Carl Sagan - Abortion Debate - A Scientific View

[choiceone]

Infuse simply means to put into or introduce something into another. It said nothing about how much infusion has to occur before it is considered proper use of the word let alone your baseless contention that it means the entire whole. So, I gather you meant to infer that there is a set amount of partial quantity of the entire whole infused before you would agree the word is used properly? In that case, mind tell me what amount? Twenty percent, 50% or what? What is your gramatical authority for making such an outcry? And where did I even say anything about the entire sperm being infused into the ovum to make it part of the zygote?


Other embryologists chose to use the word "union" which means joining together as follows:


"This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zygotos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote." [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1. UT Call # QS604M822b1993c.2.]


While yet others chose to use the term "fertilize" as follows:


"Human development is a continuous process that begins when an ovum from a female is fertilized by a sperm from a male.[Moore, Keith L. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 4th edition. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1988, p. 1. UT call # QS604M822d1988.]


And yet some chose to use the term "penetrate"...



Does that mean the entire sperm is joined together with the ovum or penetrated into it to form the zygote? Of course not. Would you then accuse the embryologists of being wrong and erroneous in stating scientific fact? What you are doing is nitpicking for fault where none exists in order to discredit your opponent. There is absolutely no substance to your unfounded qualm. FYI, there is not a single word that is so perfect and so all encompassing that it includes every conceivable connotation.


　
By the way I added the library call number "UT Call # QS604M822b1993c.2" and "UT call # QS604M822d1988" to let you know that those two medical text books can be physically located at the University of Tennessee Medical library where I had checked them out myself many years ago. You can either physically come to the UT Medical library and check them out for yourself or call the library to verify the books are there and request an inter-library loan so I don't have to deal with yet another senseless accusation of being called a bullcrap as a distraction into personal attack instead of debating the pertinent points
.

I was referring to the fact that you portrayed the sperm being infused by the oocyte, not the reverse. If you had said the oocyte is infused by the sperm, I would not object. Your grammar implied that all or part of the oocyte goes inside the sperm, an impossibility because the sperm is much smaller than the oocyte. There is not an equal union. The oocyte provides the basic cell structure (including the membrane) and the sperm adds very little more than DNA.

 

[dolphinocean]

I was referring to the fact that you portrayed the sperm being infused by the oocyte, not the reverse. If you had said the oocyte is infused by the sperm, I would not object. Your grammar implied that all or part of the oocyte goes inside the sperm, an impossibility because the sperm is much smaller than the oocyte. There is not an equal union. The oocyte provides the basic cell structure (including the membrane) and the sperm adds very little more than DNA.

False accusation.

I said "infused with", not "infused by". Here's my previous post on the previous page, post #47:

"... a zygote is formed when the sperm from a man is infused with the ovum from a woman at conception during sexual intercourse.

People who know basic embryology know that when a sperm penetrated the egg, it dropped off its tail. Whether the entire sperm entered the ovum or not, it is insignificant on the debate because the tail doesn't contain any genetic material that can make the zygote any more or less a human organism as it already is. You are simply crying foul where none exist just to discredit me for your lack of argument based on the scientific fact that I presented. That's all.

 

[iangb]

It is simply a phenomenon knowing as twinning. The zygote came about from the union of a sperm from the father and an ovum from the mother. Call it asexual reproduction if you insist. But, you still haven't proved that a zygote is not a human organism. Now, tell me, does cloning of Dolly's belated twin negate Dolly as an organism of the sheep species?

Of course not. So, why would twining of a zygote negate the zygote as a human organism?

Dolly's cloning was significantly different from asexual reproduction, as two cells were still used - the one containing Dolly's DNA, and an egg cell from a donor mother - as such, Dolly had different Mitochondrial DNA from her 'clone'. Asexual reproduction - similar to what a zygote undergoes when it cleaves - does not require a fusion of cells to take place.

'Twinning' is simply when a multi-cell zygote is split in half so that each half developes seperately. It doesn't address the cell reproductive process. Your logic implies that humans organisms (as opposed to human cells) undergo asexual reproduction, which isn't the case.

Were there found a way to truly asexually clone a mammal, that would be a scientifi development - but it would not indicate that something acted in a particular way naturally, simply that it was capable of doing as such - our understanding of reproduction would increase a little more.

If there were two fused zygotes developing into two fused embryos and then onto two fused fetuses, then there will be two conjoined twins, not a chimera.

Yeah, you don't understand.

"Chimeras are formed from at least four parent cells (two fertilized eggs or early embryos fused together). Each population of cells keeps its own character and the resulting organism is a mixture of tissues." ~Chimera (genetics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or, if you don't trust the wiki: "chimera, in genetics, an organism or tissue that contains at least two different sets of DNA, most often originating from the fusion of as many different zygotes (fertilized eggs). " ~zygote (cell) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

One more time - try again?

Of course not. I didn't say they were. I said the "mature individual" i.e. an adult of reproductive age is a diploid organism.

Actually, you said "the top half of the blue section". That indicates the reproductive cell - the primary oocite/spermatocite. And just as the reproductive cell is not an individual organism, nor is the zygote.

For one thing: a primary oocyte or spermatocyte is destined to differentiate into an ovum or a sperm. And nothing more. If the ovum is not fertilized it will simply die as an unfertilized egg and goes out the body. If the sperm failed to find an ovum after ejaculation into the vaginal or if the man did not have ejaculation for several days, the sperm disintegrates and the body just absorbed it into the system.

A zygote, however, will grow and develop according to the blueprint instruction contained in the DNA in the course of its human development from a single cell organism to a multi-cellular organism of the same individual.

What something could go on to be does not indicate what that thing is. That a zygote can become an individual organism does not make that zygote an individual organism.

For another thing: a primary oocyte or a spermatocyte has the same identical chromosomes/DNA profiles from the source. For the primary oocyte, the source is the woman. For the primary spermatocide the source is the man. So, therefore, the primary oocyte or spermatocyte is just a cellular part or component of the host, i.e. the woman or the man.

But, the zygote is neither the cellular part or component of the host, i.e. the woman being now the mother and the man now being the father. What the zygote is, is that it is a newly formed human organism, a human offspring if you will, that has its unique DNA profiles that came about from the contribution both from the mother and the father but never identical to either of them. In other words, it is a host of itself with its own unique human chromosome/DNA makeup that is unlike anybody else in the family or in this planet.

Unique DNA in a cell does not make that cell an individual organism, or transplants (to use your earlier example) would be treated as such. Unique DNA that will go on to be an organism does not make something an organism - just (tautological) something with the potential to become one.

