On Friday, June 24, a federal court temporarily suspended portions of Indiana’s House Bill 1210, which contained a provision aimed at defunding abortionist organizations, like Planned Parenthood, within the state. And although this suspension was disappointing, other aspects of the court’s decision were a boon for pro-life groups in Indiana and the whole nation. The reason is because the court upheld a key portion of the bill that requires women seeking abortions to be informed that “human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm.”
First of all, a state can place any language it wishes into law. Secondly, the state mandated phrase...“human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm.” to be recited to a woman prior to her legally terminating her pregancy...in no way restricts her right to the abortion nor establishes in any forum that life begins at conception.link: Federal Court affirms "human physical life" begins at conception - Page 1 - Steven Aden - Townhall Conservative
Wow, the tide may be changing in favor of the defenseless once again.
Tim-
First of all, a state can place any language it wishes into law. Secondly, the state mandated phrase...“human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm.” to be recited to a woman prior to her legally terminating her pregancy...in no way restricts her right to the abortion nor establishes in any forum that life begins at conception.
Of course not. Science dictated that a long time ago.Originally Posted by 1751Texan
First of all, a state can place any language it wishes into law. Secondly, the state mandated phrase...“human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm.” to be recited to a woman prior to her legally terminating her pregancy...in no way restricts her right to the abortion nor establishes in any forum that life begins at conception.
"Science" is not in agreement, so even IF "science" had the authority to proclaim "what is life", there would still be disagreement.
Inconsistancy in the “life begins at conception” argument « Human Enhancement and Biopolitics
The view that human life begins at conception is a favoured view of most of the pro-life camp. By it, they do not mean that the sperm and ova were not alive and only became so at conception, but rather that ‘human life’ – in the special sense of a person who deserves protection under the law – begins at conception. Unfortunately for them, this view is logically inconsistent with that pesky thing called reality. There is absolutely no sense in which life, whatever is meant by the term, could be said to commence during the process of conception......
It is often claimed that conception should be the marker for a human life because it marks the formation of something that can grow into a thinking, feeling, reasoning human being. Apart from the fact that conception is not a distinct point, but a process, this potentiality argument has two key problems.
First, if a zygote should be protected because it can from a human being, why not also protect the sperm and eggs, for they can form a zygote which in turn can form a human being. And seeing as males can form billions of sperm but females only form thousands of ova, it follows that males are a million times more worthy of protection than females. But seeing as this conclusion is ludicrous, there must be something wrong with the potentiality argument.
The second, a major flaw, is that being potentially something isn’t the same as being something already. To see this, consider extrapolating the potential argument in the other direction: all human beings will die. And, seeing as a zygote will form a human being who will later form a corpse, it follows that we should treat both people and zygotes as if they were corpses. If we can give the right to life for an unborn baby, maybe we should give the right to a decent burial for a pre-dead corpse (i.e. a live baby). Not to mention that skin cells can replace sperm in forming a human being (see the cloning diagram above), so it follows that each skin cell destroyed is akin to destroying a human being. Unless, of course, having the potential to
"Science" is not in agreement, so even IF "science" had the authority to proclaim "what is life", there would still be disagreement.
There is your reality and the law. Currently the law allows abortions until viability[24weeks], abortions under strict conditions and regulations after 24 wks.Disagreement is fine. Clearly you do not agree. Well, problem is that we have that pesky little thing called reality on our side of the debate as well.
Tim-
"Science" is not in agreement, so even IF "science" had the authority to proclaim "what is life", there would still be disagreement.
Inconsistancy in the “life begins at conception” argument « Human Enhancement and Biopolitics
The view that human life begins at conception is a favoured view of most of the pro-life camp. By it, they do not mean that the sperm and ova were not alive and only became so at conception, but rather that ‘human life’ – in the special sense of a person who deserves protection under the law – begins at conception. Unfortunately for them, this view is logically inconsistent with that pesky thing called reality. There is absolutely no sense in which life, whatever is meant by the term, could be said to commence during the process of conception......
