# When does human life begin?



## Death Angel (Dec 19, 2021)

God makes it clear:





Your browser is not able to display this video.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 19, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> God makes it clear:


So zinc makes us human?


----------



## ding (Dec 19, 2021)

Science makes it clear too....

...at conception.


----------



## White 6 (Dec 19, 2021)

ding said:


> Science makes it clear too....
> 
> ...at conception.


As soon as you are able to retire debt free.  Life makes it all too clear.


----------



## ding (Dec 19, 2021)

White 6 said:


> As soon as you are able to retire debt free.  Life makes it all too clear.


That would be 1/1/21 for me.


----------



## White 6 (Dec 19, 2021)

ding said:


> That would be 1/1/21 for me.


Then you know what I mean by now.  Congrats!


----------



## Colin norris (Dec 19, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> God makes it clear:
> 
> View attachment 577563



Ooooooooh  God makes it clear. Up pops a YouTube video recorded by God as proof.   I didn't know he did you tube. 

In the case of republicans, it's clear on here that life doesn't begin until well into their forties.
That aside, it doesn't matter what you silly God said, apart from the fact he has never mumbled a word about it, the law is that abortions are allowed.  Even religious women have them to save embarrassment from their peers.  The rest rattle with contraceptives. 

What does your God say about that?


----------



## ding (Dec 19, 2021)

White 6 said:


> Then you know what I mean by now.  Congrats!


Thanks, I do but covid is really cramping my style.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 19, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> God makes it clear:



Which makes this a religious topic.  It does not belong here in a science thread.


----------



## ding (Dec 19, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> Which makes this a religious topic.  It does not belong here in a science thread.


Ok, when does science say human life begins?


----------



## White 6 (Dec 19, 2021)

ding said:


> Thanks, I do but covid is really cramping my style.


Understand.  Not cramping style here, but not recommending picking up and moving either.  Hope you are not in a big city.  Either way, wish you the best, while we go through another winter, wondering where this thing leads.  Who knows? You might want to go Tennesseeing near break of spring, when the Covid picture a little clearer.


----------



## ding (Dec 20, 2021)

White 6 said:


> Understand.  Not cramping style here, but not recommending picking up and moving either.  Hope you are not in a big city.  Either way, wish you the best, while we go through another winter, wondering where this thing leads.  Who knows? You might want to go Tennesseeing near break of spring, when the Covid picture a little clearer.


I was talking with a friend two days ago about doing exactly that.  He has a farm near Nashville.


----------



## White 6 (Dec 20, 2021)

ding said:


> I was talking with a friend two days ago about doing exactly that.  He has a farm near Nashville.


Middle TN is great. You might like it.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 20, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Ooooooooh  God makes it clear. Up pops a YouTube video recorded by God as proof.   I didn't know he did you tube.
> 
> In the case of republicans, it's clear on here that life doesn't begin until well into their forties.
> That aside, it doesn't matter what you silly God said, apart from the fact he has never mumbled a word about it, the law is that abortions are allowed.  Even religious women have them to save embarrassment from their peers.  The rest rattle with contraceptives.
> ...


In the case of republicans, it's clear on here that life doesn't begin until well into their forties.

Life for Republicans begins when high school starts and they figure how full of shit their teachers are.


----------



## ding (Dec 20, 2021)

White 6 said:


> Middle TN is great. You might like it.


Been there before.  It was great.  If it happens I'd like to visit with my buddy and then see some of the rest of the state.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 20, 2021)

ding said:


> Ok, when does science say human life begins?


If you consider a unique combination of DNA molecules to be a human life then conception.  If you, like me, consider a human life begins when a fetus show features unique to humanity, then it would be much later.


----------



## ding (Dec 20, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> If you consider a unique combination of DNA molecules to be a human life then conception.


I do and so does every embryology text book ever written.


----------



## JoeMoma (Dec 20, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> If you consider a unique combination of DNA molecules to be a human life then conception.  If you, like me, consider a human life begins when a fetus show features unique to humanity, then it would be much later.


What type of life is it before it shows features unique to humanity if its not human life?


----------



## ding (Dec 20, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> If you, like me, consider a human life begins when a fetus show features unique to humanity, then it would be much later.


Seems arbitrary and capricious to me.  

What do you suggest the science textbooks teach?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> God makes it clear:
> 
> View attachment 577563


Oops, wrong section, shaman. You literally have an entire section -- with you snowflakes getting special mod protection -- for your incantations and spells. Use it.


----------



## toobfreak (Dec 21, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> When does human life begin?​



The day dad puts you on his insurance policy and gives you a set of keys to the car.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 21, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> God makes it clear:
> 
> View attachment 577563


Life begins when you're vaccinated


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> I do and so does every embryology text book ever written.


Fine but the real question is what legal rights should it have at that stage of development?


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

JoeMoma said:


> What type of life is it before it shows features unique to humanity if its not human life?


Sperm and egg are alive too, do you think they require legal rights?


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> What do you suggest the science textbooks teach?


Science.  Science textbooks do not teach ethics, morals, religion, sociology, the Constitution, or the law.


----------



## JoeMoma (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Sperm and egg are alive too, do you think they require legal rights?


1.  Sperm and egg separately have not combined their 23 chromosome each to form a new individual with his/her  unique 46 chromosomes.  So no!
2.  You didn't want to answer my question, so you are moving the goal posts by answering the question with a different question.
3.  The title of this thread is when does human life begin?


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Fine but the real question is what legal rights should it have at that stage of development?


Yes, that is the question.  100%.

But before that determination can be made the following questions must be answered:

1.  Is he or she alive?
2.  Is he or she human?
3. Is he or she a specific person?

The answer to all three questions is yes.  Correct?


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Science.  Science textbooks do not teach ethics, morals, religion, sociology, the Constitution, or the law.


Ok, but with respect to the question when does human life begin, what should science textbooks teach?


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Sperm and egg are alive too, do you think they require legal rights?


Ummm... no, they aren't.

Research characteristics of living things.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 21, 2021)

If we don't know for sure, that leaves us with only two choices: err on the side of allowing life to develop or err on the side of snuffing out an innocent life that has already begun the process of development that defines all life. If you don't know, then you are killing a human being as far as you know. That is the "choice" you are making. What stage of development a person is at is no justification for killing unless you accept the notion that it's 'ok' to kill a 20 year old, but not a 40 year old.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

JoeMoma said:


> 1.  Sperm and egg separately have not combined their 23 chromosome each to form a new individual with his/her  unique 46 chromosomes.  So no!
> 2.  You didn't want to answer my question, so you are moving the goal posts by answering the question with a different question.
> 3.  The title of this thread is when does human life begin?


Every one of the cells in my body shares a set of chromosomes that is unique to me.  I would have no issue having a tumor removed from my body so uniqueness is interesting but hardly important.

If you need to claim life begins at conception, in one sense you're right and I'd agree.  If you claim a fertilized egg with a single set of chromosomes, no matter how unique, is deserving of legal recognition, I disagree.

We like to think human life is sacred but it is not.  Even in the US we drop bombs on people because we determine that their lives have less value than our lives.  We complain about getting vaccines or wearing masks that could save the lives of other because their lives are worth less than our freedoms.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Yes, that is the question.  100%.
> 
> But before that determination can be made the following questions must be answered:
> 
> ...


If we are talking about a fertilized egg the answers are:

yes
no
no


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 21, 2021)

It began a very long time ago.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Ok, but with respect to the question when does human life begin, what should science textbooks teach?


Life goes back to our common ancestor and everything in between that ancestor and us has bee alive.  Science can tell us the facts but not the implecations.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Ummm... no, they aren't.
> 
> Research characteristics of living things.


So life comes from non-living things?  Research spontaneous generation.


----------



## JoeMoma (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> If we are talking about a fertilized egg the answers are:
> 
> yes
> no
> no


Once again, if a fertilize egg from a human isn't human, what is it?  Pre-human?


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

JoeMoma said:


> Once again, if a fertilize egg from a human isn't human, what is it?  Pre-human?


It is a human cell, little different from the trillions of human cells of the mother.  It may become very different but that is in the future.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 21, 2021)

Unkotare said:


> If we don't know for sure, that leaves us with only two choices: err on the side of allowing life to develop or err on the side of snuffing out an innocent life that has already begun the process of development that defines all life


 But since you don't have a uterus, you don't have to make any choice at all.


----------



## JoeMoma (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> It is a human cell, little different from the trillions of human cells of the mother.  It may become very different but that is in the future.


But it is different.  It is a human organism at its first stage of the human life cycle.  The trillions of cells of the mother are not trillions of individual organisms.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 21, 2021)

Who here has been to a funeral for a 20 week miscarriages?

Nobody.

Do we consider a brain dead human on life support to be "equal" to a functioning human? Nope.

So the fact exists that we view a fetus as different. Where is the line to be drawn? Tough to tell. But a line must be drawn.

So, ask the scientists when the fetus starts to feel pain, or have thoughts, etc. We should inform our moral decisions with science. Not religion or feelings.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 21, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But since you don't have a uterus, you don't have to make any choice at all.