There are things known as standard for reference in citation guidelines that every professional and scientist adheres to when referencing a source. Even a small error in punctuation such as a period, colon or semi-colon that are in wrong places or the order of data misplaced would cause your article to be returned for correction before acceptance for publication. There are various formats you follow, such as the AMA or the APA styles depending on which discipline your writing falls into.


Now, why don't you learn something about referencing citation before you waste time jumping all over the places. Here are two links for you to study on:

http://www4.samford.edu/schools/pharmacy/dic/amaquickref07.pdf

How to Write Citations and Bibliographies in APA Style: Memorial University Libraries

But, enough of this personal attack already.

Quite! I'm not talking about your style of referencing, I'm talking about the quotes themselves. You're throwing straw men at me.

This becomes important because if you found the quotes yourself, you would be able to provide context for the quotes, or at the very least link me to an online version to look for myself. Getting quotes off a biased site makes the quotes exponentially less trustworthy, as either you or the sit itself could have quote-mined.

So, now you want to pull out the "scientific definition is not an objective scientific fact" card? This is not just a scientific definition pulled from thin air. This is a scientific established fact based on decades if not centuries of scientific studies, lab research, scientific observation and handling. So, if science is not objective, what else do you have that is more objective than science?

So you would claim that scientific definitions are objective fact?

Scientific observations are objective fact - or, at least, as objective as you can get (depending on methodology, obvs). Scientific definitions are human-created terms which do the best they can to describe observations in a useful - but not objective - manner. Scientific definitions are not created to be all-encompassing, just to be useful in scientific situations. For example, it was no longer useful to define pluto as a planet so the definition of 'planet' was subtly changed to exclude Pluto. 'Whether a zygote is an individual organism or not' becomes useful depending on whether you're looking at the ZEF on it's own, or the foetal-maternal immune system, or a whole range of other possibilities, so different people use different definitions - I've quoted in the past various biologist PhD holders saying "a zygote is not an organism". The question is never asked, in the scientific context, "is a zygote an individual organism with regards to the ethics of abortion" - this is because this is an ethical question, not a scientific one.

The question you should be asking is "Why is it important if a zygote is an organism or not?", as that would get you closer to the definition that could be used. But you shy away from that as it leads somewhere which becomes increasingly hard for you to pretend is objective.

Yeah, I'm sure you want to demand context for the fact that the earth is round and not flat. Why not also ask for the context for a mathematical fact that 1 + 1 = 2?

Things always wind down to silliness when it come to abortion.

Ask a silly question, you get a silly answer.

 

[dolphinocean]

Dolly's cloning was significantly different from asexual reproduction, as two cells were still used - the one containing Dolly's DNA, and an egg cell from a donor mother - as such, Dolly had different Mitochondrial DNA from her 'clone'. Asexual reproduction - similar to what a zygote undergoes when it cleaves - does not require a fusion of cells to take place.

'Twinning' is simply when a multi-cell zygote is split in half so that each half developes seperately. It doesn't address the cell reproductive process. Your logic implies that humans organisms (as opposed to human cells) undergo asexual reproduction, which isn't the case.

Were there found a way to truly asexually clone a mammal, that would be a scientifi development - but it would not indicate that something acted in a particular way naturally, simply that it was capable of doing as such - our understanding of reproduction would increase a little more.

No problem. I still can dismantle your baloney just the same.

You can still do another Dolly experiment using the nucleus of a somatic cell of the donor and injects the nucleus containing the identical DNA back into the enucleated oocyte of the same donor. Since the nuclear transfer is done on the same subject, which being the donor and recipeint at the same time, the cloned twin would have the same mitochondrial DNA. Since the somatic cell and oocyte never even come anywhere near to each other, there was technically no cell fusion involved; just basic nuclear transfer.

If you want to get nitpicky. By your inane logic, bacteria which reproduce asexually by fission all the time would then be considered non-organisms. But, since when one bacterium asexually reproduce by fission "when it cleaves" where no fusion of cells was involved and the resulting identical bacteria are each still considered an organism, your argument just falls flat　

Yeah, you don't understand.

"Chimeras are formed from at least four parent cells (two fertilized eggs or early embryos fused together). Each population of cells keeps its own character and the resulting organism is a mixture of tissues." ~Chimera (genetics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or, if you don't trust the wiki: "chimera, in genetics, an organism or tissue that contains at least two different sets of DNA, most often originating from the fusion of as many different zygotes (fertilized eggs). " ~zygote (cell) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

One more time - try again?

You are the one who don't understand.

Fraternity twins are from two fertilized eggs with different DNA profiles. Technically it can also involved fraternal triplets or quadruplets. So, when one twin died the other twin just happened to acquire the embryonic cells into its fold and differentiate them into organs and tissues.

This phenomenon doesn't just happened to two fertilized eggs (fraternity twins). It can also happened to embryos of two identical twins that just fused together where one survived but the other twin's embryonic cells were simply absorbed and differentiated into tissues and organs. But, since their DNA profiles are identical, they go unnoticed.


So, when I said one twin died the other twin who survived would simply absorbed the remaining embryos into its fold, the process is the same no matter if it's one fertilized egg going into twining or two fertilized eggs giving rise to twining.

One more time - try again? Oh please, not again!

Actually, you said "the top half of the blue section". That indicates the reproductive cell - the primary oocite/spermatocite. And just as the reproductive cell is not an individual organism, nor is the zygote.

I said both. Let me quote my previous post #46:

"Look at the diagram. The blue half is the diploid organism. The peach color half is the haploid gamete cell.

From the blue half, the bottom depicts a zygote with 2n with an arrow curving up to the middle 2n with the words "Diploid Individual". Then from the middle another arrow curves up to the top with another 2n and the word "Reproductive cell" denoting the primary oocyte or primary spermatocyte in the mature individual's gonads."​

Here's the gist of it:
　

The blue half section is all 2n = diploid individual.

The peach half section = haploid gamete cells.

　
A zygote is 2n and its full set of chromosomes with DNA profiles belong to itself therefore it is a diploid individual.
　

A reproductive cell, on the other hand, is hapoid and its half set of chromosomes with DNA profiles that are identical to its host belongs to the host.

　

　

What something could go on to be does not indicate what that thing is. That a zygote can become an individual organism does not make that zygote an individual organism.

A zygote is an individual organism!

　
I provided two scientific references from two human embryology sources for your to verify the scientific fact for yourself but you still continue to harp on the regurgitated pro-abortion mantras without providing any supporting evidence to back up your point. Like I said, if you reject science for being not objective, then show me something from a discipline that you think is more objective than embryological science.

　
If a zygote is not an individual organism until it becomes one, then meantime what is a zygote?

