Why I Became Pro Life

[thatguymd]

I don’t agree with most of that but I’m not wasting time going back and forth on what would now be several sub-disagreements. I’m going to reboot.

There is a two-cell embryo. How many people is it? You can know anything about the current state or past to make an assumption (i.e. nothing on what is going to happen).

 

[dolphinocean]

I don’t agree with most of that but I’m not wasting time going back and forth on what would now be several sub-disagreements. I’m going to reboot.

You may throw in the towel, but to say you're not wasting your time due to "sub-disagreements" is disingenuous. Anyway, It's 98 pages already, it's high time.

There is a two-cell embryo. How many people is it? You can know anything about the current state or past to make an assumption (i.e. nothing on what is going to happen).

Reverting back to your original ambiguous question again? It’s been addressed ad nauseaum already.

Just go back and re-read post #975 above.

Well, let me re-post just the pertinent part for you with regards to your intended question:
You asked: “So prior to the split, it hasn’t occurred, and is therefore one person, correct?”
I answered: “Correct”.

Obviously, from your dishonest way, your mind is dead set on what you want to believe despite my logical argument and the scientific evidence presented to you. For the sake of other readers in the background I’ll summarize why you were so confused and misled by the bioethicist’s argument that led you to adhere steadfastly to his lie. An honest and impartial inquiring mind will have abandoned falsehood long ago for truth. But, not you, at least not now.

I’ll summarize it in my next post below.

 

[dolphinocean]

From your link:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/70634-fertilization-vs-implantation.html,
you quoted “Human Identity and Bioethics” by David DeGrazia, a bioethicist, a philosopher by educational background. This is what you quoted him said:

So far, there is no specialization of these cells to perform different tasks; nor is there interaction or integration among them. In this sense, they are tantamount to a colony of eight contingently joined zygotes. They are not yet functioning as a single organism.​

The above statements are plainly and scientifically wrong. It’s the same old dishonest tactic used by abortion proponents in the line of “embryo/fetus have no functioning brain therefore not a person” argument.

The notion that “there is no specialization of these cells to perform different tasks” when referring to an embryo at two-cell stage is simply false and silly.

Specialization is simply a cellular process in which large portions of genome are switched off through modifications in gene expression. Only certain portions of the DNA which are essential for building certain tissues or organs are transcribed and translated into macromolecules such as proteins. This results in tissues and organs with cells having very different physical characteristics despite the fact that all the cells throughout the individual human life span have the same genome (DNA) since conception. A zygote or multicellular embryo hasn't reached that stage yet, so it's silly to expect such high level of specialization at tissue or organ stage. Do you expect a toddler to produce sperms or ovulate eggs at the reproductive gametosgenesis level of cellular specialization? Of course not. Then why expect the zygote or multicelluar embryo to do so?

A zygote is a totipotent cell that gives rise to all other cell types in our body that make up all our tissues and organs. Its primary role in specialization is to make identical copies of its genome (DNA) and transcribe/translate only the portions of DNA to produce cellular organelles and structures to make another identical cell. The resulting embryo of two identical cells are also totipotent cells capable of reproducing identical embryonic cells, even leading to twinning event.

In the lab study of in vitro (in the petri dish) embryogenesis, it takes about 36 hours for each early round of cell division. In human body where the warm and moist natural environment is conducive, it may be less, we don’t know. Studies from mouse embryos as early as eight cell-stage suggested that the establishment of the anterior-posterior axis has occurred. This axis is important in determining the overall body plan and orientation of the developing embryo.

At 16-cell stage, which is termed morula, it is even more specialized. It now produces the highly polarized trophectoderm (outer rim of cells) and the inner cell mass.

So, it is clear that the zygote or the multicellular embryo is doing the task of what it is supposed to do at its given stage as nature intended. To suggest that “there is no specialization of these cells to perform different tasks” is clearly false unless the writer intended to mean different tissues or organs such as muscles, brain, kidneys, etc performing different task. That again is silly, because it is in diametrical opposition to reality and natural event. But, people who are rational would not be so gullible to fall for such irrational nonsense. Only people who are for abortion for the slaughter of innocent human life are desperate enough to grab for anything, however absurd it may be, to sustain their lies.

With regards to the assertion that “They are not yet functioning as a single organism”. This is also false.