Since I am part of society, I do.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> If we are talking about a fertilized egg the answers are:
> 
> yes
> no
> no


So if not a homo sapien (aka human), then what species is he or she?

You do realize that DNA is used to identify specific persons, right?  It's literally what makes you different than anyone who has ever lived or will ever live?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 21, 2021)

Unkotare said:


> Since I am part of society, I do.


Yes, I get it, but that's my way of keeping the mothers in The discussion. Something that often gets lost in the 10 page fetus rants.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Life goes back to our common ancestor and everything in between that ancestor and us has bee alive.  Science can tell us the facts but not the implecations.


Do honest answers make you uncomfortable?

You do understand what we are discussing, right?  

Do I really need to be more specific?  Cause I can.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> So life comes from non-living things?  Research spontaneous generation.


I can promise you that when these questions come before the court they will have little patience for games like this.

Mothers and fathers are living beings.  Sperm and eggs are not.  But you know this already.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Dec 21, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> God makes it clear:
> 
> View attachment 577563


Human life?  As in having a moral compass and caring for humanity?  It depends when one recognizes this one simple ethic:  _Do onto others as one would do onto you._


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 21, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Who here has been to a funeral for a 20 week miscarriages?
> .....


If no one that you know ever attended a funeral for a 20 year old, that means 20 year olds don't exist? democrat logic.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

JoeMoma said:


> But it is different.  It is a human organism at its first stage of the human life cycle.  The trillions of cells of the mother are not trillions of individual organisms.


I'm only talking about the first stage.  Whatever it may become is irrelevant.  It only matters what it is.

Would you change your position when (assuming we can't do it yet) we can take any cell from anyone and induce it to enter that first stage of the human life cycle?  Does that cell then receive legal protections?  If that cell is implanted in a womb, does that cell then receive legal protections?  If not, when would it?  At birth?  Never?


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> I can promise you that when these questions come before the court they will have little patience for games like this.
> 
> Mothers and fathers are living beings.  Sperm and eggs are not.  But you know this already.


Really?  The SCOTUS has already set limits on protections for these living beings.  I'm not sure science is going to provide answers.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> So if not a homo sapien (aka human), then what species is he or she?
> 
> You do realize that DNA is used to identify specific persons, right?  It's literally what makes you different than anyone who has ever lived or will ever live?


What species is my arm?  Human tissue is not a human being and, as far as I'm concerned an egg is just tissue.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I'm only talking about the first stage.  Whatever it may become is irrelevant.  It only matters what it is.
> 
> Would you change your position when (assuming we can't do it yet) we can take any cell from anyone and induce it to enter that first stage of the human life cycle?  Does that cell then receive legal protections?  If that cell is implanted in a womb, does that cell then receive legal protections?  If not, when would it?  At birth?  Never?


"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again.  The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point."
Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Really?  The SCOTUS has already set limits on protections for these living beings.  I'm not sure science is going to provide answers.


Roe v Wade will be overturned and left for each state to decide.    SCOTUS will over turn Roe v Wade on the basis of science.   The very science you are unwilling to acknowledge.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> What species is my arm?  Human tissue is not a human being and, as far as I'm concerned an egg is just tissue.


I'm more than happy for you to argue against the science, bro.  

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." 
Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> If you consider a unique combination of DNA molecules to be a human life then conception.  If you, like me, consider a human life begins when a fetus show features unique to humanity, then it would be much later.


Assuming the zygote or fetus isn’t killed by accident, like the death of the mother, and doesn’t have genetic issues that will lead to being stillborn, then one need only consider that as it develops (if it isn’t aborted), the only features it can ever possibly show are features unique to humanity.  It won’t be a fish or a bird. It won’t be a giraffe. It will be a baby human being.  Therefore, you seemingly end up holding the belief that its human life begins at its conception.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 21, 2021)

Unkotare said:


> If no one that you know ever attended a funeral for a 20 year old, that means 20 year olds don't exist? democrat logic.


You misunderstood me. So i suppose we will call ignorant, rabid responses and shallow inability to understand "unkotare logic". 

Or, you can breathe into a paper bag for a moment and ask me what I meant, instead of settling on the first dumb thing that pops into your mind.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 21, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You misunderstood me. So i suppose we will call ignorant, rabid responses and shallow inability to understand "unkotare logic".
> 
> Or, you can breathe into a paper bag for a moment and ask me what I meant, instead of settling on the first dumb thing that pops into your mind.


Farty ^ posts the selected dumb things that waft into his head.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Do honest answers make you uncomfortable?


No, do my honest answers make you uncomfortable?



ding said:


> You do understand what we are discussing, right?


No I don't.  Are we speaking strictly science or is that just the camel's nose of abortion rights.



ding said:


> Do I really need to be more specific?  Cause I can.


Feel free.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> No, do my honest answers make you uncomfortable?
> 
> 
> No I don't.  Are we speaking strictly science or is that just the camel's nose of abortion rights.
> ...


We are discussing when a specific human life begins, not the first human.  But you already knew that.

That you can't be honest about that tells me you know you have no argument.  And we aren't discussing abortion rights.  We are discussing human rights.  Specifically if we are going to grant human rights to humans when they come into existence or if we are going to treat them as property to be disposed of at the will of it's owner until some arbitrary and capricious time after they have come into existence. 

The science is very clear on when a genetically distinct new human being comes into existence.  But I don't expect you to acknowledge that given the games you are playing.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again.  The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point."
> Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland


OK, so what?


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

I can promise all of you that when Roe v Wade comes before the Supreme Court - and it will - the advocates for abortion will acknowledge the science and will make a person-hood legal argument, a hardship argument and Federal rights versus states rights argument.  But they won't dare play silly games arguing that life begins at conception.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> OK, so what?


It's no longer conjecture when a human life begins.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> We are discussing when a specific human life begins, not the first human.  But you already knew that.
> 
> That you can't be honest about that tells me you know you have no argument.  And we aren't discussing abortion rights.  We are discussing human rights.  Specifically if we are going to grant human rights to humans when they come into existence or if we are going to treat them as property to be disposed of at the will of it's owner until some arbitrary and capricious time after they have come into existence.
> 
> The science is very clear on when a genetically distinct new human being comes into existence.  But I don't expect you to acknowledge that given the games you are playing.


Human rights are not a science so using science to decide what they should be is problematic.  When does a boy become a man?  That is not a question science can answer.  Not unlike when should a human being be allowed to vote to drink or get married.  These are cultural questions and not scientific ones.  You are being dishonest when you abuse science in the interest of your political agenda.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> I can promise all of you that when Roe v Wade comes before the Supreme Court - and it will - the advocates for abortion will acknowledge the science and will make a person-hood legal argument, a hardship argument and Federal rights versus states rights argument.  But they won't dare play silly games arguing that life begins at conception.


You're probably right, proving that it is not a question for science.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> It's no longer conjecture when a human life begins.


OK, but so what?  What question does that answer?


----------



## BWK (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Science makes it clear too....
> 
> ...at conception.


No such evidence exists for that. But feel free to try again.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Roe v Wade will be overturned and left for each state to decide.


Agreed.



ding said:


> SCOTUS will over turn Roe v Wade on the basis of science.   The very science you are unwilling to acknowledge.


Disagree.  Acknowledging a scientific truth does not answer every question.  As science progresses the 'science' will change dramatically.  Do clones have rights?


----------



## Death Angel (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Fine but the real question is what legal rights should it have at that stage of development?


The right to life


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Assuming the zygote or fetus isn’t killed by accident, like the death of the mother, and doesn’t have genetic issues that will lead to being stillborn, then one need only consider that as it develops (if it isn’t aborted), the only features it can ever possibly show are features unique to humanity.  It won’t be a fish or a bird. It won’t be a giraffe. It will be a baby human being.  Therefore, you seemingly end up holding the belief that its human life begins at its conception.


If you held a fertilized egg in your hand you'd have to determine it's DNA to know what it was.  It would look like every other fertilized egg that ever existed.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> The right to life


Simple idea but that 'right' is a legal convention, not a scientific one.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Human rights are not a science so using science to decide what they should be is problematic.  When does a boy become a man?  That is not a question science can answer.  Not unlike when should a human being be allowed to vote to drink or get married.  These are cultural questions and not scientific ones.  You are being dishonest when you abuse science in the interest of your political agenda.


Human rights are not a science.  But the question of humanness - which is what is being questioned by some - is determined through science.  

It's hilarious the lengths you will go to to deny their humanness.  Unfortunately for you, when this comes before SCOTUS that will be a non-starter.  Any argument based on the validity of ending their lives because they are not human will lose.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> You're probably right, proving that it is not a question for science.


And yet here you are arguing they aren't human.  Odd.  Like I said before, it's hilarious the lengths some will go to to deny their humanness.  So a scientific ruling is 100% needed to shut down that argument.  The fact that that argument must be made says more about the unreasonableness of people who dehumanize human life for the express purpose of ending human life.  

Your very argument proves you know abortion is wrong because you have to argue against the science to justify the morality of abortion.  I'd respect you more if you admitted abortion was wrong but supported it anyway.  At least then you would be being honest about it.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> OK, but so what?  What question does that answer?