　
Surely it is not a somatic or gamete cell of the mother's body. Certainly it would not a bacteria cell or some kind of protozoa which happened to sneak up into the uterus, would it?

　

Unique DNA in a cell does not make that cell an individual organism, or transplants (to use your earlier example) would be treated as such. Unique DNA that will go on to be an organism does not make something an organism - just (tautological) something with the potential to become one.

Yes, it does. DNA alone determines your whole make-up. Whether you are going to be a virus, a bacterium, a plant, an insect, an animal or a human being, it all comes down to DNA. Without DNA you are nothing.


　
Remember Dolly the clone sheep?


　
The Dolly cloning experiment involved two different breed of sheep. The donor ewe was a Finn Dorset breed that produces all white breed. The recipient mother ewe was a Scottish Blackface with the distinctive black face as seen in this breed.


　
When they removed the DNA from the oocyte of the Scottish Blackface ewe mother and injected it with the DNA of the white Finn Dorset ewe, the Scottish Blackface ewe mother then gave birth to Dolly, which is a white Finn Dorset with the identical Finn Dorset DNA of the donor.


　
Even though it was the Scottish Blackface ewe miother that provided all the nutritional, hormonal and protective nurturing throughout the whole gestation period and even gave birth to it, nothing else matter except the DNA that made the call. Not an iota of the Scottish Blackface ewe mother's had any influence on Dolly's genetic or physical appearance or behavior. Only the DNA made it uniquely identical as in identical twin to the donor Finn Dorset sheep and not the mother that gave birth to it.


　

Quite! I'm not talking about your style of referencing, I'm talking about the quotes themselves. You're throwing straw men at me.


This becomes important because if you found the quotes yourself, you would be able to provide context for the quotes, or at the very least link me to an online version to look for myself. Getting quotes off a biased site makes the quotes exponentially less trustworthy, as either you or the sit itself could have quote-mined.

You are getting even worst in not making any sense.

　
These quotes are taken verbatim from pages of the medical textbooks I had referenced in my previous post. Those medical textbooks ARE the original source. No matter who or what website provides the quotes, they have to be the same anywhere you find it since these are taken verbatim from the original sources. If you suspect a "quote-mine" all you have to do is go check the original sources as referenced for you to verify it for yourself instead of whining and whining about it. Jeez!


　
NOW, ABOUT YOUR WHINING ABOUT THE CONTEXT. The quotes were about the zygote being referred to as an organism in the medical sources as referenced. The medical sources I referenced are medical textbook on human embryology. Therefore, human embryology is the context. What other context are you trying to find besides human embryology? Do you expect a disccusion on organ transplant or the musical instrument of a church organ?


　

So you would claim that scientific definitions are objective fact?

Scientific observations are objective fact - or, at least, as objective as you can get (depending on methodology, obvs). Scientific definitions are human-created terms which do the best they can to describe observations in a useful - but not objective - manner. Scientific definitions are not created to be all-encompassing, just to be useful in scientific situations. For example, it was no longer useful to define pluto as a planet so the definition of 'planet' was subtly changed to exclude Pluto. 'Whether a zygote is an individual organism or not' becomes useful depending on whether you're looking at the ZEF on it's own, or the foetal-maternal immune system, or a whole range of other possibilities, so different people use different definitions - I've quoted in the past various biologist PhD holders saying "a zygote is not an organism". The question is never asked, in the scientific context, "is a zygote an individual organism with regards to the ethics of abortion" - this is because this is an ethical question, not a scientific one.

The question you should be asking is "Why is it important if a zygote is an organism or not?", as that would get you closer to the definition that could be used. But you shy away from that as it leads somewhere which becomes increasingly hard for you to pretend is objective.

We are talking about hard science here.


　
Hard science deals with correspondence and not about defining something out of nothing. A zygote can be observed and manipulated. Chromosomes/DNA can be observed and understood. If science is not objective but subjective to one's whims. how is it dependable when it comes to sending men to the moon and back to earth?


　
Ethics is simply a moral philosophy of right conduct. Without moral issues there would be no ethics to discuss. The moral issue here is about the killing of a prenatal life in the human womb.


The moral question of right or wrong has to be settle by what exactly is being killed. Logic and embryology determined it is a human being. Pro-abortion folks denied it.


　
What exactly is a prenatal life in human womb can only be addressed and answered by science, specifically human embryology and not your whimsical philosophical diatribes of making thing up from thin air.


　
You said you;ve "quoted in the past various biologist PhD holders saying 'a zygote is not an organism'". Was it from real scientists from embryology or human embryology? If so, I must have missed it. Mind posting here again?


　

Ask a silly question, you get a silly answer.

Where did I ever asked silly question? Far from asking silly question, from the start I have been knocking the **** out of all the nonsensical pro-abortion argument starting from the OP.

 

[choiceone]

False accusation.

I said "infused with", not "infused by". Here's my previous post on the previous page, post #47:

"... a zygote is formed when the sperm from a man is infused with the ovum from a woman at conception during sexual intercourse.

People who know basic embryology know that when a sperm penetrated the egg, it dropped off its tail. Whether the entire sperm entered the ovum or not, it is insignificant on the debate because the tail doesn't contain any genetic material that can make the zygote any more or less a human organism as it already is. You are simply crying foul where none exist just to discredit me for your lack of argument based on the scientific fact that I presented. That's all.

To say that "the sperm from a man is infused with the ovum" grammatically implies that the ovum is put into the sperm. You should be saying that "the sperm from a man infuses the ovum" or "the ovum is infused with the sperm from a man." That is all I meant. I am not crying foul. Any biologist if asked would tell you that the oocyte or egg cell is the basic cell and the sperm head contributes mainly DNA, so that, though the DNA of the cell is changed, the oocyte's membrane delineates the boundary of the cell.

 

[dolphinocean]

To say that "the sperm from a man is infused with the ovum" grammatically implies that the ovum is put into the sperm. You should be saying that "the sperm from a man infuses the ovum" or "the ovum is infused with the sperm from a man." That is all I meant. I am not crying foul. Any biologist if asked would tell you that the oocyte or egg cell is the basic cell and the sperm head contributes mainly DNA, so that, though the DNA of the cell is changed, the oocyte's membrane delineates the boundary of the cell.

I'm not a native speaker of English language, so excuse me. Yes, like I said any people with a basic knowledge of biology will know that. If you had asked me for clarification instead of head-on smearing my credibility, I would have told you about the missing sperm tail. Anyway, it doesn't change anything in terms of the debate regarding whether a zygote is a human organism or not.