A zygote is functioning as a single organism while floating alone by itself in the oviduct of the fallopian tube. It undergoes the cellular process of mitosis and the production of macromolecules such as proteins, ribosomes, RNA, etc through gene transcription and translation to give rise to another identical cell all by itself (self-directed) without any external human intervention.

Likewise, the resulting embryo of two cells existing side by side communicating with each other through chemical signals much like our somatic cells communicating with each other constantly as one unit to reproduce another two identical cells through the same cellular process without needing any human intervention.

These are highly educated lies by contortion from a so-called “bioethicist” who is clearly biased towards his personal agenda for abortion cause. Some people who are not fully invested in the study of embryology or biological science involving human development and embrogenesis will fall prey to the wolf. Ethicist? Clearly not.

In the next post I will deal with your comment you made regarding this quote of from your link on “fertilization vs implant”. http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/70634-fertilization-vs-implantation.html,

 

[dolphinocean]

Here was what you commented in your post in another threat entiled "feritilzation vs implantation":

You said: "The cells are individual to the point where you can separate them and each one would become a human. So, it is hard to view this as a single person at this point.

Twinning didn’t bother me before because I viewed it as natural cloning. For example, if you cloned me, I was a human all along and you just created an additional human and the zygote did the same at an earlier stage. Not every human has to begin as a zygote but that doesn’t mean the zygote isn’t a human.

The problem here is not that it could clone but rather how it leaves itself open to it. All you have to do is divide its parts, and each will be a separate person. That’s not true of me."​

The problem here is your misconception in comparing yourself as a whole individual to a zygote as a whole or in the case of multi-cellular embryo as separate individuals. Another problem is your self contradiction in your affirmation that a zygote is a human but not “a single person at this point”.

Let’s address your contention at each embryonic level with regards to what you said: “All you have to do is divide its parts, and each will be a separate person”

At the zygote level, how do you divide its parts and not terminate the life force of this living organism? When you divide the parts of a single cell zygote, you are essentially using a knife to cut through the middle of an egg in halves. The cell membrane gets torn and disintegrated. The inner cellular contents just spill out all over, essentially killing the zygote.

By comparing your self to the zygote you simply forget or ignore the fact that a zygote is simply a whole human being existing as one cell with its one cell body. You on the other hand, are already highly developed individual consisting of various tissue and organs that are composed of various highly differentiated and specialized cells. If you want to compare you as a whole individual to a zygote as a whole individual, then to divide you part is not simply to take a few somatic cells in your body but to cut yourself in two in the middle.

At the two-cell or higher order cell embryo stage, if you divide them apart as in embryo splitting to produce a twin clone, you are essentially doing the same as cloning yourself by taking a cell from your body to do the clone. In embyonic stage, one cell or a ball of cell is the individual human being, the other newly created twin is simply a human clone of the embryo much the same way as you are the individual human being while the other is a human clone of you.

While a person is simply another term that stood for a human being in pronominal usage, the pro-abortion concept of “personhood” is a re-packaged lie created by proponent of abortion cause to mask the human identity of the unborn human life in order to get away with murder.

 

[thatguymd]

At the two-cell or higher order cell embryo stage, if you divide them apart as in embryo splitting to produce a twin clone, you are essentially doing the same as cloning yourself by taking a cell from your body to do the clone. In embyonic stage, one cell or a ball of cell is the individual human being, the other newly created twin is simply a human clone of the embryo much the same way as you are the individual human being while the other is a human clone of you.

Splitting the embryo is not “the same as cloning yourself”. That’s what I’ve been saying.

When you clone yourself, as you described, the cell is taken from your body. You are then the rest of the cells that make up your body. The cell that was taken is then used to create a clone.

Now let’s say you are a two-cell embryo getting yourself cloned. You have half of your body separated from the other half. Each half is now a whole individual. Nothing needs to be done to transform either cell. So, which half is the “newly created twin”? It is obvious what is happening in the adult cloning example.

 

[dolphinocean]

1. Splitting the embryo is not “the same as cloning yourself”. That’s what I’ve been saying.

When you clone yourself, as you described, the cell is taken from your body. You are then the rest of the cells that make up your body. The cell that was taken is then used to create a clone.

Here is where you don’t get it.