Ummmm... that abortion is ending a human life and not a potential human.  Because that's exactly how you see abortion.  You believe abortion does not end a human life and that's why you are Ok with it.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

BWK said:


> No such evidence exists for that. But feel free to try again.


DNA is the evidence you are looking for.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Human rights are not a science.  But the question of humanness - which is what is being questioned by some - is determined through science.


I don't consider a set of genes to have 'humanness' or personhood.  It is our brains that make us human and they don't develop for quite some time.



ding said:


> It's hilarious the lengths you will go to to deny their humanness.  Unfortunately for you, when this comes before SCOTUS that will be a non-starter.  Any argument based on the validity of ending their lives because they are not human will lose.


Fortunately for pro-choice folk like me there are many circumstances where killing a human being is acceptable, even desirable.  We put different values on different human beings sometimes those values are very, very low.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I don't consider a set of genes to have 'humanness' or personhood.  It is our brains that make us human and they don't develop for quite some time.
> 
> 
> Fortunately for pro-choice folk like me there are many circumstances where killing a human being is acceptable, even desirable.  We put different values on different human beings sometimes those values are very, very low.


Of course you see it that way.  Nazis didn't see Jews as humans just like some good Christians didn't see blacks as humans.  To you a fetus is property to be disposed of at the will of it's owner.  You would discard their lives as casually as you would throw out trash.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I don't consider a set of genes to have 'humanness' or personhood.  It is our brains that make us human and they don't develop for quite some time.
> 
> 
> Fortunately for pro-choice folk like me there are many circumstances where killing a human being is acceptable, even desirable.  We put different values on different human beings sometimes those values are very, very low.


Alternatively, we value the mother over the fetus much of the time.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> If you held a fertilized egg in your hand you'd have to determine it's DNA to know what it was.  It would look like every other fertilized egg that ever existed.


Irrelevant.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 21, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> God makes it clear:
> 
> View attachment 577563


When I say it does. Period. End of story.


----------



## Death Angel (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Simple idea but that 'right' is a legal convention, not a scientific one.


The right to life is SPIRITUAL. Rights don't depend on the approval of men


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 21, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Irrelevant.


No, right on target. Notice you have never been to a funeral for a miscarried, fertilized egg.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 21, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, right on target. Notice you have never been to a funeral for a miscarried, fertilized egg.


Farty. It remains irrelvant. Whether one can determine that the egg is that of a giraffe or a human doesn’t alter the FACT that if it is born, it will be only what the two parents conceived: one of their own kind.

I didn’t have a funeral for my wife’s miscarriage either. And that establishes exactly not a thing of any relevance to the discussion.  Apparently, irrelevance is still your specialty.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 21, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> It remains irrelvant.


False, sorry. As evidenced by legal abortion. It may be irrelevant to your personal beliefs. Good for you, then. Thank goodness you don't have a uterus, so you never have to tax that shriveled little brain of yours and make this hard decision based on something besides the first feeling  that fizzles into your colon.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> And yet here you are arguing they aren't human.  Odd.  Like I said before, it's hilarious the lengths some will go to to deny their humanness.  So a scientific ruling is 100% needed to shut down that argument.  The fact that that argument must be made says more about the unreasonableness of people who dehumanize human life for the express purpose of ending human life.


Maybe I should have said, I don't consider a human egg to be person worthy of more legal protections than an adult human.  Is that better?



ding said:


> Your very argument proves you know abortion is wrong because you have to argue against the science to justify the morality of abortion.  I'd respect you more if you admitted abortion was wrong but supported it anyway.  At least then you would be being honest about it.


Abortion is wrong and I'm happy to say I've never been involved in any but I support a mother's right to choose it.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 21, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> False, sorry. As evidenced by legal abortion. It may be irrelevant to your personal beliefs. Good for you, then. Thank goodness you don't have a uterus, so you never have to tax that shriveled little brain of yours and make this hard decision based on something besides the first feeling  that fizzles into your colon.


No you mental void. It still doesn’t matter whether one can ascertain if a human fetus outside the uterus is a human fetus. It’s the DNA that counts. This is so obviously true and valid that you now want to change the subject. You remain an illogical and stupid little anal leakage.


----------



## Circe (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Ok, when does science say human life begins?


Doesn't matter what "science" says. 

Human life begins when baby makes it outside of someone else's body.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Alternatively, we value the mother over the fetus much of the time.


Ultimately that will be up to the states to decide as it should have been all along.

Inherent in that argument is that abortion is the lesser of two evils which would require an admission that abortion is wrong.  Something adherents of abortion have been unwilling to admit.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

Circe said:


> Doesn't matter what "science" says.
> 
> Human life begins when baby makes it outside of someone else's body.


Not according to every embryology textbook that has ever been published.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)




----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Maybe I should have said, I don't consider a human egg to be person worthy of more legal protections than an adult human.  Is that better?
> 
> 
> Abortion is wrong and I'm happy to say I've never been involved in any but I support a mother's right to choose it.


An unfertilized egg is not a human.  A fertilized egg is a human albeit in it's earliest stage of the human life cycle. 

I can respect someone's position that abortion ends a human life but they still support a mother's right to choose it because it's an honest statement.  I cannot respect a statement that does not acknowledge that a human life is being ended by abortion because it is a position that does not acknowledge reality.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I don't consider a human egg to be person worthy of more legal protections than an adult human. Is that better?


That should be up to each state to decide.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Of course you see it that way.  Nazis didn't see Jews as humans just like some good Christians didn't see blacks as humans.  To you a fetus is property to be disposed of at the will of it's owner.  You would discard their lives as casually as you would throw out trash.


Nothing casual about it.  I view a fertilized egg just as I do any human tissue but not any more valuable than any other human tissue.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Nothing casual about it.  I view a fertilized egg just as I do any human tissue but not any more valuable than any other human tissue.


It's not any tissue though.  It is a genetically distinct new human being.  One that has never existed before and will never exist again.  Arguing it's just tissue is not reality.  It's a lie which is designed to make it easier to end a human life.

Which is absolutely a casual position which leads to the casual discarding of human lives.  If you are going to support the ending of a human life, own it.  Don't try to minimize it to make yourself feel good.


----------



## Death Angel (Dec 21, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, right on target. Notice you have never been to a funeral for a miscarried, fertilized egg.


Many people do you idiot


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 21, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> Many people do you idiot


You shameless liar.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Ummmm... that abortion is ending a human life and not a potential human.  Because that's exactly how you see abortion.  You believe abortion does not end a human life and that's why you are Ok with it.


That is true, that is how I see a fertilized egg, a bunch of molecules little different or valuable than other molecules.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> An unfertilized egg is not a human.  A fertilized egg is a human albeit in it's earliest stage of the human life cycle.


I like to think we are more than just a sum of our parts.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> It's not any tissue though.  It is a genetically distinct new human being.  One that has never existed before and will never exist again.  Arguing it's just tissue is not reality.  It's a lie which is designed to make it easier to end a human life.


It is just a just a bunch of organic molecules, not much different from any other molecules.



ding said:


> Which is absolutely a casual position which leads to the casual discarding of human lives.  If you are going to support the ending of a human life, own it.  Don't try to minimize it to make yourself feel good.


The casual discarding of life is a very human quality.  Humanity has always engaged in genocide, war, carpet bombing, capital punishment, etc.  Most recently we've been engaged in a fight over how much to limit the spreading of Covid.  Do we ban vaccination and mask mandates even though the science says they will save lives?  There is no shortage of hypocrisy here.


----------



## Circe (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Not according to every embryology textbook that has ever been published.


You're forgetting all that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny stuff. The fetus goes through all those fish and reptilian forms.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> That is true, that is how I see a fertilized egg, a bunch of molecules little different or valuable than other molecules.


It's easier to kill when you see it that way.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I like to think we are more than just a sum of our parts.


We are.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> It is just a just a bunch of organic molecules, not much different from any other molecules.
> 
> 
> The casual discarding of life is a very human quality.  Humanity has always engaged in genocide, war, carpet bombing, capital punishment, etc.  Most recently we've been engaged in a fight over how much to limit the spreading of Covid.  Do we ban vaccination and mask mandates even though the science says they will save lives?  There is no shortage of hypocrisy here.


Seems contradictory to your belief that we are more than the sum of our parts.  

Incorrect, the casual discarding of a dehumanized life is necessary to eliminate conflict in the brain and consistent with the rationalization you just made.  So is your inability to see your hypocrisy in this.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

Circe said:


> You're forgetting all that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny stuff. The fetus goes through all those fish and reptilian forms.


Take it up with the embryologists who wrote their textbooks.


----------



## Death Angel (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> So zinc makes us human?


The SPARK OF LIFE MARKS THE BEGINNING OF OUR LIFE YOU IDIOT


----------



## Death Angel (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Abortion is wrong and I'm happy to say I've never been involved in any but I support a mother's right to choose it.


Can you explain to the class WHY it'd wrong?

BTW, rape is wrong, but I support a man's righ to choose it

See how that works


----------



## JoeMoma (Dec 22, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> Many people do you idiot


I have.  Some really good friends of mine were going to have twins.  One of the twins were miscarried.  They had a funeral to morn that loss.