 

[Ontologuy]

The abortion debate - Carl Sagan <-- clicky

(there are multiple pages to read - sorry if it's too long for some)

I think Carl Sagan makes some extremely valid and highly intelligent points in this writing.

I love his points that "the right to life" only exists for human life, and only when we define it in terms we like. There are always exceptions to "the rule".

I love that he points out that each sperm and each egg is indeed "alive" - yet for many they are allowed to "die".

He mentions the hypocrisy among many "right-to-lifers" who also want to limit sex education and the availability of birth control.

There's some history of abortion in this piece, and the 4th (last) page is strikingly simple in it's scientific approach.

I know these abortion threads are highly emotional and will never change anyone's mind, but I also think Sagan knocks this out of the park.

The gist of the article is slanted toward extremist winger pro-choice ideology, and does not present the foundational scientific truth that a ZEF is a living human, alive as alive can be, and that that unconjectural scientific fact is supported by the hard sciences of anthropology, taxonomy, phylogeny, biology, genetics-DNA, organism-life, embryology, etc., a hard-science consensus that has existed for over 35 years and predates Sagan's and Druyan's propaganda piece.

Both Sagan and Druyan may have been great astronomers, but that's neither here nor there, and quite irrelevant to the aforementioned hard sciences that pronounced irrefutably on the topical matter.

When Sagan and Druyan stepped out of their field of expertise to write this paper, they simply revealed themsleves to be ideologues, allowing their idelogical mindset to corrupt their scientific integrity.

The OP mentions nothing that it's linked article was co-written by the less-famous Druyan, Sagan's wife .. and likely such was purposely admitted, not only to make people think it was all about the respected Sagan, but to distance itself from the ideologically extreme Druyan.

Indeed, if you read Druyan's link on Wiki, you'll see that she served on the board of directors of NORML -- National Organization for Reform of Mariguana Laws -- and indeed, they both were obviously smokin' something if they thought they could pull the wool over the eyes of the more intelligent and non-ideological.

Yes, their motivation for the article was not in seeking the truth, but simply to find another arena in which to do battle with their hated foe -- religion -- and to further champion their agnostic mental state whereby everything, even the most obvious realities, are put to sometimes ludicrous question for the sake of casting so much unjustified doubt about everything relevant that the reader begins to doubt even the scientifically axiomatically obvious. :roll:

As Druyan's Wiki link exemplifies, both were vary much anti-God, and though God and religion or the lack thereof has nothing to do with the scientific reality that a ZEF is a human, alive as alive can be, for Sagan and Druyan, it was all about doing battle with "The Church" .. to the point that they let their polarized animosity in that battle adversely influence their ability to seek, detect, and accept the relevant scientific reality in the matter.

Though the article's pretense is to allude to a balancing scale between pro-choice and pro-life, they clearly present any credence to the pro-life side apologetically, and erroneously with regard to pro-life being all-and-only about religion .. and they present the pro-choice side so absolutely obviously erroneouesly in much of their presentation, which they do so blatantly via appeal to 1) the pro-choice bigotry of ageism and 2) reflecting the typical extremist pro-choice psychopathological defense mechanisms, as follows:

1. The pro-choice bigotry of ageism: http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/130363-pro-choice-bigotry-ageism.html#post1060675136

Many pro-choicers arguing in favor of abortion, especially abortion on demand, cite a number of arbitrary conditions about the human being aborted that, to them, justify the abortion, the killing of that human.

Some of them say it doesn't yet look like a human (an arbitrary subjective and quite biased perspective, laughably so to an honest topically-relevant scientist) and that, to them, until it reaches an age growth stage that it does "look like" a human, justifies aborting that human, killing that human.

Some of them say that it can't yet feel anything, that it hasn't reached the age where its brain is sufficiently developed to feel pain, and that justifies aborting that human (also a challengeable assertion at certain growth stages, too).

Some of them say that if the human hasn't yet reached the growth stage where that human could survive outside the womb even with medical assistance, known as not having yet reached the age of "viability", that that justifies aborting, killing that human, on demand.

Some of them say that the prenatal human, alive as alive can be, has not yet reached the point in its growth of achieving the philosophical/religious status of a human "being", and though historically and contemporarily quite debatable, they say it simply hasn't been alive long enough to reach that status and that's an okay reason to justify aborting that human, to kill that human.

And some of them say that the prenatal human, alive as alive can be, has not yet reached the point in its life of achieving the social/legal status of being a "person", and though that too is quite debatable, with various statutes as well throughout our land stating either way, they may point to Roe v. Wade's declination to state on the matter and say it simply isn't old enough yet to be a person and that's an okay reason to justify aborting that human, to justify killing that human on demand.

And though there are other similar-categorized reasons pro-choicers give in addition to these, all of these perspectives have one categorical thing in common: they're obviously all about an appeal to the age of the living human under consideration of being aborted, of being killed, as that human not yet being old enough [insert age-growth-stage related excuse] not to be killed on demand.

2. Pro-choice psychopathological defense mechanisms: http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/126623-pro-choice-and-pro-life-psychology.html#post1060515662

Pro-choicers deny the biological organism reality that a human begins to live at conception. Despite the hard-science consensus of taxonomy, phylogeny, anthropology, biology, genetics-DNA, and organism-life sciences that's existed for over 35 years, pro-choicers present as if they are in denial about this scientific reality. Pro-choicers also deny other realities specific to abortion like the abortifacient nature of birth-control pills containing progestin, the adverse psychological-physiological side-effects always associated to some degree with abortion due to the reality of what abortion specifically is, and their advocating of abortion on demand can and has caused harm to women, the very people they idealize to support. They'll even deny they truly suffer defense mechanisms, fearing the revealed reality of it will cost them their ability to persuade others to their cause. Denial is a pathological-level defense mechanism characterized by refusal to accept external reality because it is too threatening; arguing against an anxiety-provoking stimulus by saying it doesn’t exist.

Pro-choicers distort the biological organism reality of a living human prenatal, misrepresenting via distortion that it's a mere clump of cells that isn’t human or alive, a blob, a fertilized egg no different from any other body-part/cell, not really alive unless it [has a heartbeat, a fully-functional brain, is viable, is born], etc. Distortion is a pathological-level defense mechanism characterized by a gross reshaping of external reality to meet internal needs, in this case, so that pro-choicers don’t have to face the reality that they freely support a procedure that kills humans at the early stages of their life.

Pro-choicers delusionally project that pro-lifers hate women and that their objection to abortion is a disguised misogynistic intent to do women harm. Delusional projection is a pathological-level defense mechanism characterized by such grossly frank delusions of external reality, usually of a persecutory nature.