Embryonic cell, be it one cell (a zygote), two-cell, three-cell-, etc … all the way to 50-to75-trillion-cell stage such as yourself, is simply one human individual existing the way it supposed to be in their respective stage and cell population composition. For instance, in infancy, you exist in the size and shape of an infant. You cannot expect an infant’s cell composition to be the same as an adult.

Likewise, a zygote by natural order is the beginning of that human individual existing as a single cell organism. You cannot expect it to have more than one like at your trillion level. At two-cell stage, it exists as a body with two cells. At three-cell stage, it exists as three cells. At four cell stage it exists as four, all the way up to your current adult stage.

At your current adult stage of roughly 50 trillion cell-stage you exists as a body with 50 trillion cells in your body. When you take one cell from your body for cloning, you are left with 50 trillion-minus-one cells in your body. Using your own word, “You are then the rest of the cells that make up your body”. The “50 trillion-minus-one cells” won’t just sit there doing nothing. It will continue to undergo mitosis, divide and multiply for growth, maintenance and repair.

Likewise, a blastocyst is a human individual existing as a 100 cell-stage human organism. When you remove one cell through embryo splitting for cloning, it is left with 99 cells and growing. Using your own word, “You are then the rest of the cells that make up your body.” It also won’t sit there doing nothing. It will undergo mistosis, divide and multiple.

Likewise, a two-cell embryo simply exists as a human being with only two cells composing the body of its early existence as a human being. If you take away one cell for cloning, it is therefore left with one cell. Using your own word, “You are then the rest of the cells that make up your body.” Which in this case, a two-cell embryo is only left with one cell as the rest of the cell that make up its body. That one cell will continue its usual course of cellular multiplication just like your trillion cells in your body. Here’s where your confusion arise. I’ll expand on this later.

Now let’s say you are a two-cell embryo getting yourself cloned. You have half of your body separated from the other half. Each half is now a whole individual. Nothing needs to be done to transform either cell. So, which half is the “newly created twin”? It is obvious what is happening in the adult cloning example.

Whether which cell in a two-cell embryo is the “newly created twin” is no brainer since both are totipotent cells and thus both are newly created twins. Do identical twins you encounter in your life having the same birthday and age bother you?

Not only that, your concern of which half is the “newly created twin”, flawed as it is, isn’t going to disprove the scientific fact that human individual begins individual human life at conception.

Furthermore, your notion that “Nothing needs to be done to transform either cell” isn’t just applicable to two-cell stage. It is also true of higher order multi-cell stage embryo. Twinning by means of "blastomere separation" involves totipotent cells of 2-cell stage up to the 5-7 days blastocyst stage. Twinning by means of "blastocyst splitting" involves cells of the inner cell mass of the older 5-7 day blastocyst, since they are also totipotent.

Does the "newly created" twin from this blastocyst at a later time make the blastocyst's humanity any less valid? Of course not. If we deep freeze the one cell obtained for twinning later in the 22nd century, does twinning in the future nullify the humanity of the human being who has developed and born into the 21st century from this blastocyst? Of course not.

 

[thatguymd]

Whether which cell in a two-cell embryo is the “newly created twin” is no brainer since both are totipotent cells and thus both are newly created twins.

If both are newly created, where is the original person that existed beforehand? Dead?

There aren’t two newly created twins when you clone an adult (which you said is just like the embryo split).

 

[dolphinocean]

If both are newly created, where is the original person that existed beforehand? Dead?

There aren’t two newly created twins when you clone an adult (which you said is just like the embryo split).

One is the twin of the other from the origin of a zygote.

The zygote is the original person in a one-cell body. In two-cell stage it is a person with a two-cell body until nature or human decided to create a clone by twinning. At twinning, both are twins of each other just as you are twin of your clone. Whether the original person in the zygote continues to exist in one of the two cells or simply becomes two new persons, I don’t know, you don’t know and nobody knows. What we can theorize is that if at twinning the original person in the zygote becomes no more, it would be same as cloning all the trillion cells in your body into trillions of individual clones. In that regards, your person would be no more, but you as a person before that was undeniable.

Can you discern who is the original person that existed beforehand when you encounter a set of twins on the street? Ask them do they know. Does your not knowing prove identical twins are not human individuals? Of course not. Neither does your not knowing prove that your "implantation" theory is upheld as proven. It's perplexing how you can swallow the "implantation" theory hooks, lines and sinkers without an iota of scientific evidence let alone the zeal you employed in turning not only every stone in this world but also every boogeyman in the outer limit.