----------



## Death Angel (Dec 22, 2021)

JoeMoma said:


> I have.  Some really good friends of mine were going to have twins.  One of the twins were miscarried.  They had a funeral to morn that loss.


My sister too


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> It's easier to kill when you see it that way.


Killing is easy, it is what we humans do.  How many pro-life people are in the military?


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> Seems contradictory to your belief that we are more than the sum of our parts.


People with brains are more than the sum of their parts, molecules are just a mix of chemicals.



ding said:


> Incorrect, the casual discarding of a dehumanized life is necessary to eliminate conflict in the brain and consistent with the rationalization you just made.  So is your inability to see your hypocrisy in this.


I guess I care more about those already born.  It is their brains that make them unique and valuable, not their DNA.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 22, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> The SPARK OF LIFE MARKS THE BEGINNING OF OUR LIFE YOU IDIOT


I guess I missed that biology lab where they showed sparked at conception.  

Conception is a complex process, when exactly does the spark occur?

The stages of fertilization can be divided into four processes: 
1) sperm preparation,​2) sperm-egg recognition and binding,​3) sperm-egg fusion and​4) fusion of sperm and egg pronuclei and activation of the zygote.​


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 22, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> Can you explain to the class WHY it'd wrong?
> 
> BTW, rape is wrong, but I support a man's righ to choose it
> 
> See how that works


When a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, something has gone wrong.  Either she never intended to get pregnant, she was impregnated against her will, there are medical issues with the pregnancy, etc.  Abortion should never the first choice for a woman.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Killing is easy, it is what we humans do.  How many pro-life people are in the military?


Again... killing is EASIER when you dehumanize humans.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> People with brains are more than the sum of their parts, molecules are just a mix of chemicals.
> 
> 
> I guess I care more about those already born.  It is their brains that make them unique and valuable, not their DNA.


Arbitrary and capricious.  SCOTUS won't have any appetite for those arguments.  I certainly don't.  It just makes you look like a nazi.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> Again... killing is EASIER when you dehumanize humans.


I think it dehumanizes people to take away their rights and give them to a few strands of DNA.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I think it dehumanizes people to take away their rights and give them to a few strands of DNA.


Yes.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I think it dehumanizes people to take away their rights and give them to a few strands of DNA.


I doubt SCOTUS will see it that way.  I don't.


----------



## ClaireH (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I guess I missed that biology lab where they showed sparked at conception.
> 
> Conception is a complex process, when exactly does the spark occur?
> 
> ...



Less than 24 hours between stage 3 and 4 as you have it broken down, and fertilization results in a zygote, the zygote is new life.

“Science teaches without reservation that life begins at fertilization (conception). It is a scientific fact that an organism exists after fertilization that did not exist before. This new organism has its own DNA distinct from the mother and father, meaning that it is a unique person. As the embryo grows, it develops a heartbeat (22 days after fertilization), its own circulatory system, and its own organs. From fertilization, it is a new organism that is alive and will continue to grow and develop as long as nutrition is provided and its life is not ended through violence or illness.”









						Science is clear: Life begins at fertilization | Human Life | Abortion
					

Science teaches that life begins at fertilization. It is a scientific fact that an organism exists after conception that did not exist before conception.




					www.liveaction.org


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> Arbitrary and capricious.  SCOTUS won't have any appetite for those arguments.  I certainly don't.  It just makes you look like a nazi.


I think taking a complex issue and reducing it to a simple slogan doesn't make you look good.

If I take some human sperm, mix them with a human egg in a test tube, and they successfully fuse into a fertilized egg, then flush them down the drain, am I guilty of murder?


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> If you consider a unique combination of DNA molecules to be a human life then conception.  If you, like me, consider a human life begins when a fetus show features unique to humanity, then it would be much later.


Human DNA is not a "feature unique to humanity".  M'kay.


----------



## ClaireH (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I think taking a complex issue and reducing it to a simple slogan doesn't make you look good.
> 
> If I take some human sperm, mix them with a human egg in a test tube, and they successfully fuse into a fertilized egg, then flush them down the drain, am I guilty of murder?


That would depend upon your audience.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I think taking a complex issue and reducing it to a simple slogan doesn't make you look good.
> 
> If I take some human sperm, mix them with a human egg in a test tube, and they successfully fuse into a fertilized egg, then flush them down the drain, am I guilty of murder?


I can handle you thinking it doesn't make me look good.

As for if being guilty of murder, ask me that after you have successfully created life and then ended it.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> I doubt SCOTUS will see it that way.  I don't.


I think SCOTUS has to weigh the rights of the mother.  Is she fully human if she can be forced to be an incubator for another?


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> If you, like me, consider a human life begins when a fetus show features unique to humanity, then it would be much later.


Is that what you believe embryology textbooks should teach?


----------



## ClaireH (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I think SCOTUS has to weigh the rights of the mother.  Is she fully human if she can be forced to be an incubator for another?


It would be better to distinguish between  the following: when does human life occur/begin, and when can a new life form exist by itself. Huge difference and I see a little bit of blending of the two, perhaps unintentionally, with your remarks.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> I can handle you thinking it doesn't make me look good.
> 
> As for if being guilty of murder, ask me that after you have successfully created life and then ended it.


I think it happens all the time, it is called in vitro fertilization.  Unused fertilized eggs are routinely discarded as I understand it.  Is that murder?  If the fertilized eggs are frozen is that kidnapping and false imprisonment?


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I think SCOTUS has to weigh the rights of the mother.  Is she fully human if she can be forced to be an incubator for another?


Actually they only need to determine if life in the womb has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  They can leave it up to the states to decide whose rights take precedence.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> Is that what you believe embryology textbooks should teach?


There are more definitions of human life than just the biological one.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I think it happens all the time, it is called in vitro fertilization.  Unused fertilized eggs are routinely discarded as I understand it.  Is that murder?  If the fertilized eggs are frozen is that kidnapping and false imprisonment?


Right.  So if you broke in and destroyed a fertilized embryo do you think the people whose child it was would see that as murder?


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> Actually they only need to determine if life in the womb has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  They can leave it up to the states to decide whose rights take precedence.


So they should punt?  That didn't work so well for Civil Rights in the US.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> There are more definitions of human life than just the biological one.


And all are arbitrary and capricious.  That's a term used in courts often.  I wouldn't be surprised to see SCOTUS use that in their ruling when they strike down Roe v Wade.


----------



## ClaireH (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> Right.  So if you broke in and destroyed a fertilized embryo do you think the people whose child it was would see that as murder?


Wow Ding, you have impressive debate tactics using such similes. I for one will keep reading.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> Right.  So if you broke in and destroyed a fertilized embryo do you think the people whose child it was would see that as murder?


Irrelevant, it would mean the loss of something very valuable to them but you are avoiding the issue.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> So they should punt?  That didn't work so well for Civil Rights in the US.


That's not punting.  That's leaving it for the states to decide which is the way it use to be.  Funny that you mention civil rights as a key point because you seem eager to take away the child's civil rights.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> And all are arbitrary and capricious.  That's a term used in courts often.  I wouldn't be surprised to see SCOTUS use that in their ruling when they strike down Roe v Wade.


Many things are arbitrary.  How old should you be to vote in an election?


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> That's not punting.  That's leaving it for the states to decide which is the way it use to be.  Funny that you mention civil rights as a key point because you seem eager to take away the child's civil rights.


You seem eager to take away the rights of the mother.


----------



## ClaireH (Dec 22, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> Many people do you idiot


I have a friend who continues to celebrate her infant daughter‘s birthday, who died at birth, with her family. Life is precious.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Irrelevant, it would mean the loss of something very valuable to them but you are avoiding the issue.


I doubt it would be irrelevant to the parents of the child you destroyed.  

The determination of when a human life begins has been decided by science.  The determination  if life in the womb has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness  will be decided by SCOTUS.  

It will be up to the states to determine how they will balance the rights of the child and the mother.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> You seem eager to take away the rights of the mother.


Again... It will be up to the states to determine how they will balance the rights of the child and the mother..

What right would that be exactly?  The right to dispose of her property as she sees fit?


----------



## Death Angel (Dec 22, 2021)

ClaireH said:


> I have a friend who continues to celebrate her infant daughter‘s birthday, who died at birth, with her family. Life is precious.


People who actively support abortion as if it were getting a wart removed know better, but they are determined to live in denial. Leftists really are the science deniers


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

ClaireH said:


> It would be better to distinguish between  the following: when does human life occur/begin, and when can a new life form exist by itself. Huge difference and I see a little bit of blending of the two, perhaps unintentionally, with your remarks.


That is the crux of the debate.  The original ruling never addressed the first point.


----------



## Death Angel (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> That is the crux of the debate.  The original ruling never addressed the first point.


Are you saying if a life depends on the mother, or an elderly parent, or an I'll anyone who is dependent on others has no absolute right to life?


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Many things are arbitrary.  How old should you be to vote in an election?


True.  But you want to decide it for everyone whereas I want each state to decide that for themselves.  

