Stopping abortion the correct way

[weaver2]

See....you think that is word salad...and I think you just proved you havent a ****ing clue what was decided regarding insurance and contraception.

I know exactly what was meant regarding insurance and contraceptives. Let me translate your atrocity of religious propaganda in which you said:: "Even in cases where contraceptives were 'limited' the (sic) were only limited in the realm of abortion causing preventative measures."

The truth is that the maliciously religious have declared all the most effective contraceptives that women control to be abortifacients. They have taken to court the government health insurance plan requirement to provide contraceptives that women control and privately held companies no longer have to provide anything they personally deem to be an abortifacient.

They are currently working on taking a case to court to allow publicly held corporations to do the same. Federal aid to working women no longer includes the women's contraceptives that the religious right has decided to call abortifacients. They are currently in the process of tying the banning of women's contraceptives to foreign aid.

The goal is ultimately to deny women control of contraception and ban abortion.

 

[weaver2]

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

Life doesn't begin with fertilization. And egg and a sperm are both living tissues. They are alive. What begins at fertilization is the potential for a new plant or animal not new life.

 

[The Work Outing]

On this topic, that question is irrelevant because everyone is required to learn it in middle or high school. It only applies to religion and we are talking about mammalian biology.

Irrelevant to you - probably because you know you cannot answer it to your satisfaction.

I take your answer to mean exactly that.

This is a long list of biologically accurate statements by experts who specialize in the subject:

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

So...'no'.

I said scientific proof.
Not opinions from people.
Opinions are NOT proof.

Thank you.


Good day.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I said scientific proof. Not opinions from people. Opinions are NOT proof.

There is no reason to think for one second those statements are opinions. It is extremely obvious all of them are scientifically proven facts. You already knew that if you have a high school diploma.

If you are not going to accept that link as scientific proof, you will not accept any images, videos, or other media as scientific proof either and I would be wasting my time. Goodbye.

 

[The Work Outing]

A new human life begins at conception. Nobody with a high school diploma can say that is not true.

Ad Populum

I have one and I say it is not true.

So you cannot truthfully make that statement any longer.

Good day.

 

[The Work Outing]

There is no reason to think for one second those statements are opinions. It is extremely obvious all of them are scientifically proven facts. You already knew that if you have a high school diploma.

If you are not going to accept that link as scientific proof, you will not accept any images, videos, or other media as scientific proof either and I would be wasting my time. Goodbye.

Well...first?
I suppose I should have asked this to begin.
My apologies.

By 'life'?
Do you mean 'life' like a bird or a dog or a bug?
Or do you mean 'life' as in the fetus has sentience the millisecond it is conceived?

You CANNOT be talking about a 'soul' because none of those quotes have ANYTHING to do with that.

 

[soylentgreen]

No offense, but most of these rebuttals are not worth replying to. But I'll do so anyway if you can quote the part of the constitution that guarantees the "right" to an abortion. (Hint...it's not in there. The populist court made it up.)

Alternatively can you quote the part in the constitution that states only the rights mentioned in the constitution shall be the only rights of americans?

 

[weaver2]

A new human life begins at conception. Nobody with a high school diploma can say that is not true.

Abortion is about many aspects of responsibility for all the lives that will be impacted by adding a new life not just the fetus. Trying to prove the morality of your position by quoting a single biological factoid and disallowing economic, psychological, political, statistical and other biological facts about unwanted children is dishonest.

Your belief that only the fetus matters and birth is the only acceptable outcome of a pregnancy is irresponsible and inhumane. There are the lives of the already born children, partner, grandparents, parents and any other relatives involved. And then there is the life of the child that has to be considered.

Books and articles describing the life of the unwanted child indicate it faces a bleak future.