No matter how hard you try to pull your hairs out amid your metaphysical pondering, not knowing who existed before hand isn’t going to disprove the scientific fact proclaimed by human embryologists here:

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, 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]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." [O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development." [Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]

The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." [Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]​

 

[thatguymd]

One is the twin of the other from the origin of a zygote.

The zygote is the original person in a one-cell body. In two-cell stage it is a person with a two-cell body until nature or human decided to create a clone by twinning. At twinning, both are twins of each other just as you are twin of your clone. Whether the original person in the zygote continues to exist in one of the two cells or simply becomes two new persons, I don’t know, you don’t know and nobody knows. What we can theorize is that if at twinning the original person in the zygote becomes no more, it would be same as cloning all the trillion cells in your body into trillions of individual clones. In that regards, your person would be no more, but you as a person before that was undeniable.

Can you discern who is the original person that existed beforehand when you encounter a set of twins on the street? Ask them do they know. Does your not knowing prove identical twins are not human individuals? Of course not. Neither does your not knowing prove that your "implantation" theory is upheld as proven. It's perplexing how you can swallow the "implantation" theory hooks, lines and sinkers without an iota of scientific evidence let alone the zeal you employed in turning not only every stone in this world but also every boogeyman in the outer limit.

No matter how hard you try to pull your hairs out amid your metaphysical pondering, not knowing who existed before hand isn’t going to disprove the scientific fact proclaimed by human embryologists here:

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, 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]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." [O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development." [Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]

The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." [Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]​

So, you state that one new person is formed. You then go on to say you don’t know (no one knows) but even if you are wrong it is irrelevant (if…person…becomes no more). Why state it is one way and then go on to say you don’t know?

On the other hand, at least you finally understood what I was asking. However, the fact that it took you this long (~15 posts) to get what takes most people one post, maybe two, makes even the thought of explaining a greater point quite tiresome.

I’ll leave you with an expansion on an analogy I heard elsewhere. Hopefully, it will at least help you understand varying opinions on whether an embryo is a person (wishful thinking I know).

Person = Cake
Embryo = Cake Batter
Sperm/Egg = Ingredients

Is it not easy to see why opinions can vary on whether cake batter is, in fact, already a cake?

The cake batter is made up of the same basic stuff, but there is more to a cake than that. The cake batter can also be one cake, two cakes, muffins, etc. It could be combined with other batter to make an entirely new cake. But what the cake will be (or if it will be at all) isn’t really set until it is baked.

So, the last word is all yours. Despite issues I had with how you debate, you made a couple good points and I learned a few things. Hopefully, you did too. Bye.

 

[majora$$hole]

So, you state that one new person is formed. You then go on to say you don’t know (no one knows) but even if you are wrong it is irrelevant (if…person…becomes no more). Why state it is one way and then go on to say you don’t know?

On the other hand, at least you finally understood what I was asking. However, the fact that it took you this long (~15 posts) to get what takes most people one post, maybe two, makes even the thought of explaining a greater point quite tiresome.

I’ll leave you with an expansion on an analogy I heard elsewhere. Hopefully, it will at least help you understand varying opinions on whether an embryo is a person (wishful thinking I know).

Person = Cake
Embryo = Cake Batter
Sperm/Egg = Ingredients

Is it not easy to see why opinions can vary on whether cake batter is, in fact, already a cake?

The cake batter is made up of the same basic stuff, but there is more to a cake than that. The cake batter can also be one cake, two cakes, muffins, etc. It could be combined with other batter to make an entirely new cake. But what the cake will be (or if it will be at all) isn’t really set until it is baked.

So, the last word is all yours. Despite issues I had with how you debate, you made a couple good points and I learned a few things. Hopefully, you did too. Bye.

i would add to this: cells are not humans (legally) for if they were then someone would not be dead (legally) until every cell has decomposed first.

 

[dolphinocean]

So, you state that one new person is formed. You then go on to say you don’t know (no one knows) but even if you are wrong it is irrelevant (if…person…becomes no more). Why state it is one way and then go on to say you don’t know?


I’ll leave you with an expansion on an analogy I heard elsewhere. Hopefully, it will at least help you understand varying opinions on whether an embryo is a person (wishful thinking I know).