So which one of us is being more demanding in forcing their beliefs on others?  The one who doesn't want anyone else to decide for themselves or the one who wants others to decide for themselves?


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> It will be up to the states to determine how they will balance the rights of the child and the mother.


I think you are right.  I wonder if those states will offer more support to mothers and families or will we be inundated with horror stories?  The burden on a family to raise a severely handicapped child affects many people, financially and emotionally.  That time and money has to be taken from somewhere so the suffering is not just endured by that disabled child.

I think many in the pro-life ranks have an ideological purity that those of us in the real world can only envy.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> The right to dispose of her property as she sees fit?


Her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> Are you saying if a life depends on the mother, or an elderly parent, or an I'll anyone who is dependent on others has no absolute right to life?


No.  I am saying that the original ruling never examined any scientific evidence for when human life begins.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> True.  But you want to decide it for everyone whereas I want each state to decide that for themselves.
> 
> So which one of us is being more demanding in forcing their beliefs on others?  The one who doesn't want anyone else to decide for themselves or the one who wants others to decide for themselves?


I lived through the Civil Rights era, so you may have more respect for States than I do.  I see us spiraling downward to Jim Crow.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


She still has all of those things but if you believe she doesn't then I would say that her rights end when she infringes on the rights of others. 

The child in the womb is not her property.  The child in her womb is not her body.  The child in her womb is a genetically distinct new human being.  One that has never existed before and will never exist again. 

But again... I'm not the one who wants to force his beliefs on everyone.  That's you.  You want to skip  examination and go straight to implementing your judgement and want it to be binding on everyone.  I want SCOTUS to make a ruling on when legal rights begin for a new, specific, genetically distinct human being.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I lived through the Civil Rights era, so you may have more respect for States than I do.  I see us spiraling downward to Jim Crow.


Again... it's odd that you are so eager to remove all civil rights for a child in the womb without ever having a fair trial.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I think you are right.  I wonder if those states will offer more support to mothers and families or will we be inundated with horror stories?  The burden on a family to raise a severely handicapped child affects many people, financially and emotionally.  That time and money has to be taken from somewhere so the suffering is not just endured by that disabled child.
> 
> I think many in the pro-life ranks have an ideological purity that those of us in the real world can only envy.


Don't know.  That's up to each state to decide.  But it's certainly no reason not to have a fair hearing to determine when those rights begin for a child in the womb.  Or for that matter to let it influence the outcome of the decision.  Rights are not granted because they are convenient.  So they shouldn't not be granted because they are inconvenient.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 22, 2021)

ClaireH said:


> It would be better to distinguish between  the following: when does human life occur/begin, and when can a new life form exist by itself. Huge difference and I see a little bit of blending of the two, perhaps unintentionally, with your remarks.


How about asking the scientists when the fetus can feel pain, or have thoughts?


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> How about asking the scientists when the fetus can feel pain, or have thoughts?


In embryology textbooks I believe that is addressed in the section immediately following the section which explains how human life begins at conception.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 23, 2021)

ding said:


> She still has all of those things but if you believe she doesn't then I would say that her rights end when she infringes on the rights of others.


Do others have a right to infringe on her?  If giving birth to the baby will jeopardize her health would that change the equation?  What if the baby will be severely disabled would that change your equation?



ding said:


> The child in the womb is not her property.  The child in her womb is not her body.  The child in her womb is a genetically distinct new human being.  One that has never existed before and will never exist again.


You mean that DNA is something special because it is unique?  Sorry not impressed.  My kids did plenty of artwork that was certainly unique but most got thrown out.



ding said:


> But again... I'm not the one who wants to force his beliefs on everyone.  That's you.  You want to skip  examination and go straight to implementing your judgement and want it to be binding on everyone.  I want SCOTUS to make a ruling on when legal rights begin for a new, specific, genetically distinct human being.


You don't want to accept responsibility either.  Should Civil Rights be returned to the states too?


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 23, 2021)

ding said:


> Again... it's odd that you are so eager to remove all civil rights for a child in the womb without ever having a fair trial.


Because I don't see a fertilized egg as a 'child'.  It is merely a biological machine.  When it can testify at its trial it will already have won.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 23, 2021)

ding said:


> Don't know.  That's up to each state to decide.  But it's certainly no reason not to have a fair hearing to determine when those rights begin for a child in the womb.  Or for that matter to let it influence the outcome of the decision.  Rights are not granted because they are convenient.  So they shouldn't not be granted because they are inconvenient.


How many thousands of children did the US kill in the WWII bombing of German because they were inconveniently close to a target (or they were the target themselves)?  Was the US morally right to drop those bombs?


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 24, 2021)

ding said:


> Again... it's odd that you are so eager to remove all civil rights for a child in the womb without ever having a fair trial.


I believe in restrictions on abortion, meaning I'm against abortion at any stage for any reason.  Are there any circumstances that you'd condone abortion?  Imminent threat to the mother's life for instance?


----------



## ding (Dec 25, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Do others have a right to infringe on her?


When someone is infringing upon the rights of others, yes.  It happens all the time.  In fact, even after someone has infringed upon the rights of others, their rights can be lost.  


alang1216 said:


> If giving birth to the baby will jeopardize her health would that change the equation?


That's for each state to decide.


alang1216 said:


> What if the baby will be severely disabled would that change your equation?


That's for each state to decide.


----------



## ding (Dec 25, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> You mean that DNA is something special because it is unique? Sorry not impressed. My kids did plenty of artwork that was certainly unique but most got thrown out.


DNA is proof of a specific person.


----------



## ding (Dec 25, 2021)

ding said:


> But again... I'm not the one who wants to force his beliefs on everyone. That's you. You want to skip examination and go straight to implementing your judgement and want it to be binding on everyone. I want SCOTUS to make a ruling on when legal rights begin for a new, specific, genetically distinct human being.





alang1216 said:


> You don't want to accept responsibility either. Should Civil Rights be returned to the states too?


Wanting a legal determination of when rights convey to a genetically distinct living human being in a womb based upon science and law is in no way denying responsibility.

The irony of your civil rights argument is that it was some states that were denying human rights to humans.  It was because some states wanted to continue treating humans as property - as less than human - like you want to do today.


----------



## ding (Dec 25, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Because I don't see a fertilized egg as a 'child'. It is merely a biological machine. When it can testify at its trial it will already have won.


You misspelled human.  You don't see a fertilized egg as a human being in its earliest stage of the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.  Every point along the continuum is fully human and has the characteristics appropriate for that stage of the human life cycle.  

This is you treating human life as less than human.  This is you treating human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.  If that's not a civil rights violation, nothing is.


----------



## ding (Dec 25, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> How many thousands of children did the US kill in the WWII bombing of German because they were inconveniently close to a target (or they were the target themselves)?  Was the US morally right to drop those bombs?


Comparing war between nations to women who want to abort their babies seems like a silly argument even for you.  

War is not moral.  Therefore, killing in war would be considered the lesser of two evils.  Abortion is not moral and for the overwhelming vast majority of abortions cannot be considered to be the lesser of two evils.


----------



## ding (Dec 25, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I believe in restrictions on abortion, meaning I'm against abortion at any stage for any reason.  Are there any circumstances that you'd condone abortion?  Imminent threat to the mother's life for instance?


That should be up to each state to decide.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 25, 2021)

ding said:


> That's for each state to decide.
> 
> That's for each state to decide.


So your only moral objection to abortion is that the States don't get to decide the rules.  Noted.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 25, 2021)

ding said:


> DNA is proof of a specific person.


No.  DNA is, in part, the potential to become a person.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 25, 2021)

ding said:


> Wanting a legal determination of when rights convey to a genetically distinct living human being in a womb based upon science and law is in no way denying responsibility.


I disagree.  Relying on science to answer a question that science can't answer is irresponsible.


ding said:


> The irony of your civil rights argument is that it was some states that were denying human rights to humans.  It was because some states wanted to continue treating humans as property - as less than human - like you want to do today.


Forcing a woman to carry a baby she does not want is treating her as less than human


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 25, 2021)

ding said:


> You misspelled human.  You don't see a fertilized egg as a human being in its earliest stage of the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.  Every point along the continuum is fully human and has the characteristics appropriate for that stage of the human life cycle.
> 
> This is you treating human life as less than human.  This is you treating human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.  If that's not a civil rights violation, nothing is.


People have always balanced lives vs other things.  In WWII we bombed cities, knowing innocent lives would be taken.  Recently we have tried to balance lives lost to the pandemic against economic and political costs.

You are welcome to be all sanctimonious but in the real world, lives have a tangible value that can be balanced against other values.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 25, 2021)

ding said:


> Abortion is not moral and for the overwhelming vast majority of abortions cannot be considered to be the lesser of two evils.


So in a few circumstances, abortion is justified?


----------



## Death Angel (Dec 25, 2021)

ding said:


> No.  I am saying that the original ruling never examined any scientific evidence for when human life begins.


I know where you stand. I was making a point for the anti-lifers


----------



## Death Angel (Dec 25, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> People have always balanced lives vs other things. In WWII we bombed cities, knowing innocent lives would be taken


So you agree the left is AT WAR with beginning human life


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 25, 2021)

ding said:


> That should be up to each state to decide.