The Adult Who Was Once an Unwanted Child

Healing these old wounds.

www.psychologytoday.com

The unwanted child - PubMed

The unwanted child

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Feeling Unloved as a Child? 11 Effects on Adulthood and How to Heal

Feeling unloved in childhood may affect your adult self in many ways. Learn about the long-term effects of an unloved childhood and how to heal.

psychcentral.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/wellness/1989/08/15/unwanted-children-suffer-long-term-difficulties/6a372d81-bcab-4752-94a2-99d07e7e46b0/

The Unwanted Child

The baby abandoned on the doorstep is a phenomenon that has virtually disappeared from our experience, but in the early modern world, unwanted children were a very real problem for parents, government officials, and society. The Unwanted Child skillfully recreates sixteenth-century Nuremberg to...

press.uchicago.edu

Trauma of identity and the unwanted child

In general we tend to think that our life begins at our birth. Our 'birth day' is the day we celebrate each year. And yet there is a whole nine months of life before this that we have already lived that we rarely consider. Our life actually begins at conception. That is the day we really should...

www.vivianbroughton.com

Being born does not guarantee love, care, security, stability and an adulthood as an intact and contributing member of society.That some unwanted children do well is no justification for your fetus-only-birth-only morality or your denial of a family's Constitutional right to make private decisions.

A discussion is long overdue on the immorality, hubris and danger of politically aggressive Dominion-ists in a country governed by a Constitution that defines liberty as the right of the people to make decisions about their private lives without interference of religion or government.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Abortion is about many aspects of responsibility for all the lives that will be impacted by adding a new life not just the fetus. Trying to prove the morality of your position by quoting a single biological factoid and disallowing economic, psychological, political, statistical and other biological facts about unwanted children is dishonest.

Your belief that only the fetus matters and birth is the only acceptable outcome of a pregnancy is irresponsible and inhumane. There are the lives of the already born children, partner, grandparents, parents and any other relatives involved. And then there is the life of the child that has to be considered.

I am surprised you are telling me this. You know I am mostly pro-choice - the exception being if a premature baby can survive for an extended period without NICU staff and machinery and does not have any severe genetic or birth defects. That is what a vast majority of obstetricians and pediatricians would call viable, not the "24th gestational week" nonsense. Such babies are the most likely to be adopted out at birth if necessary. But I would only approve adoption, not fostering, for all those babies to make sure no baby is forced to live with more than one family, if I was a children's services counselor. I also would only adopt babies out to married couples with no history of legal, social, financial, or medical issues that can negatively affect a child's growth, development, and lifestyle.

The reason I persisted in arguing life begins at conception is people kept telling me that is not true. I needed to prove it is in order to end the argument, then move on to what I really believe about the morality of abortion.

 

[choiceone]

There is no reason to think for one second those statements are opinions. It is extremely obvious all of them are scientifically proven facts. You already knew that if you have a high school diploma.

If you are not going to accept that link as scientific proof, you will not accept any images, videos, or other media as scientific proof either and I would be wasting my time. Goodbye.

There is no reason to think a human embryo is a new life, because the ovum, sperm, and woman are all alive, so whatever is growing doesn't have new life. It contains a new genetic code, for sure. It is not a human being in the sense of a member of Homo s. sapiens for the following reasons.

The embryo has one characteristic the human being or member lacks: it can be stored indefinitely in frozen form and then be defrosted and still be living. That is a function of key characteristics which it lacks and the human being or member of Homo s. sapiens doesn't lack.

First, it has no differentiated organs, which it can obtain only by being implanted in a human being with such organs and living as part of her (possibly him) and by doing that go through organogenesis.

Second, after such differentiation, it has to be viable for life if removed from such implantation so that its body is not a dependent implanted part of the human organism biologically facilitating differentiation.

(All this does not equal personhood, by the way).

Because of the above, the human embryo is more like a biological blueprint for making a human being than a human being itself. It comes with the placental mammalian territory.

Why is this so difficult to grasp?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

There is no reason to think a human embryo is a new life, because the ovum, sperm, and woman are all alive, so whatever is growing doesn't have new life. It contains a new genetic code, for sure. It is not a human being in the sense of a member of Homo sapiens

Yes there is: "A new life" means only that one fertilized ovum, called a zygote, has the genetic code it does. Before implantation on the endometrium, which happens after cells have started dividing, it is just there in her uterus, not connected to anything. Therefore it is the beginning of a new human life. This is what people are talking about when they say, "Life begins at conception." (If you still do not understand, click on my link.)

