Abortion

007 said:
So the Kennedy child existed even though it wasn't born?

According to Boxers statement about when life begins.
You said she told a story, she did not, you are lying.

Unless you can show, in the video WHERE she told this story and offer a transcript?

You can't?

Liar!!

Her statement was that life begins " when the child is born, when it gets home, then it belongs to its family"!!!

Who does the child belong to before it gets home and is recognized as a life?
Just a nice logical answer!
You clearly agree with your liberal leaders on this!
Click to expand...

I told you. She was giving an explanation similar to what one may give a child as she obviously was dealing with a stunted adult.
 
apple0154 said:
Of course. One twin ate the other twin. Well, not actually "ate". Sort of fused themselves together. What could be more human than fusing? Maybe that's what the Bible meant by husband and wife becoming one. Maybe if two people really, really, really pushed the matter, in a way of speaking, they would merge into one. Who knows, right?
Click to expand...

look, we all know you aren't very well informed when it comes to reproductive science, but everyone here but you understands what we're talking about.....don't you think its time you abandoned this idiotic argument?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???....sure it does......
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Has each cell been examined? Of course, even if each cell was examined we don't even know what to look for. Science doesn't even know the exact number of genes a human being has.

Here's a site. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/genenumber.shtml 20,000 genes? 30,000?

(Excerpt)Aug. 23, 2012 — Ninety-six percent of a chimpanzee's genome is the same as a human's. (End) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120823142735.htm

The fact is no one knows how many genes a human being is supposed to have and as can be seen genes are important. So, when science knows how many genes human beings are supposed to have AND they examine at least a reasonable number of self-aborted, fertilized cells to determine if they had the correct amount then we can have a reasonable discussion regarding abortion. Until then people who say every conception is a human being don't have a clue what they're talking about. They refer to science and science does not know. End of story.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
look, we all know you aren't very well informed when it comes to reproductive science, but everyone here but you understands what we're talking about.....don't you think its time you abandoned this idiotic argument?......
Click to expand...

And just who is the "everybody" to which you refer? Check out msg. #163. Try to learn instead of pretending you know things no one else knows, science included. And if your cohorts think they know please tell them to contact the scientists because the scientists don't know.

We've witnessed the results of people jumping to conclusions regarding reproduction and it hasn't been pretty. DNA is still in it's infancy but one thing we can be certain about is unique DNA does not prove the existence of a human being. If it did then people with two distinct DNAs would qualify as two people. There is no other conclusion possible based on your erroneous statement.

Deal with it and educate yourself.
 
WoLong said:
I'd be interested in hearing any credible science that suggests that an unborn is anything other than a human being at any point of development

Black's Law Dictionary 9th edition, Person: A human being.

Nealis v. Baird, 996 P.2d 438, 453 (Okla. 1999) “Contemporary scientific precepts accept as a given that a human life begins at conception.” (citing KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 14 (5th ed. 1993); SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE 49 (1992); MICHAEL R. HARRISON ET AL., THE UNBORN PATIENT: PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT 14 (1984); DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS 286–99 (1990)

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology”
T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. 1990.

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

"Not only is it a life, but, by its intrinsic biological nature, it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else.”
E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE,]16–17

" A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.(Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.



T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. (1990): "the proposition that an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology"

(“Contemporary scientific precepts accept as a given that a human being's life begins at conception.”
KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 14 (5th ed. 1993)
SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE 49 (1992)
MICHAEL R. HARRISON ET AL., THE UNBORN PATIENT: PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT 14 (1984)
DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS 286–99 (1990)

Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, HUMAN EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY , (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55. "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed"

E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii. "Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597 "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983."Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE 16–17 (1977) "Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else."

Carlson, Bruce M. Patten, Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3); "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, as an individual member of that species."

Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The developing Human 6th ed 2;" :Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). "

Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. "[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote marks the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55. Human Embryology & Teratology "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote ... is a unicellular human being... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc is not used in this book."
Click to expand...
That's a strawman. "Human Being" is an ambigous concept that is not used in biology. Human life does begin at conception according to biology. "Human Being" is a legal term.
 
you people who want women treated like your little vessels to ORDER arround becuase you have a certain religious belief.......................... let me inform you of something.


We will NEVER go back in time.



The power you seek is not yours.




Women will NEVER again go back to being your forced incubators.



I ask you to fuck off.




And you will.




We will NEVER go back to being forced vessels
 
evince said:
you people who want women treated like your little vessels to ORDER arround becuase you have a certain religious belief.......................... let me inform you of something.


We will NEVER go back in time.



The power you seek is not yours.




Women will NEVER again go back to being your forced incubators.



I ask you to fuck off.




And you will.




We will NEVER go back to being forced vessels
Click to expand...


The greatest post ever!!!
 
apple0154 said:
Has each cell been examined?
Click to expand...

lol...and I suppose we know nothing about the solar system because all stars have not yet been examined......the definition of "human being" has been provided, we know enough about DNA to be able to distinguish between the mother and the fetus.......obviously science can tell us the fetus is a unique human distinguishable from the mother.......thus, by definition, it is a human being under the definition provided......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol...and I suppose we know nothing about the solar system because all stars have not yet been examined......the definition of "human being" has been provided, we know enough about DNA to be able to distinguish between the mother and the fetus.......obviously science can tell us the fetus is a unique human distinguishable from the mother.......thus, by definition, it is a human being under the definition provided......
Click to expand...

If your brain was like a sprocket it would be missing teeth. The chain is skipping.

A woman can have one "set" of DNA and when a sample is taken from her liver or kidney it will show a different "set" of DNA. According to you different DNA proves the existence of a human being so her liver or kidney must be a human being. Or different DNA does not prove the existence of a human being. That's the only two possible conclusions. It doesn't matter how you try to spin it.

Science doesn't even know why some fertilized cells spontaneously abort. Science doesn't even know how many genes a human being is supposed to have let alone what their rolls are and chimps have 96% of human DNA, so they say. So, the DNA knowledge currently known by scientists is far from a reliable source when it comes to determining what is or isn't a human being.

Genes make up DNA and scientists don't know how many genes a human being has so how the hell do they know a chimp has 96% of human DNA? The old figure used to be higher, around 98%. In other words it's a rough guess. A really rough guess and it's changing all the time and some people have such low regard for women they're willing to deny them the most basic right of deciding child bearing based on the little bit scientists do know and claiming it's evidence. It's evidence of nothing.

It could be. It might be. It's changing all the time but, hey, let's call it concrete evidence. Why do you think people support abortion? One doesn't have to be a scientist to know such crap does not constitute evidence. And let's not forget all the outrageous situations resulting from this so-called DNA "evidence" including having a woman subjected to such an invasion of privacy as forcing her to give birth in front of a government witness. Fvcking pigs! Disgusting, ignorant, fvcking pigs and as Evince made clear the bullshit is over. (It felt good to get that out.) :)

If you think the gun nuts are upset that ain't nothing compared to the storm if someone tries to interfere with abortion. The Repub party and nutters like Santorum are wacked out lunatics and the voting confirms that. Unless and until some "evidence" is shown and not some bullshit claims that change every time we turn around the debate is over. Ignorant fools like Santorum, talking about a toe getting stuck, highlights their ignorance. Their stupidity knows no bounds.
 
evince said:
you people who want women treated like your little vessels to ORDER arround becuase you have a certain religious belief..........................
Click to expand...

you want babies to be treated like women's little vessels that can be smashed to pieces any time you want......
 
apple0154 said:
A woman can have one "set" of DNA and when a sample is taken from her liver or kidney it will show a different "set" of DNA. According to you different DNA proves the existence of a human being so her liver or kidney must be a human being.
Click to expand...

and both of those DNA samples distinguish her body from that of her mother, so no one has any trouble realizing she is a distinct and unique individual who's body is a different human being from her mother......everyone here recognizes the significance of that, but you seem intent on denying it.......what is the reason for that denial?........
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's a strawman. "Human Being" is an ambigous concept that is not used in biology. Human life does begin at conception according to biology. "Human Being" is a legal term.
Click to expand...
While person is a legal term, human being is not. It is not even referenced in Black's Law Dictionary.
 
apple0154 said:
If your brain was like a sprocket it would be missing teeth. The chain is skipping.