Pro-choicer delusional projection can reflect splitting, where the pro-choicer sees the pro-lifer as innately evil, or where the pro-choicer sees anyone who isn’t a pro-choicer like them as being a pro-lifer and evil. Such splitting is a pathological-level defense mechanism where negative and positive impulses are split off and unintegrated. Those who have experienced/witnessed significant abuse are more prone to splitting.

Pro-choicers, especially in heated street-corner actions, project their own “negative” thoughts, feelings and impulses onto pro-lifers, calling pro-lifers names and altering their label to demean (“anti-choice”, “anti-woman”), accusing pro-lifers of distortions about the biological nature of prenatals, accusing pro-lifers of presenting delusionally, waxing irrational, etc. Projection is an immature level defense mechanism that is a primitive form of paranoia, characterized by an attempt to reduce one’s own anxiety about one’s own unacknowledged/unacceptable/unwanted thought-types and emotional states onto another.

Pro-choicers in relating with pro-lifers can displace onto pro-lifers in transference their aggressive impulses toward people of their personal past who they believe were harmful to the pro-choicer but unsafe to directly address, so the emotion towards that person gets displaced onto pro-lifers, falsely accusing pro-lifers of traits like misogyny, abusiveness, controlling, etc. that belong to the person in the pro-choicer’s past. This displacement is a neurotic-level defense mechanism characterized by the separation of emotion from the real object and redirecting it to someone less offensive or threatening in order to avoid dealing directly with what is more or too frightening or threatening.

Pro-choicers tend to intellectualize about what abortion is, abortion reasons, the associated terms, and to a digressive degree, often with appeal to science albeit with inaccurate/irrelevant reference, to avoid facing the emotionally difficult truth that abortion is the killing of a living human and has adverse psychological/physiological side-effects on the woman. Intellectualizing, a form of isolation, is a neurotic-level defense mechanism characterized by concentrating on the intellectual components of a situation so as to distance oneself from the associated anxiety-provoking emotions. The highly educated/academicians are more prone to this.

Pro-choicers tend to rationalize justification for abortion as “okay” with faulty appeal to irrelevant unsound reasoning like impoverished/unwanted children become criminals, careers are ruined if abortion doesn’t occur, a woman’s normal immune system reaction “means” pregnancy shouldn’t occur or is “unnatural”, pregnancy could become very challenging, something specifically unpredictably bad might [unlikely] occur during pregnancy, it’s too hard on single mothers to be parents, men who want their partner to abort won’t pay child support, etc. Rationalizing (making excuses) is a neurotic-level defense mechanism characterized by convincing oneself that no wrong was done or that all is or was all right through faulty and false reasoning, often exemplified by the formation of convenient excuses.

These are just some of the pro-choice defense mechanisms.

Sagan was a great astronomer, but like sadly so many people when they achieve a little mainstream media fame, they sacrifice their profesional integrity on the altar of extremist politics, simply for pandering benefit of their projects.

Druyan, well, she was simply extremist from the get-go.

 

[choiceone]

DNA alone determines your whole make-up. Whether you are going to be a virus, a bacterium, a plant, an insect, an animal or a human being, it all comes down to DNA. Without DNA you are nothing.

Despite your clone example, DNA is not everything. If a mammalian blastocyst is grown in a petri dish, the longest it survives appears to be a doubling of its pre-implantation lifespan if fed with a supernutrient. For a human embryo, that would be maximum 16-20 days. So the very continuation of life of a human embryo is not a result of its DNA.

DNA does not uniquely determine phenotypic sex, because the hormonal environment in the uterus during the differentiation of sex organs from the seventh week can, in some cases, produce phenotypic males from genotypic females and phenotypic females from genotypic males. The sex of a fetus and the sex of a newborn are usually decided by phenotypic appearance, not a DNA test, and this can result (and has resulted) in ignorance of the genotypic sex of a child for years, so that the child is raised on the basis of phenotypic attribution.

DNA does not uniquely determine whether and where a blastocyst implants, whether an embryo is sufficiently incompatible with its environment to fail to develop properly, and a host of other things.

The fetuses of pregnant women who took the drug thalidomide were born with many defects - failure to develop limbs, malformation of genitals and kidneys, and many other effects.
Aspartame (in artificial sweeteners and even corn oil) and MSG can cause brain damage in fetal development resulting in newborns with mental retardation, cerebral palsy, autism, brain tumors, ADD, etc. Aspartame can damage the DNA of a fetus permanently.
Even one dose of certain cough medicines taken by a pregnant woman can cause birth defects and/or fetal death.
The mercury in silver amalgam dental fillings and some fish or even a flu shot could cause mercury toxicity in a fetus and permanent neurological problems.
Flouride, especially when combined with aluminum, even from heating flouridated water in aluminum pans, can if imbibed by a pregnant woman can affect fetal development so as to cause lower IQ and increases the risk of Down syndrome.
Too many ultrasounds are associated with fetal development of brain damage.

And various ordinary foods, unripe papaya and caffeine-rich drinks, for example, can cause miscarriages.

All that is just stuff a woman can put into herself that can affect the embryo/fetus in fundamental ways. Her own body also has distinctive chemical characteristics, and if you imagine they cannot affect the embryo/fetus in fundamental ways, you're crazy.

So your overemphasis on DNA results in your ignoring a tremendous set of factors which interact with and in some cases even permanently damage embryonic/fetal DNA itself. Do you think a woman's body is a passive sanitary container? Put a human zygote in a petri dish and it will die before it develops various basic human phenotypic characteristics.

Isn't that the reason why everyone wants to force women to gestate embryos/fetuses instead of just asking if it's okay to remove blastocysts before they implant?

 

[choiceone]

I'm not a native speaker of English language, so excuse me. Yes, like I said any people with a basic knowledge of biology will know that. If you had asked me for clarification instead of head-on smearing my credibility, I would have told you about the missing sperm tail. Anyway, it doesn't change anything in terms of the debate regarding whether a zygote is a human organism or not.

That's okay - hope my explanation helped.

 

[ksu_aviator]

That's not Carl Sagan's work. Just an FYI.

It was written by Ann Druyan who used quotes from Carl Sagan's last book. This article was written in 1997, one year after Carl Sagan died.

 

[dolphinocean]

Despite your clone example, DNA is not everything. If a mammalian blastocyst is grown in a petri dish, the longest it survives appears to be a doubling of its pre-implantation lifespan if fed with a supernutrient. For a human embryo, that would be maximum 16-20 days. So the very continuation of life of a human embryo is not a result of its DNA.