Remember I never implied a belief that zygotes are human beings or people. I start to use the term "human being" when the embryo resembles one on a sonogram. The only humans I call people are those who have been born, including the words baby and child.

 

[choiceone]

Yes there is: "A new life" means only that one fertilized ovum, called a zygote, has the genetic code it does. Before implantation on the endometrium, which happens after cells have started dividing, it is just there in her uterus, not connected to anything. Therefore it is the beginning of a new human life. This is what people are talking about when they say, "Life begins at conception." (If you still do not understand, click on my link.)

Remember I never implied a belief that zygotes are human beings or people. I start to use the term "human being" when the embryo resembles one on a sonogram. The only humans I call people are those who have been born, including the words baby and child.

Actually, I miswrote about the new genetic code, because it is possible for identical twins to have sex and a sperm to fertilize an ovum that way. If so, the genetic code will be identical to the woman's. From recombination on, inside the woman's body, the embryo has enough internal oxygenized nutrient plus the capacity to scavage oxygenized nutrient from loose blood in the environment to survive for 8-10 days. After that, it will die unless frozen or implanted.

I have to say that the zygote+cell division does not appear to me to be a newly begun human life. This is a question of wording.

It's like when people from the Society of the Divine Word come to your door and want to give you written material on the Good Word of Christianity. You are polite and say thank you, but I'm already a Christian. Then they ask, "But do you take Jesus Christ as your personal savior?" I don't like that wording and I'm not going to use it, and they won't be satisfied if you don't use their words.

Decades ago, the Japanese Masao Maruyama wrote of a similar phenomenon of the ultra-far right in Japan before and during WWII, and he spoke of this issue of using others' ideological words, calling them, felicitously, by an expression translated as "amuletic words."

I do not like the "amuletic" expression of a beginning of a new human life and I refuse to use it because I think it is part of a deeply misguided philosophy (just like the old WWII-time Japanese far right's "amuletic words").

 

[weaver2]

I am surprised you are telling me this. You know I am mostly pro-choice - the exception being if a premature baby can survive for an extended period without NICU staff and machinery and does not have any severe genetic or birth defects. That is what a vast majority of obstetricians and pediatricians would call viable, not the "24th gestational week" nonsense. Such babies are the most likely to be adopted out at birth if necessary. But I would only approve adoption, not fostering, for all those babies to make sure no baby is forced to live with more than one family, if I was a children's services counselor. I also would only adopt babies out to married couples with no history of legal, social, financial, or medical issues that can negatively affect a child's growth, development, and lifestyle.

The reason I persisted in arguing life begins at conception is people kept telling me that is not true. I needed to prove it is in order to end the argument, then move on to what I really believe about the morality of abortion.

The anti-abortion movement deliberately muddles the phrases "beginning of life/conception//life begins at fertilization/a human begins at conception/a person is created, etc. It is a legal as well as a biologically point in a pregnancy and will have to be given a specific legal definition. At that time there will be immense political pressure by religious conservatives to give personhood and legal status with Constitutional rights to a fertilized egg by claiming it is the beginning of life. Abortion becomes murder, legally punishable and women are denied the right to make personal decisions and are again second class citizens

It is historically and biologically incorrect to say life begins at conception. Life began eons ago in some primordial soup. Both sperm and egg are living tissue. They are alive. They were created by living persons. They are life. Their coming together is a beginning, not a beginning of life but the beginning of a potential life (if everything proceeds with biological accuracy).

 

[weaver2]

The reason I persisted in arguing life begins at conception is people kept telling me that is not true. I needed to prove it is in order to end the argument, then move on to what I really believe about the morality of abortion.

Not one of the scientific journals, dictionaries, or texts calls conception/fertilization "the beginning of life". None even use the term "the beginning of life"

The title “life begins at fertilization” was generated by an anti-abortion advocate in collecting these quotes. The title is not a scientific statement. It is an anti-abortion statement.None of the medical texts quoted refers to conception or fertilization as the “beginning of life”

a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote: England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth.