It is often claimed that conception should be the marker for a human life because it marks the formation of something that can grow into a thinking, feeling, reasoning human being. Apart from the fact that conception is not a distinct point, but a process, this potentiality argument has two key problems.
First, if a zygote should be protected because it can from a human being, why not also protect the sperm and eggs, for they can form a zygote which in turn can form a human being. And seeing as males can form billions of sperm but females only form thousands of ova, it follows that males are a million times more worthy of protection than females. But seeing as this conclusion is ludicrous, there must be something wrong with the potentiality argument.
The second, a major flaw, is that being potentially something isn’t the same as being something already. To see this, consider extrapolating the potential argument in the other direction: all human beings will die. And, seeing as a zygote will form a human being who will later form a corpse, it follows that we should treat both people and zygotes as if they were corpses. If we can give the right to life for an unborn baby, maybe we should give the right to a decent burial for a pre-dead corpse (i.e. a live baby). Not to mention that skin cells can replace sperm in forming a human being (see the cloning diagram above), so it follows that each skin cell destroyed is akin to destroying a human being. Unless, of course, having the potential to
There is your reality and the law. Currently the law allows abortions until viability[24weeks], abortions under strict conditions and regulations after 24 wks.
There is your reality and the law. Currently the law allows abortions until viability[24weeks], abortions under strict conditions and regulations after 24 wks.
link: Federal Court affirms "human physical life" begins at conception - Page 1 - Steven Aden - Townhall Conservative
Wow, the tide may be changing in favor of the defenseless once again.
Tim-
Science is in agreement. Please quote one scientist who doesn't believe that when egg and sperm fuse that their chromosomes don't mix to form a full human genome that is unique. Biology is a discipline of science. Biology is the study of life. Biologically, a fertilized egg is a new human life and conception is when this new life begins. This is scientific fact."Science" is not in agreement, so even IF "science" had the authority to proclaim "what is life", there would still be disagreement.
Science is in agreement. Please quote one scientist who doesn't believe that when egg and sperm fuse that their chromosomes don't mix to form a full human genome that is unique. Biology is a discipline of science. Biology is the study of life. Biologically, a fertilized egg is a new human life and conception is when this new life begins. This is scientific fact.
All true except....this is not NEW life.
Life does not begin at conception » Ziztur.com: Finding joy in being wrong
let’s restate the obvoius: Life does not begin at conception. Conception, in us sexually reproducing animals, consists of the fusion of gametes—the sperm fertilises the ovum. But, and this should be painfully obvious to everyone, the gametes are alive. You are the product of a living spermatozoon and a living ovum. Fertilisation did not mark the creation of life, only the fusion of two living cells into a single living cell.
This fusion is certainly a defining moment in your life. Barring mutation so unlikely that I expect it can be discounted, and excepting rare conditions like chimerism and mosaicism, it is the last event that defines your genetic makeup, when the chromosomes you inherit from your parents merge. It is, in a very real sense, a defining moment. It is not, however, the defining moment, because there are many.....
What, then, is so magical about conception? Nothing, really. It’s a defining moment in making you who you are, but it’s really just one of billions upon billions of defining moments. Causing the death of a zygote does exactly as much in preventing a particular potential person from coming about as does causing the death of a spermatozoon (e.g. by masturbating, by ejaculating outside a woman, by using a condom, or by doing nothing and letting the spermatozoon die and get reabsorbed into the body); as does wasting the life of an ovum (by menstruating, in the luteal or ischemic phase). But removing the possibility of a specific human being is even more ubiquitous; after all, every human alive represents millions of potential people lost, as the ones produced by the spermatozoa who lost the race would undoubtedly have been different.
"Science" is not in agreement, so even IF "science" had the authority to proclaim "what is life", there would still be disagreement.
Inconsistancy in the life begins at conception argument « Human Enhancement and Biopolitics
The view that human life begins at conception is a favoured view of most of the pro-life camp. By it, they do not mean that the sperm and ova were not alive and only became so at conception, but rather that human life in the special sense of a person who deserves protection under the law begins at conception. Unfortunately for them, this view is logically inconsistent with that pesky thing called reality. There is absolutely no sense in which life, whatever is meant by the term, could be said to commence during the process of conception......