Person = Cake
Embryo = Cake Batter
Sperm/Egg = Ingredients

Is it not easy to see why opinions can vary on whether cake batter is, in fact, already a cake?

The cake batter is made up of the same basic stuff, but there is more to a cake than that. The cake batter can also be one cake, two cakes, muffins, etc. It could be combined with other batter to make an entirely new cake. But what the cake will be (or if it will be at all) isn’t really set until it is baked.

So, the last word is all yours. Despite issues I had with how you debate, you made a couple good points and I learned a few things. Hopefully, you did too. Bye.

From science, we know that every species can only beget its own species by passing down its specie specific genomes (DNA). Therefore, at conception when the diploid human genomes are restored, the only possible result is the conception of a new human individual. It can’t be something else, can it? Therefore, it is undeniable that a new individual human being is formed at conception. We see the confirmation nine months later at delivery. There is only 3 in 1,000 chance for having monozygotic twins. When that happens you have two new human individuals. These are things we know for certain.

What is not known is whether the original individual at conception was still in existence as one of the two embryonic cells after the split at two-cell stage or became out of existence as in cloning every cell in your body. What I had mentioned before, those were just theories. What actually occurred, we don’t know. But, like I said before it's irrelevant to whether the unborn is a human being or not. It certainly wouldn't come out a monster or two at birth. Since those are just theories, your statement: ”Why state it is one way and then go on to say you don’t know” doesn't make sense.

On the other hand, at least you finally understood what I was asking. However, the fact that it took you this long (~15 posts) to get what takes most people one post, maybe two, makes even the thought of explaining a greater point quite tiresome.

What is quite tiresome is your diffused multi-premises and ambiguous wordings that change like a chameleon changing colors. You went from arguing about fertilization not complete until two cell stage to cells not function as one unit to how twinning occur to twinning potential at the end stage prior to implantation to twinning at two-cell level. Nowhere did you suggest anything about the original “person” at the zygote stage. All your later questions were about the “person” of the two cells. I had to pull out the zygote argument in order to make sense of what you're trying to argue.

Here are some arguments you put out previously, none refers to the original “person” of a zygote individual:

You said:

• When is there a single diploid cell?
  
• “the cells don’t appear to function as a single unit and can be separated to form two people instead of one.
  
• I have trouble finding my identity in that. If I am both of those cells and they are separated, are two new people formed and I died (without life being destroyed)? Or do I live and only one new person is created (which one am I then)?”
  
• It is not that twinning can occur. It is how it can occur.
  
• But even if it would not have twinned naturally, we can separate those two cells and each will become a person. So are those same two cells that were one person, still one person if I simply put a membrane around each one? Or are you claiming it was two people all along because it knew about the predestined human intervention?
  
• “if there is a two-cell embryo, is that person both of those cells?

I’ll leave you with an expansion on an analogy I heard elsewhere. Hopefully, it will at least help you understand varying opinions on whether an embryo is a person (wishful thinking I know).

Person = Cake
Embryo = Cake Batter
Sperm/Egg = Ingredients

Is it not easy to see why opinions can vary on whether cake batter is, in fact, already a cake?

The cake batter is made up of the same basic stuff, but there is more to a cake than that. The cake batter can also be one cake, two cakes, muffins, etc. It could be combined with other batter to make an entirely new cake. But what the cake will be (or if it will be at all) isn’t really set until it is baked.

So, the last word is all yours. Despite issues I had with how you debate, you made a couple good points and I learned a few things. Hopefully, you did too. Bye.

A developing human being is not a cake in the making. Whatever you hear elsewhere, you shouldn’t simply accept and regurgitate without using your God given intelligence to think about it with the zest you put in this debate.

A cake batter certainly can be combined and make entirely new cake, one, two or three, or muffins. But, at the end of the day it will remain a cake or a muffin. It won’t grow from a baby cake or infant muffin to toddler cake, toddler muffin and so on to adult cake or muffin with free will and intelligence for creativity. Neither can they reproduce themselves. If a cake or muffin is not eaten a couple of days, it will be molded and soon become rotten, to be disposed in the thrash.