This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology

fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission

An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus.” Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary.

fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology.

At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun....."[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia.

embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory

spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology

a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed....[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Mller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology.

fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology

The only people that use the term "beginning of life" are anti-abortion advocates. Pro-choice people do not use the term.

 

[Josie]

How can something be a 'fact' if it is impossible to prove?

Or do you have scientific proof that life begins at conception?

It's first grade biology.

 

[Josie]

The only people that use the term "beginning of life" are anti-abortion advocates. Pro-choice people do not use the term.

Oh, stop. Pro-choice people talk about the beginning of life all of the time. It's a foundational argument in the abortion debate.

 

[Josie]

Yes there is: "A new life" means only that one fertilized ovum, called a zygote, has the genetic code it does. Before implantation on the endometrium, which happens after cells have started dividing, it is just there in her uterus, not connected to anything. Therefore it is the beginning of a new human life. This is what people are talking about when they say, "Life begins at conception." (If you still do not understand, click on my link.)

You're not wrong. Anyone who says you are wrong chooses to disbelieve elementary life science. Which, is silly.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

You're not wrong. Anyone who says you are wrong chooses to disbelieve elementary life science. Which is silly.

Middle school life science. I took that class in seventh grade.

 

[justabubba]

View attachment 67361211

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Nobody ever said a zygote is a person.

Everyone knows it is a new human life.

 

[choiceone]

There is no reason to think for one second those statements are opinions. It is extremely obvious all of them are scientifically proven facts. You already knew that if you have a high school diploma.

If you are not going to accept that link as scientific proof, you will not accept any images, videos, or other media as scientific proof either and I would be wasting my time. Goodbye.

Try my new thread When Does Personhood Begin? I offer a link to a transcript of a talk by a developmental biologist who considers various points at which different scientists in different specializations place their views of when a human being "begins."

 

[weaver2]

Oh, stop. Pro-choice people talk about the beginning of life all of the time. It's a foundational argument in the abortion debate.

Pro-choice advocates use the term "the beginning of life" when discussing the beginning of live organisms eons ago that can replicate their own kind or when they are disputing pro-life advocates use of the term to imply personhood begins at conception.

If you think otherwise, please feel free to quote a pro-choice advocate using the term as a descriptor for conception/fertilization.

If you re-read the posted quotes from medical and biological textbooks you will see that they do not use the phrase, beginning of life. Some use the term "beginning of a life, which is correct. Syntax matters, especially when one group is using it to manipulate a religious principle into law and call it science.

 

[vegas giants]

View attachment 67362969

Person is a legal definition....not a biological one

 

[Josie]

Pro-choice advocates use the term "the beginning of life" when discussing the beginning of live organisms eons ago that can replicate their own kind or when they are disputing pro-life advocates use of the term to imply personhood begins at conception.

If you think otherwise, please feel free to quote a pro-choice advocate using the term as a descriptor for conception/fertilization.

If you re-read the posted quotes from medical and biological textbooks you will see that they do not use the phrase, beginning of life. Some use the term "beginning of a life, which is correct. Syntax matters, especially when one group is using it to manipulate a religious principle into law and call it science.

The beginning of A life is what the abortion debate is all about. It’s not about when human life as a whole began on earth.

 

[choiceone]

You're not wrong. Anyone who says you are wrong chooses to disbelieve elementary life science. Which, is silly.

The beginning of A life is what the abortion debate is all about. It’s not about when human life as a whole began on earth.

When Does Personhood Begin?

Howard A. Schneiderman Professor of Biology Scott Gilbert admits he can't answer the question he poses at the start of his popular talk. However, he adds with "absolute certainty" that there is also "no consensus among scientists."

swarthmore.edu

I started a new thread with this for a reason. It's not just about personhood - it's about the start of the life of a human being.

Professor of Biology Scott Gilbert at Swarthmore discusses developmental biology at a level rather higher than elementary life science, and it's good. Try reading it when you're ready to read with the big people.