DNA does not uniquely determine phenotypic sex, because the hormonal environment in the uterus during the differentiation of sex organs from the seventh week can, in some cases, produce phenotypic males from genotypic females and phenotypic females from genotypic males. The sex of a fetus and the sex of a newborn are usually decided by phenotypic appearance, not a DNA test, and this can result (and has resulted) in ignorance of the genotypic sex of a child for years, so that the child is raised on the basis of phenotypic attribution.

DNA does not uniquely determine whether and where a blastocyst implants, whether an embryo is sufficiently incompatible with its environment to fail to develop properly, and a host of other things.

The fetuses of pregnant women who took the drug thalidomide were born with many defects - failure to develop limbs, malformation of genitals and kidneys, and many other effects.
Aspartame (in artificial sweeteners and even corn oil) and MSG can cause brain damage in fetal development resulting in newborns with mental retardation, cerebral palsy, autism, brain tumors, ADD, etc. Aspartame can damage the DNA of a fetus permanently.
Even one dose of certain cough medicines taken by a pregnant woman can cause birth defects and/or fetal death.
The mercury in silver amalgam dental fillings and some fish or even a flu shot could cause mercury toxicity in a fetus and permanent neurological problems.
Flouride, especially when combined with aluminum, even from heating flouridated water in aluminum pans, can if imbibed by a pregnant woman can affect fetal development so as to cause lower IQ and increases the risk of Down syndrome.
Too many ultrasounds are associated with fetal development of brain damage.

And various ordinary foods, unripe papaya and caffeine-rich drinks, for example, can cause miscarriages.

All that is just stuff a woman can put into herself that can affect the embryo/fetus in fundamental ways. Her own body also has distinctive chemical characteristics, and if you imagine they cannot affect the embryo/fetus in fundamental ways, you're crazy.

So your overemphasis on DNA results in your ignoring a tremendous set of factors which interact with and in some cases even permanently damage embryonic/fetal DNA itself. Do you think a woman's body is a passive sanitary container? Put a human zygote in a petri dish and it will die before it develops various basic human phenotypic characteristics.

Isn't that the reason why everyone wants to force women to gestate embryos/fetuses instead of just asking if it's okay to remove blastocysts before they implant?

But you are obviously wrong.

Petri dish isn't exactly the natural environment for gestating a baby. Not even close. Feeding it with a supernutrient isn't going to cut the mustard. It is always going to be either overfeeding certain nutrients which could become toxic or undernourishing or complete lacking in one essential nutrient or the other. Homeostatic regulation of pH and temperature and homonal balance are another missing equation. In essence, there is no mutual regulations and feed back of any kind in the petri dish as in the case between the gestating mother and the baby.


Beside the problem of space for growth and development as found in the elastic expansion of the uterine wall and the amniotic sac to accomodate development, as the embryo grows in size it needs a system such as a placenta to bring in not only the nutrients but also the oxygen it needs for further development as it begins to differentiate into tissues and organs. But, most importantly it has to have a way to get rid of its own wastes. Otherwise, it is going to die in its own waste as is what happened in the petri dish.

So, therefore, you are confusing the environment's shortfall for faulting the DNA.

You said: "... the very continuation of life of a human embryo is not a result of its DNA." But again you are completely wrong.

The fact is, not only the very continuation of life of a human embryo is the result of DNA expression, but also the very continuaiton of life and our thought processes and motor movement throughout all human lifespan and development from conception to adulthood to the moment of death is the result of our DNA expression.

You see, everytime you think, your brain cells have to unzip a portion of your DNA to transcribe the pertinent genes into RNA in order to translate it into amino acid sequence to form a protein to act as a neurotransmitter. And everytime you move your muscles for heartbeat, for breathing, for eating, for walking to get something to eat, your neurons have to go to your DNA to get the genetic instruction on how to assemble the right amino acid sequence to form the appropriote neurotransmitters to get the muscles to do what they are called to do for your very survival.

Even when you eat, the cells in your digestive tract have to produce various complex enzymes and acids to breakdown the foods you eat to get to the nutrients. What are enzymes? They are proteins that build or break down molecules for your body to build itself and perform all the physiologic and metabolic functions. Even your eyes and ears need depend constantly on the genetic instructions contained in your DNA for them to see and hear things around you.


Just about everything you do, including the ability to reproduce into the next generation involve your DNA. Take away all the DNA from every cells of your body and you will be dead immediately. So, you see, ignorance is a bliss. But, do count your blessings that come in so many way without you knowing it.

You are wrong when you said: "DNA does not uniquely determine phenotypic sex".

Nothing in the body isn't regulated by DNA. Every metabolic and endocrine functions are regulated by DNA through the feedback system. What you just described regarding development of "phenotypic males from genotypic females" is exactly the example of DNA determining phenotypic sex.

In the above situation, the DNA of a genotypic females could have a genetic error caused by a mutation that renders a key enzyme called aromatase that convert Androstenedione and Testosterone into Estrone and Estradiol. Without the key enzyme, Estrogen is not produced and thus the fetus ended up with the male sex hormones which are the default hormones.

The result is the phenotypic males of a genotypic females. In some situation, a minor genetic mutation in the DNA can cause fatal harm then just altering your phenotypic gender expression. So, you see how important your DNA is?

The rest of your argument about mercury, the thalidomide drugs, Down syndrowns are simply the same, i.e. damage from environment that damaged the DNA. Which goes to show you how extremely important DNA is that make you what you are, who you are and how you look like. As you can see, children who were born to women who took the thalidomide drugs were deformed without arms and legs. To you pro-abortion folks, if it ain't look exactly like a fully formed human being then it ain't a human being. So, what are you complaining about if you don't believe DNA is all that contributed to what you are and who you are?

So all you did was pointing out all the damaging environmental factors that damaged the DNA that resulted in all the problems your outlined. But, somehow you failed to see that your own argument highlighted the tremendous importance of DNA that shape our body and our life.

And for you to say I have overemphasized on DNA is an understatement. Nobody can overemphasize the role of DNA and how important it is because there are tremendous amount of biochemical roles our DNA caused to perform, maintain and regulate in our body after it has caused the body to be built from ground zero up at conception. Even now, no scientist has completely uncovered all the roles and functions DNA does for our body and our life.

Be happy you don't have to know it all about how your body work microscopically in every detail in order to regulate your own body. Afterall, DNA does it for you as you breathe and as you sleep to keep everything together in good order, even down to regulating your blood sugar. But, don't fault DNA if man-made environmental agents caused it to malfunction. Until then, you will never appreciate what good life you have.

Meantime, you will condemn another class of human beings as dispensable simply because they happened to reside in their mothers' wombs for the time being as you yourself did the same once before.