A woman can have one "set" of DNA and when a sample is taken from her liver or kidney it will show a different "set" of DNA. According to you different DNA proves the existence of a human being so her liver or kidney must be a human being. Or different DNA does not prove the existence of a human being. That's the only two possible conclusions. It doesn't matter how you try to spin it.

Science doesn't even know why some fertilized cells spontaneously abort. Science doesn't even know how many genes a human being is supposed to have let alone what their rolls are and chimps have 96% of human DNA, so they say. So, the DNA knowledge currently known by scientists is far from a reliable source when it comes to determining what is or isn't a human being.

Genes make up DNA and scientists don't know how many genes a human being has so how the hell do they know a chimp has 96% of human DNA? The old figure used to be higher, around 98%. In other words it's a rough guess. A really rough guess and it's changing all the time and some people have such low regard for women they're willing to deny them the most basic right of deciding child bearing based on the little bit scientists do know and claiming it's evidence. It's evidence of nothing.

It could be. It might be. It's changing all the time but, hey, let's call it concrete evidence. Why do you think people support abortion? One doesn't have to be a scientist to know such crap does not constitute evidence. And let's not forget all the outrageous situations resulting from this so-called DNA "evidence" including having a woman subjected to such an invasion of privacy as forcing her to give birth in front of a government witness. Fvcking pigs! Disgusting, ignorant, fvcking pigs and as Evince made clear the bullshit is over. (It felt good to get that out.) :)

If you think the gun nuts are upset that ain't nothing compared to the storm if someone tries to interfere with abortion. The Repub party and nutters like Santorum are wacked out lunatics and the voting confirms that. Unless and until some "evidence" is shown and not some bullshit claims that change every time we turn around the debate is over. Ignorant fools like Santorum, talking about a toe getting stuck, highlights their ignorance. Their stupidity knows no bounds.
Click to expand...

If cut off your foot, and attached the foot of someone else onto your ankle you would not be two separate human beings. There is a difference between human matter and a human being, and I've provided plenty of science that clearly states that an unborn is a human being. There is almost no debate amongst the scientific community as to this point. You can refuse to believe it all you'd like, but until you provide some evidence to the contrary you're just going off of your opinion alone.
 
evince said:
you people who want women treated like your little vessels to ORDER arround becuase you have a certain religious belief.......................... let me inform you of something.


We will NEVER go back in time.



The power you seek is not yours.




Women will NEVER again go back to being your forced incubators.



I ask you to fuck off.




And you will.




We will NEVER go back to being forced vessels
Click to expand...
Clearly your hatred of males is preventing you from reasoning clearly. My only desire on the issue is to protect human rights, whereas you appear to believe pregnant women should be able to murder simply because you don't like the idea of them being told not to murder.
 
People on the pro-life side always seem to prefer putting forth a black & white argument - the fetus is a human being, destroying it is murder. Everything is absolutes.

The abortion discussion is much more complicated than that. There are competing rights involved; the pro life argument completely ignores the rights of the woman, which to me, is unacceptable.

Sentience is involved; stages of development are involved; viability is involved. A zygote has human DNA, and is a unique blueprint for a human being - but is it a fully realized individual? It is not. No more than an acorn is a potential tree, but not yet a tree.

The Roe decision is as good a compromise as the country is going to get, and takes into account some of the issues I mentioned above, as well as the complexity of the discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top