Leaving moral questions to others?  That is a cop out.  I guess I should be talking with state officials, not you.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 25, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> So you agree the left is AT WAR with beginning human life


I don't speak for the left, I speak only for me.  I'm not at war with human life, I place great value on it, and not just on it's beginning but the entire life.


----------



## ding (Dec 25, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> So your only moral objection to abortion is that the States don't get to decide the rules.  Noted.


That's quite a leap in logic you just made, Evil Knievel.

So, no.  Not noted.


----------



## ding (Dec 25, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> No.  DNA is, in part, the potential to become a person.


Incorrect.  At conception a potential person does not come into existence.  A person with potential comes into existence.  We use DNA to identify specific persons.


----------



## ding (Dec 25, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I disagree.  Relying on science to answer a question that science can't answer is irresponsible.


Dr Jerome LeJeune disagrees.

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." 
Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner


----------



## ding (Dec 25, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Forcing a woman to carry a baby she does not want is treating her as less than human


That will be up to each state to decide.


----------



## ClaireH (Dec 25, 2021)

ding said:


> Incorrect.  At conception a potential person does not come into existence.  A person with potential comes into existence.  We use DNA to identify specific persons.


Unless new life comes in contact with violence or death, the path is set to
survive and thrive.


----------



## ding (Dec 25, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> People have always balanced lives vs other things.  In WWII we bombed cities, knowing innocent lives would be taken.  Recently we have tried to balance lives lost to the pandemic against economic and political costs.
> 
> You are welcome to be all sanctimonious but in the real world, lives have a tangible value that can be balanced against other values.


I don't believe it is sanctimonious to recognize that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.  It's just science.

Sanctimonious would be you believing that no one should ever be allowed to challenge the status quo because you think you know better.


----------



## ding (Dec 25, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> So in a few circumstances, abortion is justified?


Not to me it isn't but that's for each state to decide.


----------



## ding (Dec 25, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Leaving moral questions to others?  That is a cop out.  I guess I should be talking with state officials, not you.


More like abiding with decisions I have no control over.  But if you want to see that as a cop out and seek out state officials to talk to, I will abide those decisions too.  I control the things I can control and leave the rest to God.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 26, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> I know where you stand. I was making a point for the anti-lifers


No, you just regurgitated a stupid talking point of you anti choicers who think women are property.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 26, 2021)

ding said:


> That will be up to each state to decide.


Do you have a moral issue if a state decides a mother must carry every fetus?  Or decides a mother does not have to carry her fetus?


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 26, 2021)

ding said:


> Incorrect.  At conception a potential person does not come into existence.  A person with potential comes into existence.  We use DNA to identify specific persons.


Semantics.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 26, 2021)

ding said:


> Dr Jerome LeJeune disagrees.
> 
> "After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...."
> Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner


What does science tell Dr. LeJeune to say is the age when someone should be able to vote?


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 26, 2021)

ding said:


> Sanctimonious would be you believing that no one should ever be allowed to challenge the status quo because you think you know better.


Sanctimonious would be you believing that you think you know better than the mother what is the right thing to do.


----------



## ClaireH (Dec 26, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> What does science tell Dr. LeJeune to say is the age when someone should be able to vote?


Halfway butting in (public forum considered) but it should have been older if logical thought is important to the process. Due to need, voting was set at 18. We didn’t have the medical knowledge at the time and “middle-age” and “old age” categories were much lower than today’s lifespan averages. Voting and military draft to give us the best odds for full logic capabilities (frontal lobe connects fully with brainstem around 23 or even later by other studies) definitely not happening for most people at 18. Not then, and not now.


----------



## ding (Dec 26, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Do you have a moral issue if a state decides a mother must carry every fetus?  Or decides a mother does not have to carry her fetus?


Would it change anything?


----------



## ding (Dec 26, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Semantics.


No.  It's science.  

“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.”
Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 26, 2021)

When does human life begin?​When the man lights up the post-coital cigarette?


----------



## ding (Dec 26, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Sanctimonious would be you believing that you think you know better than the mother what is the right thing to do.


Good thing I am only arguing that legal rights for life in womb be established based on science and law.  Seems only fair.  Everything else can be sorted after that in due time.  As those things have nothing to do with this determination.


----------



## ding (Dec 26, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, you just regurgitated a stupid talking point of you anti choicers who think women are property.


If women were property then they could be disposed of at the will of its owner like an aborted baby.  So I think you got that whole property argument backwards.


----------



## ding (Dec 26, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> What does science tell Dr. LeJeune to say is the age when someone should be able to vote?


I suspect he would say that has nothing to do with the scientific determination of when a human being comes into existence.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 26, 2021)

ding said:


> Would it change anything?


Another evasion.


----------



## ding (Dec 26, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Another evasion.


No.  Another reality.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 26, 2021)

ding said:


> Good thing I am only arguing that* legal rights for life in womb be established based on science and law*.  Seems only fair.  Everything else can be sorted after that in due time.  As those things have nothing to do with this determination.


Legal rights can, by definition, *only *be established by law.  Science may guide the law's creation but does not determine it.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 26, 2021)

ding said:


> I suspect he would say that has nothing to do with the scientific determination of when a human being comes into existence.


Whatever science has to say, it is WHEN a life is ended that is the question here and for that there is no scientific determination.


----------



## Dadoalex (Dec 26, 2021)

ding said:


> Science makes it clear too....
> 
> ...at conception.


Wrong.

It begins as a sperm and and egg.  So, preconception.

THEREFORE

According to the right...
A valid defense of rape is not killing the semen
and
Every woman who fails to conceive during each and every cycle is guilty of murder.

Can we understand how ridiculous that position is?

Human life begins at birth.  Prior to that the organism is called a fetus, or zygote.  That is the science.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 26, 2021)

ding said:


> No.  It's science.
> 
> “….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.”
> Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School


Semantics: 'person' does not necessarily equal 'human being'
*II. Who or what is a person?*​To be classified as a "person" normally entails having strong moral rights and legal protections, and higher moral status than living things that cannot credibly be classified as persons. But as Karen Gervais (1986) effectively argued, the more basic question here is a metaphysical or ontological one about the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowing when a particular kind of being exists or does not exist.


----------



## Colin norris (Dec 26, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Science.  Science textbooks do not teach ethics, morals, religion, sociology, the Constitution, or the law.


Why should they. You can believe the God shit forever and it's still bullshit. 
Ironically, not one of the list you have are gifts from your silly God. Not one.


----------



## ding (Dec 26, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Legal rights can, by definition, *only *be established by law.  Science may guide the law's creation but does not determine it.


That will be for SCOTUS to decide.


----------



## ding (Dec 26, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Whatever science has to say, it is WHEN a life is ended that is the question here and for that there is no scientific determination.


I don't believe anyone will argue that abortion doesn't end a human life.  That's kind of the point of abortion.  Science says that at conception a new human being has come into existence.  One that has never existed before and will never exist again.


----------



## ding (Dec 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Wrong.
> 
> It begins as a sperm and and egg.  So, preconception.
> 
> ...


I doubt very seriously anyone will be making that argument to SCOTUS.  It's a ridiculous argument on so many levels.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 27, 2021)

ding said:


> I don't believe anyone will argue that abortion doesn't end a human life.  That's kind of the point of abortion.  Science says that at conception a new human being has come into existence.  One that has never existed before and will never exist again.


800,000 lives that never existed before are now gone because, in part, we didn't do everything to save them.  I guess you'll leave that to the States or SCOTUS to decide.  Must be great having such a clear conscience.


----------



## ding (Dec 27, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> 800,000 lives that never existed before are now gone because, in part, we didn't do everything to save them.  I guess you'll leave that to the States or SCOTUS to decide.  Must be great having such a clear conscience.


I guess I don't get as emotional as you do about events that are beyond my control.  When I say that something is up to the states to decide, it's not meant to say that's my preference.  It's meant to be a statement of fact as in that is what will happen when Roe v Wade is overturned.


----------



## Dadoalex (Dec 27, 2021)

ding said:


> I doubt very seriously anyone will be making that argument to SCOTUS.  It's a ridiculous argument on so many levels.


Agreed.  But, it is the same as any pro-life argument.  Relying entirely on my faith in what I might believe and claiming it is science.


----------



## ding (Dec 27, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Agreed.  But, it is the same as any pro-life argument.  Relying entirely on my faith in what I might believe and claiming it is science.


There's no good reason to make a religious argument.  None is needed.  The science is clear.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 27, 2021)

ding said:


> I guess I don't get as emotional as you do about events that are beyond my control.  When I say that something is up to the states to decide, it's not meant to say that's my preference.  It's meant to be a statement of fact as in that is what will happen when Roe v Wade is overturned.


No, you just refuse take responsibility for the hardships your ideological purity would inflict on others.  You see only one side of the issue, a few strands of DNA, and ignore the lives of the real human beings that would suffer when abortion is banned.


----------



## ding (Dec 27, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> it is the same as any pro-life argument


Saying that and proving that are two different things.