It is often claimed that conception should be the marker for a human life because it marks the formation of something that can grow into a thinking, feeling, reasoning human being. Apart from the fact that conception is not a distinct point, but a process, this potentiality argument has two key problems.
First, if a zygote should be protected because it can from a human being, why not also protect the sperm and eggs, for they can form a zygote which in turn can form a human being. And seeing as males can form billions of sperm but females only form thousands of ova, it follows that males are a million times more worthy of protection than females. But seeing as this conclusion is ludicrous, there must be something wrong with the potentiality argument.
The second, a major flaw, is that being potentially something isnt the same as being something already. To see this, consider extrapolating the potential argument in the other direction: all human beings will die. And, seeing as a zygote will form a human being who will later form a corpse, it follows that we should treat both people and zygotes as if they were corpses. If we can give the right to life for an unborn baby, maybe we should give the right to a decent burial for a pre-dead corpse (i.e. a live baby). Not to mention that skin cells can replace sperm in forming a human being (see the cloning diagram above), so it follows that each skin cell destroyed is akin to destroying a human being. Unless, of course, having the potential to
Oh look, I need this once again:
All true except....this is not NEW life.
Life does not begin at conception » Ziztur.com: Finding joy in being wrong
let’s restate the obvoius: Life does not begin at conception. Conception, in us sexually reproducing animals, consists of the fusion of gametes—the sperm fertilises the ovum. But, and this should be painfully obvious to everyone, the gametes are alive. You are the product of a living spermatozoon and a living ovum. Fertilisation did not mark the creation of life, only the fusion of two living cells into a single living cell.
This fusion is certainly a defining moment in your life. Barring mutation so unlikely that I expect it can be discounted, and excepting rare conditions like chimerism and mosaicism, it is the last event that defines your genetic makeup, when the chromosomes you inherit from your parents merge. It is, in a very real sense, a defining moment. It is not, however, the defining moment, because there are many.....
What, then, is so magical about conception? Nothing, really. It’s a defining moment in making you who you are, but it’s really just one of billions upon billions of defining moments. Causing the death of a zygote does exactly as much in preventing a particular potential person from coming about as does causing the death of a spermatozoon (e.g. by masturbating, by ejaculating outside a woman, by using a condom, or by doing nothing and letting the spermatozoon die and get reabsorbed into the body); as does wasting the life of an ovum (by menstruating, in the luteal or ischemic phase). But removing the possibility of a specific human being is even more ubiquitous; after all, every human alive represents millions of potential people lost, as the ones produced by the spermatozoa who lost the race would undoubtedly have been different.
All true except....this is not NEW life.
Life does not begin at conception » Ziztur.com: Finding joy in being wrong
lets restate the obvoius: Life does not begin at conception. Conception, in us sexually reproducing animals, consists of the fusion of gametesthe sperm fertilises the ovum. But, and this should be painfully obvious to everyone, the gametes are alive. You are the product of a living spermatozoon and a living ovum. Fertilisation did not mark the creation of life, only the fusion of two living cells into a single living cell.
This fusion is certainly a defining moment in your life. Barring mutation so unlikely that I expect it can be discounted, and excepting rare conditions like chimerism and mosaicism, it is the last event that defines your genetic makeup, when the chromosomes you inherit from your parents merge. It is, in a very real sense, a defining moment. It is not, however, the defining moment, because there are many.....
What, then, is so magical about conception? Nothing, really. Its a defining moment in making you who you are, but its really just one of billions upon billions of defining moments. Causing the death of a zygote does exactly as much in preventing a particular potential person from coming about as does causing the death of a spermatozoon (e.g. by masturbating, by ejaculating outside a woman, by using a condom, or by doing nothing and letting the spermatozoon die and get reabsorbed into the body); as does wasting the life of an ovum (by menstruating, in the luteal or ischemic phase). But removing the possibility of a specific human being is even more ubiquitous; after all, every human alive represents millions of potential people lost, as the ones produced by the spermatozoa who lost the race would undoubtedly have been different.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?