 

[jwzg]

Well, I think if the woman (and man) had exercised control over their bodies BEFORE the fact, then the unborn wouldn't have to pay the ultimate penalty. I just want people to be responsible and accountable for their actions.

Nothing hypocritical about being pro life and pro capital punishment. Its about accountability and responsibility. Any other argument is just a distraction from the real issues.

And what effect or effects have abortions had on human population regardless of the reason for an abortion?

And I can clearly guess what crimes would be committed against women, who now, by law, have the right to maintain control over their bodies and reproductive system, if you and others who share your beliefs regarding abortion, had legal control over women as you'd wish.

Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express

 

[nota bene]

But you are obviously wrong.

Petri dish isn't exactly the natural environment for gestating a baby. Not even close. Feeding it with a supernutrient isn't going to cut the mustard. It is always going to be either overfeeding certain nutrients which could become toxic or undernourishing or complete lacking in one essential nutrient or the other. Homeostatic regulation of pH and temperature and homonal balance are another missing equation. In essence, there is no mutual regulations and feed back of any kind in the petri dish as in the case between the gestating mother and the baby.


Beside the problem of space for growth and development as found in the elastic expansion of the uterine wall and the amniotic sac to accomodate development, as the embryo grows in size it needs a system such as a placenta to bring in not only the nutrients but also the oxygen it needs for further development as it begins to differentiate into tissues and organs. But, most importantly it has to have a way to get rid of its own wastes. Otherwise, it is going to die in its own waste as is what happened in the petri dish.

So, therefore, you are confusing the environment's shortfall for faulting the DNA.

You said: "... the very continuation of life of a human embryo is not a result of its DNA." But again you are completely wrong.

The fact is, not only the very continuation of life of a human embryo is the result of DNA expression, but also the very continuaiton of life and our thought processes and motor movement throughout all human lifespan and development from conception to adulthood to the moment of death is the result of our DNA expression.

You see, everytime you think, your brain cells have to unzip a portion of your DNA to transcribe the pertinent genes into RNA in order to translate it into amino acid sequence to form a protein to act as a neurotransmitter. And everytime you move your muscles for heartbeat, for breathing, for eating, for walking to get something to eat, your neurons have to go to your DNA to get the genetic instruction on how to assemble the right amino acid sequence to form the appropriote neurotransmitters to get the muscles to do what they are called to do for your very survival.

Even when you eat, the cells in your digestive tract have to produce various complex enzymes and acids to breakdown the foods you eat to get to the nutrients. What are enzymes? They are proteins that build or break down molecules for your body to build itself and perform all the physiologic and metabolic functions. Even your eyes and ears need depend constantly on the genetic instructions contained in your DNA for them to see and hear things around you.


Just about everything you do, including the ability to reproduce into the next generation involve your DNA. Take away all the DNA from every cells of your body and you will be dead immediately. So, you see, ignorance is a bliss. But, do count your blessings that come in so many way without you knowing it.

You are wrong when you said: "DNA does not uniquely determine phenotypic sex".

Nothing in the body isn't regulated by DNA. Every metabolic and endocrine functions are regulated by DNA through the feedback system. What you just described regarding development of "phenotypic males from genotypic females" is exactly the example of DNA determining phenotypic sex.

In the above situation, the DNA of a genotypic females could have a genetic error caused by a mutation that renders a key enzyme called aromatase that convert Androstenedione and Testosterone into Estrone and Estradiol. Without the key enzyme, Estrogen is not produced and thus the fetus ended up with the male sex hormones which are the default hormones.

The result is the phenotypic males of a genotypic females. In some situation, a minor genetic mutation in the DNA can cause fatal harm then just altering your phenotypic gender expression. So, you see how important your DNA is?

The rest of your argument about mercury, the thalidomide drugs, Down syndrowns are simply the same, i.e. damage from environment that damaged the DNA. Which goes to show you how extremely important DNA is that make you what you are, who you are and how you look like. As you can see, children who were born to women who took the thalidomide drugs were deformed without arms and legs. To you pro-abortion folks, if it ain't look exactly like a fully formed human being then it ain't a human being. So, what are you complaining about if you don't believe DNA is all that contributed to what you are and who you are?

So all you did was pointing out all the damaging environmental factors that damaged the DNA that resulted in all the problems your outlined. But, somehow you failed to see that your own argument highlighted the tremendous importance of DNA that shape our body and our life.

And for you to say I have overemphasized on DNA is an understatement. Nobody can overemphasize the role of DNA and how important it is because there are tremendous amount of biochemical roles our DNA caused to perform, maintain and regulate in our body after it has caused the body to be built from ground zero up at conception. Even now, no scientist has completely uncovered all the roles and functions DNA does for our body and our life.

Be happy you don't have to know it all about how your body work microscopically in every detail in order to regulate your own body. Afterall, DNA does it for you as you breathe and as you sleep to keep everything together in good order, even down to regulating your blood sugar. But, don't fault DNA if man-made environmental agents caused it to malfunction. Until then, you will never appreciate what good life you have.

Meantime, you will condemn another class of human beings as dispensable simply because they happened to reside in their mothers' wombs for the time being as you yourself did the same once before.

Wow.

Thank you.

 

[jwzg]

Incredibly well written.

But you are obviously wrong.

Petri dish isn't exactly the natural environment for gestating a baby. Not even close. Feeding it with a supernutrient isn't going to cut the mustard. It is always going to be either overfeeding certain nutrients which could become toxic or undernourishing or complete lacking in one essential nutrient or the other. Homeostatic regulation of pH and temperature and homonal balance are another missing equation. In essence, there is no mutual regulations and feed back of any kind in the petri dish as in the case between the gestating mother and the baby.


Beside the problem of space for growth and development as found in the elastic expansion of the uterine wall and the amniotic sac to accomodate development, as the embryo grows in size it needs a system such as a placenta to bring in not only the nutrients but also the oxygen it needs for further development as it begins to differentiate into tissues and organs. But, most importantly it has to have a way to get rid of its own wastes. Otherwise, it is going to die in its own waste as is what happened in the petri dish.

So, therefore, you are confusing the environment's shortfall for faulting the DNA.

You said: "... the very continuation of life of a human embryo is not a result of its DNA." But again you are completely wrong.

The fact is, not only the very continuation of life of a human embryo is the result of DNA expression, but also the very continuaiton of life and our thought processes and motor movement throughout all human lifespan and development from conception to adulthood to the moment of death is the result of our DNA expression.