----------



## ding (Dec 27, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> No, you just refuse take responsibility for the hardships your ideological purity would inflict on others.  You see only one side of the issue, a few strands of DNA, and ignore the lives of the real human beings that would suffer when abortion is banned.


How do you propose I take responsibility for the hardships my ideological purity would inflict on others?

It must be disconcerting to you that any other point along the humanness continuum other than conception is scientifically arbitrary and capricious because I can't think of any other reason for you to take this so personal and try to make it personal for me.  Which by the way, ain't going to happen.  Especially since you haven't done anything whatsoever to alleviate something you have already admitted is wrong.


----------



## Dadoalex (Dec 27, 2021)

ding said:


> There's no good reason to make a religious argument.  None is needed.  The science is clear.


Yes, it is.  Human life begins at birth.  There are many stage prior to birth each with a unique name and function but none are human.


----------



## ding (Dec 27, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Yes, it is.  Human life begins at birth.  There are many stage prior to birth each with a unique name and function but none are human.


Arguing that human life begins at conception is a scientific argument and has no need for religious beliefs.  So I am not sure what you are trying to get at.  Unless you are saying you are making a religious argument.


----------



## alang1216 (Dec 27, 2021)

ding said:


> How do you propose I take responsibility for the hardships my ideological purity would inflict on others?
> 
> It must be disconcerting to you that any other point along the humanness continuum other than conception is scientifically arbitrary and capricious because I can't think of any other reason for you to take this so personal and try to make it personal for me.  Which by the way, ain't going to happen.  Especially since you haven't done anything whatsoever to alleviate something you have already admitted is wrong.


How about you admit that forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term may be dangerous for her and detrimental to her family and may inflict great suffering on everyone involved?  If you can own all that I'll have much more respect for your position.


----------



## Dadoalex (Dec 27, 2021)

ding said:


> Saying that and proving that are two different things.


Proving what?  That human life "begins" at conception?

Never claimed it.


----------



## Dadoalex (Dec 27, 2021)

ding said:


> Arguing that human life begins at conception is a scientific argument and has no need for religious beliefs.  So I am not sure what you are trying to get at.  Unless you are saying you are making a religious argument.


No, it is not.  It is an opinion based on the religious command to "go forth and multiply."

The opinion that human life "begins" preconception is every bit as valid as the one that claims it "begins" at conception.


----------



## ding (Dec 27, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> How about you admit that forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term may be dangerous for her and detrimental to her family and may inflict great suffering on everyone involved?  If you can own all that I'll have much more respect for your position.


Again... that will be for the states to decide.  They will have to determine whose precedence takes priority.  But those determinations won't impact the finding of when life begins.


----------



## ding (Dec 27, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Proving what?  That human life "begins" at conception?
> 
> Never claimed it.


You don't have to.  It's already been proven.  It's in every embryology textbook.


----------



## Dadoalex (Dec 27, 2021)

ding said:


> You don't have to.  It's already been proven.  It's in every embryology textbook.


Quote one that specifically says "Human life begins at conception."

The embryo is no more human than the skin cells on your hand or a follicle of what remains of your hair.  It is identifiable as coming from a human (the mother) but, like the skin cell or the follicle is merely a part of the human it came from.


----------



## ClaireH (Dec 27, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> No, it is not.  It is an opinion based on the religious command to "go forth and multiply."
> 
> The opinion that human life "begins" preconception is every bit as valid as the one that claims it "begins" at conception.


That’s not something easy to grasp Dadoalex, that life occurs PRIOR to fertilization (unification creating a zygote-new life). You are stating that new life occurs PRIOR to the egg fertilized by sperm? Interesting concept. I wasn’t familiar that religious doctrine teaches that concept, but given the numerous religious philosophies I’m sure there are at least a few?

New life is created by the union of the two. Each entity by itself, sperm and egg, does not lead to new life.

Until the active mad scientists, who lack signs of ethical awareness try it. Likely already in the works… man creating new life could eventually lead to our doom, but that’s another topic.


----------



## ding (Dec 27, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Quote one that specifically says "Human life begins at conception."
> 
> The embryo is no more human than the skin cells on your hand or a follicle of what remains of your hair.  It is identifiable as coming from a human (the mother) but, like the skin cell or the follicle is merely a part of the human it came from.





> “Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”


Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.


----------



## Dadoalex (Dec 27, 2021)

ClaireH said:


> That’s not something easy to grasp Dadoalex, that life occurs PRIOR to fertilization (unification creating a zygote-new life). You are stating that new life occurs PRIOR to the egg fertilized by sperm? Interesting concept. I wasn’t familiar that religious doctrine teaches that concept, but given the numerous religious philosophies I’m sure there are at least a few?
> 
> New life is created by the union of the two. Each entity by itself, sperm and egg, does not lead to new life.
> 
> Until the active mad scientists, who lack signs of ethical awareness try it. Likely already in the works… man creating new life could eventually lead to our doom, but that’s another topic.


Human is the issue.
When does the fetus become human being as opposed to something else?

As for doctrine?  Where in the bible does it speak about sperm and egg, zygote, fetus?


----------



## ding (Dec 27, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> No, it is not.  It is an opinion based on the religious command to "go forth and multiply."
> 
> The opinion that human life "begins" preconception is every bit as valid as the one that claims it "begins" at conception.


Dr Jerome LeJeune disagrees.

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...."
Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner


----------



## ding (Dec 27, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> When does the fetus become human being as opposed to something else?


Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland, responds...

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again.  The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point."


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> When does the fetus become human being as opposed to something else?


Maybe there  is just no one, "correct answer" to this. How about we agree on that?

But we have to draw a line in the sand anyway. We don't have much choice but to all agree on that.

 For now, that constitutionally protected "line in the sand" is at 24 weeks gestation. 

Why 24 weeks? Because a lot of scientists gave opinions on the progression of a fetus, and that was the line agreed upon. An ethical decision, informed by science.


----------



## ding (Dec 27, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Maybe there  is just no one, "correct answer" to this. How about we agree on that?
> 
> But we have to draw a line in the sand anyway. We don't have much choice but to all agree on that.
> 
> ...


And when Roe v Wade gets overturned based on an arbitrary and capricious line in the sand that determination will revert back to the states.


----------



## Dadoalex (Dec 27, 2021)

ding said:


> Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.


"Human life begins at fertilization" is not the same as when does the embryo become human.

So we're back to the original proposition that the claim that the embryo is human at preconception is every bit as valid as the the claim it begins at conception.

Either are just opinions based on personal beliefs and neither should be encoded into law.


----------



## Dadoalex (Dec 27, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Maybe there  is just no one, "correct answer" to this. How about we agree on that?
> 
> But we have to draw a line in the sand anyway. We don't have much choice but to all agree on that.
> 
> ...


I'm more than willing to meet in the middle.  Pretty sure the other side is the issue.


----------



## ding (Dec 27, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> "Human life begins at fertilization" is not the same as when does the embryo become human.
> 
> So we're back to the original proposition that the claim that the embryo is human at preconception is every bit as valid as the the claim it begins at conception.
> 
> Either are just opinions based on personal beliefs and neither should be encoded into law.


You are cracking me up.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> I'm more than willing to meet in the middle.  Pretty sure the other side is the issue.


And I think we already met in the middle in 1973. Not one more inch, I say. But I only have one vote.


----------



## ClaireH (Dec 27, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Human is the issue.
> When does the fetus become human being as opposed to something else?
> 
> As for doctrine?  Where in the bible does it speak about sperm and egg, zygote, fetus?


I like looking at the simple difference that until the egg becomes fertilized there is no new life prior to that point of conception. Scientifically of course there are stages even three distinctive stages when it comes to fertilization, if one wants to break it down. We humans have an innate need to organize, classify, specify, simplify, which in a perfect world would work well. Human evolution has a long way to go to prefect order without disrupting order. Currently, most efforts made to reach consensus fail, including scientific determination of exact point of where new life is created. The only moral way that humans should be creating life is through natural procreation. The exact hour is hard to pinpoint, but it’s defined as a zygote. A human zygote cannot form without the male and female biological determinants (but back to the “mad scientists” in their labs, who knows what’s going on across the globe).


----------



## JoeMoma (Jan 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Arbitrary and capricious.  SCOTUS won't have any appetite for those arguments.  I certainly don't.  It just makes you look like a nazi.


You have much more confidence and faith in SCOTUS than I do.


----------



## Death Angel (Jan 22, 2022)




----------



## Death Angel (May 6, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So zinc makes us human?


The creation of each human begins in a flash of light


----------



## there4eyeM (May 6, 2022)

Until we know that every man and fertile woman is fully informed about how fertilization occurs, we cannot reproach those who ignorantly fall into a pregnancy that should not carry through. Until we know that fertile women have the capacity to fully understand the consequences of bringing another human into being, an avenue should be available for rectifying an error. Until there is a system to pay for prenatal life and the post natal care/adoption phase is assured, preventing choice is hypocritical and cruel.


----------



## Flash (May 6, 2022)

By the time a woman knows she is pregnant the baby has a heartbeat.