I find all pro-abortion analogies very infantile that defies basic human intelligence. While they have many decades in life to improve and enhance on their intelligence, these dismal analogies are all they have to show cause for their abortion cause. Yet they have the audacity to expect the unborn to have instant ability to think or else be subject to slaughter.

If human reproduction is like making and baking a cake in the oven, then it wouldn't be so bad if we would just get rid of the irresponsible oven that kept shelling out unwanted fruitcakes. That will definitely solve the problem.

 

[dolphinocean]

i would add to this: cells are not humans (legally) for if they were then someone would not be dead (legally) until every cell has decomposed first.

This is just ridiculous.

The cells in your body are mostly specialized and differentiated somatic and germ cells. They are components that form the tissues and organs in your body. Each specialized somatic or germ cell is not you, but a microscopic part of you as a whole. When you remove some specialized cells such as during skin graft or blood donation, your whole being is still there as “you” with your distinctive genome (DNA) intact and living.

A zygote is a totipotent cell with the totipotent ability to form all kinds of cells that form your body. It is what a human being is at the beginning course of life. As such the whole of the zygote human individual is the whole of that one single cell itself, with unique DNA profile. If you destroy it, you destroy the whole being with its distinctive genome (DNA) from the viable gene pool on this earth.

Like the specialized cells in your body, a fetus is composed of specialized cells that form its tissues and organs. If you merely remove some skin cells or blood cells, you will not kill the fetus as a whole. The fetus will continue to grow and develop in the womb with its distinctive genome (DNA) still in the gene pool.

However, in medical or surgical abortion, you kill the whole fetus by chemical process or by brutal suctioning or dismemberment. The fetal human being is therefore no long alive to contribute its unique genome (DNA) in the human gene pool. Like adult human death, the individual specialized cells in the fetal body would not all die instantly the moment the abortionist makes the brutal slaughter. It would take a while “until every cell has decomposed”. Nevertheless, the fetus’ life is clinically considered dead. Slaughtered.

 

[calicandi32]

You can now rest asure that they still do not.

But now that they still can not, not do they wish to kill their children, you are OK with dehumanizing them. You must have had an epiphany.

You researched the wrong aspect and cam up a minute late and many reasons short. Everybody knows what species it is and that it is alive. Some realize what that amounts to and some can not find reasons to justify believing that it is more.

Not only another story but a nother dimension too...

Really? Most people just deduct that humans beget humans, simple as that.

You are catching on...

Not everywhere and certainly not for the same reason if say you are killed.

But you forgot that those nutrients have already been metabolized by the pregnant woman, or you missed that part of the biology lesson?

Really? Maybe you should look that up again.

While you are at it , look this one up too.

Good on you mate just as long as you keep iot to yourself and do not try to force it on the rest of society. The STFOOOPL argument is even more compeling.

Assuming you even know what that means, can you support that effect with anything?

fetuses absolutely CAN respond to stimuli, bright lights, sound, and the surgical tools aiming to kill it. YOU look THAT up. It's organs ARE distinct, and so are it's genes, although it is dependent. Of course, so is an infant; without man made formula products (if it were born too early it would need man made machines to keep it alive), the baby needs the mother's milk to survive. So it is still dependent even after it is born. And it is absolutely true that if a baby was killed while still inside of a woman who wanted to keep the baby, the perpetrator would be charged with murder. In fact, there have already been cases where a drunk driver hit and killed a pregnant woman, and was charged with TWO counts of murder.....what if that woman was on her way to the abortion clinic???

 

[OKgrannie]

fetuses absolutely CAN respond to stimuli, bright lights, sound, and the surgical tools aiming to kill it. YOU look THAT up. It's organs ARE distinct, and so are it's genes, although it is dependent. Of course, so is an infant; without man made formula products (if it were born too early it would need man made machines to keep it alive), the baby needs the mother's milk to survive. So it is still dependent even after it is born. And it is absolutely true that if a baby was killed while still inside of a woman who wanted to keep the baby, the perpetrator would be charged with murder. In fact, there have already been cases where a drunk driver hit and killed a pregnant woman, and was charged with TWO counts of murder.....what if that woman was on her way to the abortion clinic???

Fetuses have reflexes, doesn't mean there is any thought involved. Actually most abortions take place before the embryo becomes a fetus. You need to learn the difference between physical dependence and social dependence. Those who are dependent need assistance to survive, that assistance should always be voluntary.