You see, everytime you think, your brain cells have to unzip a portion of your DNA to transcribe the pertinent genes into RNA in order to translate it into amino acid sequence to form a protein to act as a neurotransmitter. And everytime you move your muscles for heartbeat, for breathing, for eating, for walking to get something to eat, your neurons have to go to your DNA to get the genetic instruction on how to assemble the right amino acid sequence to form the appropriote neurotransmitters to get the muscles to do what they are called to do for your very survival.

Even when you eat, the cells in your digestive tract have to produce various complex enzymes and acids to breakdown the foods you eat to get to the nutrients. What are enzymes? They are proteins that build or break down molecules for your body to build itself and perform all the physiologic and metabolic functions. Even your eyes and ears need depend constantly on the genetic instructions contained in your DNA for them to see and hear things around you.


Just about everything you do, including the ability to reproduce into the next generation involve your DNA. Take away all the DNA from every cells of your body and you will be dead immediately. So, you see, ignorance is a bliss. But, do count your blessings that come in so many way without you knowing it.

You are wrong when you said: "DNA does not uniquely determine phenotypic sex".

Nothing in the body isn't regulated by DNA. Every metabolic and endocrine functions are regulated by DNA through the feedback system. What you just described regarding development of "phenotypic males from genotypic females" is exactly the example of DNA determining phenotypic sex.

In the above situation, the DNA of a genotypic females could have a genetic error caused by a mutation that renders a key enzyme called aromatase that convert Androstenedione and Testosterone into Estrone and Estradiol. Without the key enzyme, Estrogen is not produced and thus the fetus ended up with the male sex hormones which are the default hormones.

The result is the phenotypic males of a genotypic females. In some situation, a minor genetic mutation in the DNA can cause fatal harm then just altering your phenotypic gender expression. So, you see how important your DNA is?

The rest of your argument about mercury, the thalidomide drugs, Down syndrowns are simply the same, i.e. damage from environment that damaged the DNA. Which goes to show you how extremely important DNA is that make you what you are, who you are and how you look like. As you can see, children who were born to women who took the thalidomide drugs were deformed without arms and legs. To you pro-abortion folks, if it ain't look exactly like a fully formed human being then it ain't a human being. So, what are you complaining about if you don't believe DNA is all that contributed to what you are and who you are?

So all you did was pointing out all the damaging environmental factors that damaged the DNA that resulted in all the problems your outlined. But, somehow you failed to see that your own argument highlighted the tremendous importance of DNA that shape our body and our life.

And for you to say I have overemphasized on DNA is an understatement. Nobody can overemphasize the role of DNA and how important it is because there are tremendous amount of biochemical roles our DNA caused to perform, maintain and regulate in our body after it has caused the body to be built from ground zero up at conception. Even now, no scientist has completely uncovered all the roles and functions DNA does for our body and our life.

Be happy you don't have to know it all about how your body work microscopically in every detail in order to regulate your own body. Afterall, DNA does it for you as you breathe and as you sleep to keep everything together in good order, even down to regulating your blood sugar. But, don't fault DNA if man-made environmental agents caused it to malfunction. Until then, you will never appreciate what good life you have.

Meantime, you will condemn another class of human beings as dispensable simply because they happened to reside in their mothers' wombs for the time being as you yourself did the same once before.

Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express

 

[AGENT J]

until theres a way to magically make abortion only about ONE life pro-choice with limits will always be the only factual way to be the most fair and equal. Since there are TWO lives involved and its impossible to be equal to them being mostly pro-life with a few or no exceptions or being pro-choice with no limits simply ignores one of the lifes in a dramatic fashion.

 

[jwzg]

Safe, legal but VERY rare.
Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express

 

[AGENT J]

Safe, legal but VERY rare.
Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express

how much more rare could it be, percentage wise its already extremely rare

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

until theres a way to magically make abortion only about ONE life pro-choice with limits will always be the only factual way to be the most fair and equal. Since there are TWO lives involved and its impossible to be equal to them being mostly pro-life with a few or no exceptions or being pro-choice with no limits simply ignores one of the lifes in a dramatic fashion.

The people into the worship of hardcore specieism are blind and it will fall apart in the long run

Once they make wombs that can support their prize they want women won't need to be involved in reproduction anymore.

 

[JayDubya]

Actually, I think the greatest hypocrisy of those against abortion is that they are also for the death penalty and against universal healthcare.

This illustrates how they are not so much "pro-life" as they are "anti-choice".

What an absurd statement.

One does not have to hold the natural human right to property in contempt to hold the natural human right to life in esteem. The natural right to life does not oblige socialism, does not oblige that everyone be forced to pay for a service you request for yourself.

One does not demonstrate a lack of esteem for a natural human right to life by saying that those who aggressively violate the right to life of others - murderers - should be put to death. I do not personally agree with the use of the death penalty, but it has no relevance - none - to the abortion debate.


Neither of these tangents belong in this subforum.

 

[jwzg]

What an absurd statement.

One does not have to hold the natural human right to property in contempt to hold the natural human right to life in esteem. The natural right to life does not oblige socialism, does not oblige that everyone be forced to pay for a service you request for yourself.

One does not demonstrate a lack of esteem for a natural human right to life by saying that those who aggressively violate the right to life of others - murderers - should be put to death. I do not personally agree with the use of the death penalty, but it has no relevance - none - to the abortion debate.


Neither of these tangents belong in this subforum.

Make the guilty innocent and the innocent guilty. Good for evil and evil for good. Typical postmodern garbage.

 

[jwzg]

how much more rare could it be, percentage wise its already extremely rare

The rate is 234 medical (surgical) abortions per 1000 live births. Somewhere around 16% of all pregnancies end in medical abortion. That ain't rare.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Make the guilty innocent and the innocent guilty. Good for evil and evil for good. Typical postmodern garbage.

It's how it works to make killing other humans better we label what is ''innocent'' and what is ''guilty''

 

[iguanaman]

Actually, I think the greatest hypocrisy of those against abortion is that they are also for the death penalty and against universal healthcare.

This illustrates how they are not so much "pro-life" as they are "anti-choice".

Or pro-illegal abortions. More abortions happen in countries that ban it.

 

[minnie616]

The rate is 234 medical (surgical) abortions per 1000 live births. Somewhere around 16% of all pregnancies end in medical abortion. That ain't rare.

The rate of abortions and live births is not a true perspective on how rare abortion is.

The rate of both unwanted pregnancies and induced abortions have fallen dramatically since 1990.

Something quite remarkable has happened to teenage pregnancy rates in the past few years. They’ve reached a three-decade low, down by 40 percent since 1990. Teen births and abortions also have fallen respectively by one-third and one-half.

Preventing unwanted pregnancies: Forget sex ed and compare the pill to IUDs. - Slate Magazine

 

[jwzg]

16% still isn't rare whether the number is rising or falling.