, but it isn't really a person.

2. All it takes is to be legally declared non-human, or sub-human

1. HAHA the public already knows the truth

And a ''newer' strategy? Where have you been? Because this is what the debate is all about and moved way beyond the species membership.

2. And you still yet again know nothing about personhood. Something doesn't need to be human at all to count as a legal person. So all this ''non human'' ''sub human'' talk is gibberish

 

[tosca1]

Re: "ABORTION NOT A HUMAN RIGHT EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE" - UN Security Council

 

[sangha]

Re: "ABORTION NOT A HUMAN RIGHT EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE" - UN Security Council

Actually.....yes, please do explain how that unique life started in the woman's womb without a sperm fertilizing one of her eggs.

Try googling "twinning".

 

[sangha]

Re: "ABORTION NOT A HUMAN RIGHT EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE" - UN Security Council

:roll:

What? You don't consider science books references from Princeton?


Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception


If you Godless people don't even believe your science....what do you base your opinion on?
Yourselves? Anything you feel like it? Anything you imagined things to be - or wish for things to be?
See how most of you pro-choicers are! Here's another example how you guys "rationalize." :mrgreen:

Now, you're being silly.....because.....

.....you're stumped.

Since you're so big on what scientists say, here's some scientists who say different

http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/40/1/essay/davisvol40no1_peters.pdf

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Biology-664/species-membership.htm

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080207.html

I'm sure that now that you've seen that scientists don't agree that life begins at the moment the sperm first enter the egg, you hvae now changed your opinion about how a life begins at conception! :roll:

 

[tosca1]

Re: "ABORTION NOT A HUMAN RIGHT EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE" - UN Security Council

Originally Posted by tosca1 View Post

Actually.....yes, please do explain how that unique life started in the woman's womb without a sperm fertilizing one of her eggs.

Try googling "twinning".

Never mind googling. Why don't you explain it.

 

[sangha]

Re: "ABORTION NOT A HUMAN RIGHT EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE" - UN Security Council

So does that make killing a person right? Just because the law was tweaked around and now it says, "okay, let's put woman above this lowly person called, the fetus".....that makes it okay and acceptable?

Let's re-phrase that and do some fill-in-the-blanks.

The law got tweaked around and now it says:

let's put white people above this lowly person called, blacks.

let's put working people above this lowly person on welfare.

Healthy people above the chronically ill.

Productive people above the "parasites."

Young above the old.

Because the law was changed around to make it legal, therefore you must think that's okay.
Wait till the Taliban or something with Taliban-like ideology comes into power....then let's see if you guys will be singing the same tune.

A ZEF is not a person

 

[sangha]

Re: "ABORTION NOT A HUMAN RIGHT EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE" - UN Security Council

Never mind googling. Why don't you explain it.

Don't you know how twins are created?

If you don't know the basics of reproductive biology, then why should anyone take you seriously?

 

[tosca1]

Re: "ABORTION NOT A HUMAN RIGHT EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE" - UN Security Council

Since you're so big on what scientists say, here's some scientists who say different

http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/40/1/essay/davisvol40no1_peters.pdf

Biology: species membership, definition of organism, testable hypothesis

The Implications of Defining When a Woman Is Pregnant

I'm sure that now that you've seen that scientists don't agree that life begins at the moment the sperm first enter the egg, you hvae now changed your opinion about how a life begins at conception! :roll:

:shock:

You gotta be kidding me....

Have you read your own source? Actually, it supports my assertion....

So explain, how does that contradict with what I've stated, "But combined, they become human."

 

[sangha]

Re: "ABORTION NOT A HUMAN RIGHT EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE" - UN Security Council

:shock:

You gotta be kidding me....

Have you read your own source? Actually, it supports my assertion....

So explain, how does that contradict with what I've stated, "But combined, they become human."

You didn't read it all. Not in 9 minutes. Not when the first sentence of the first link contradicts your position and you think it agrees with you

Nearly all of the state and federal laws that protect early embryos
from the moment of conception contain a fundamental ambiguity.
Contrary to common belief, there is no “moment” of conception.

In addition, it says the following on page 222, which you certainly did not get to in the 9 minutes (at most) you spent reading it

If conception does not occur until the individuality of the future
child is fixed, then it does not occur until the possibility of twinning
has expired. That time expires two weeks after insemination, when
implantation is finished and the primitive streak appears. Although a
few authorities accept this implication and argue that conception is
not complete until implantation occurs,81 most reject it in favor of
syngamy or genome activation.

 

[tosca1]

Re: "ABORTION NOT A HUMAN RIGHT EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE" - UN Security Council

You didn't read it all. Not in 9 minutes. Not when the first sentence of the first link contradicts your position and you think it agrees with you:
Nearly all of the state and federal laws that protect early embryos
from the moment of conception contain a fundamental ambiguity.
Contrary to common belief, there is no “moment” of conception.

Continue reading....

Instead, conception is a forty-eight hour process, during which the
haploid genomes of the sperm and egg gradually and precisely
transform into the functioning diploid genome of a new human
embryo.

Thus I ask, how does that contradict my statement: "But combined, they become human."


"the haploid genomes of the sperm and egg gradually and precisely
transform into the functioning diploid genome of a new human embryo."

So yeah, that agrees with my statement!

Btw, what is your article all about? BIO-ETHICS! Something to do with procurement of EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS! It's another controversy similar and/or related to abortion.

The unborn's status should be determined on an objective basis, not on subjective or
self-serving definitions of personhood.

The Fourteenth Amendment says that the state shall not deprive any person of life without due process of law. When that was written, the word human was a synonym for person and could just as easily have been used. The Supreme Court admitted in Roe v. Wade: [7]

"If the suggestion of personhood [of the unborn] is established, the appellant's [proabortion] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus's right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [fourteenth] amendment."

To solve this problem, the court chose to abandon the historic meaning of personhood.

 

[sangha]

Re: "ABORTION NOT A HUMAN RIGHT EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE" - UN Security Council

It becomes a new human embryo, not a new person

 

[minnie616]

Re: "ABORTION NOT A HUMAN RIGHT EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE" - UN Security Council

...

Thus I ask, how does that contradict my statement: "But combined, they become human."...


.

The ovum and the sperm are human even before they combine.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: "ABORTION NOT A HUMAN RIGHT EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE" - UN Security Council

:roll:

What? You don't consider science books references from Princeton?


Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception


If you Godless people don't even believe your science....what do you base your opinion on?
Yourselves? Anything you feel like it? Anything you imagined things to be - or wish for things to be?
See how most of you pro-choicers are! Here's another example how you guys "rationalize." :mrgreen:

Now, you're being silly.....because.....

.....you're stumped.

Actually, I'm not the one who is stumped.

Science does not say that life begins at "fertilization". Science give several possibilities as to when life begins. The declaration that life begins at fertilization is a belief, not a scientifically demonstrated fact.