Libtards don't know things like that because they are ignorant in Biology.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 6, 2022)

When does human life begin?​According to experts, somewhere around three billion years ago.


----------



## Death Angel (May 6, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> preventing choice is hypocritical and cruel


I choose to eliminate unwanted black Yutes who are very likely to bring misery and suffering to millions of innocent folks.  Thank you for recognizing and respecting my choice


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 6, 2022)

Death Angel said:


> I choose to eliminate unwanted black Yutes who are very likely to bring misery and suffering to millions of innocent folks.  Thank you for recognizing and respecting my choice


No less moral than your god awful, iron age mythology.


----------



## Death Angel (May 6, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No less moral than your god awful, iron age mythology.


Murder of children is equal in your mind to following Jesus Christ.  Thank you for exposing your soul


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 6, 2022)

Death Angel said:


> Murder of children is equal in your mind to following Jesus Christ.  Thank you for exposing your soul


That's not the immoral part. That's your crybaby strawman you just invented, because you're kind of an intellectual sissy sometimes.


----------



## Death Angel (May 6, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Maybe there  is just no one, "correct answer" to this. How about we agree on that?
> 
> But we have to draw a line in the sand anyway. We don't have much choice but to all agree on that.
> 
> ...


It's a human life AT CONCEPTION. There is no compromise with innocent human life


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 6, 2022)

Death Angel said:


> It's a human life AT CONCEPTION.


Okay, but not a person, really. And the mother comes first. 

Spare me, I have no desire to argue the merits of 21st century abortion with a person who takes his cues from childish, primitive, iron age mythology.


----------



## james bond (May 6, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So zinc makes us human?


LMAO.  He was making a point using science and you didn't have a clue.  Eat sh*t and die.  Hope you get that thru your thick skull.


----------



## alang1216 (May 7, 2022)

james bond said:


> LMAO.  He was making a point using science and you didn't have a clue.  Eat sh*t and die.  Hope you get that thru your thick skull.


Tsk, tsk.  Not very Christian of you.  WWJS?


----------



## there4eyeM (May 7, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> When does human life begin?​According to experts, somewhere around three billion years ago.


Some people don't agree with science.
Some people want to pretend that whole things are really separated into pieces. 
Some people want to pretend that we don't make life and death decisions all the time.
Some people maintain the false equivalence of the decision to avoid bringing a pregnancy to term with murder.
Some people knowingly allow what they call murder to take place without going to the site and stopping it.
Some people want their minority to dominate.


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Okay, but not a person, really...


DNA says otherwise.


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> Some people don't agree with science.
> Some people want to pretend that whole things are really separated into pieces.
> Some people want to pretend that we don't make life and death decisions all the time.
> Some people maintain the false equivalence of the decision to avoid bringing a pregnancy to term with murder.
> ...


History has shown dehumanizing human life is a slippery slope.


----------



## alang1216 (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> DNA says otherwise.


What can DNA do that is human?


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> What can DNA do that is human?


DNA defines specific persons.

Thus proving that at conception a new specific person has come into existence.  One that has never existed before and will never exist again.


----------



## alang1216 (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> DNA defines specific persons.
> 
> Thus proving that at conception a new specific person has come into existence.  One that has never existed before and will never exist again.


So it is unique DNA that makes us human, not our brains?


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So it is unique DNA that makes us human, not our brains?


It's DNA that determines and identifies us as unique, specific human beings.  

That's why they use DNA and not MRI's of brains in criminal cases as evidence


----------



## james bond (May 12, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So it is unique DNA that makes us human, not our brains?


I dunno about human, but think a little electricity to the brain could make us more _moral_.


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> Science makes it clear too....
> 
> ...at conception.


How is one alive without a heart, brain and other organs needed to sustain life?


----------



## alang1216 (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> It's DNA that determines and identifies us as unique, specific human beings.
> 
> That's why they use DNA and not MRI's of brains in criminal cases as evidence


We also use fingerprints and retinal scans.  Do they deserve protection?


----------



## alang1216 (May 12, 2022)

james bond said:


> I dunno about human, but think a little electricity to the brain could make us more _moral_.


Let us know how that works for you.  I'm very curious.


----------



## Orangecat (May 12, 2022)

Faun said:


> How is one alive without a heart, brain and other organs needed to sustain life?


Not sure, but you’re living proof.


----------



## Orangecat (May 12, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> We also use fingerprints and retinal scans.  Do they deserve protection?


You don’t think well.


----------



## alang1216 (May 12, 2022)

Orangecat said:


> You don’t think well.


You don't answer questions well.  Or at all actually.  You're not even very good at ad hominins.


----------



## Death Angel (May 12, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Okay, but not a person, really. And the mother comes first


The baby isn't making any decision to murder its mother.  The "mother" is making the decision to murder a unique human life.


----------



## alang1216 (May 12, 2022)

Death Angel said:


> The baby isn't making any decision to murder its mother.  The "mother" is making the decision to murder a unique human life.


So if the mother's health is endangered by the pregnancy you're OK with an abortion?


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

Faun said:


> How is one alive without a heart, brain and other organs needed to sustain life?


It's all part of the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.  Every stage along that continuum is fully human with the appropriate attributes for that particular stage of the continuum.

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again.  The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." 
*Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland*


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> We also use fingerprints and retinal scans.  Do they deserve protection?


DNA, fingerprints, retinal scans, etc. are artifacts of being human.  It's humans that deserve protection, not the artifacts.


----------



## Death Angel (May 12, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So if the mother's health is endangered by the pregnancy you're OK with an abortion?


I didn't say that.

What percentage of babies in the womb actually NEED TO BE KILLED to save the life of the mother? Look it up.  The answer will surprise you.  You're grasping at straws to defend the "right" to kill babies.

If a woman actually has the imaginary health issues you describe, she needs to get herself sterilized so she can safely spread her legs to any man she desires


----------



## alang1216 (May 12, 2022)

Death Angel said:


> I didn't say that.
> 
> What percentage of babies in the womb actually NEED TO BE KILLED to save the life of the mother? Look it up.  The answer will surprise you.  You're grasping at straws to defend the "right" to kill babies.
> 
> If a woman actually has the imaginary health issues you describe, she needs to get herself sterilized so she can safely spread her legs to any man she desires


So it is just tough luck for those mothers whose lives are legitimately threatened by a pregnancy?  Your misogyny shows you care about the unborn but care nothing for those already born.  Nice.


----------



## alang1216 (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> DNA, fingerprints, retinal scans, etc. are artifacts of being human.  It's humans that deserve protection, not the artifacts.


So if DNA is an *artifact *of being human and, as you say, artifacts don't deserve protection, is the abortion of a fertilized egg murder of a human being?


----------



## Orangecat (May 12, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> You don't answer questions well.  Or at all actually.  You're not even very good at ad hominins.


No one asked me a question. Pay attention.
You, on the other hand, asked if fingerprints and retina needed protection in response to someone claiming unique DNA determines individual life.
That’s why you don’t think well.


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So if DNA is an *artifact *of being human and, as you say, artifacts don't deserve protection, is the abortion of a fertilized egg murder of a human being?


Again... at conception a new genetically distinct HUMAN BEING is created.  So abortion... by definition does end the life of a human being.

It will most likely be up to each state to decide how they will treat it.


----------



## alang1216 (May 12, 2022)

Orangecat said:


> No one asked me a question. Pay attention.
> You, on the other hand, asked if fingerprints and retina needed protection in response to someone claiming unique DNA determines individual life.
> That’s why you don’t think well.


You're certainly entitled to your opinion but if you jump in it might be nice to have something more to add.  Like a reason for instance.  Why to you say I don't think well?


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> You're certainly entitled to your opinion but if you jump in it might be nice to have something more to add.  Like a reason for instance.  Why to you say I don't think well?


It's not that you don't think well as much as it's that you have a preference for an outcome and are biased against anything that threatens that.


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> It's all part of the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.  Every stage along that continuum is fully human with the appropriate attributes for that particular stage of the continuum.
> 
> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again.  The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point."
> *Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland*



Nope, not a life...


----------



## Leo123 (May 12, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So if DNA is an *artifact *of being human and, as you say, artifacts don't deserve protection, is the abortion of a fertilized egg murder of a human being?


Abortion is the killing of a developing human being.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 12, 2022)

Death Angel said:


> The baby isn't making any decision to murder its mother.


The fetus isn't making any decisions at all, weirdo. It doesn't think or have a personality.


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

Faun said:


> Nope, not a life...


"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - *Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner*


----------



## Leo123 (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> Again... at conception a new genetically distinct HUMAN BEING is created.  So abortion... by definition does end the life of a human being.
> 
> It will most likely be up to each state to decide how they will treat it.


Yes it is a life that would most likely develop into a human being if not killed.


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The fetus isn't making any decisions at all, weirdo. It doesn't think or have a personality.


Neither does someone who is unconscious.


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Yes it is a life that would most likely develop into a human being if not killed.


It's fully human at every point along the continuum.  That's in every embryology textbook ever written.


----------



## irosie91 (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> It's fully human at every point along the continuum.  That's in every embryology textbook ever written.


   reminds me of something my son told me 
   when my sister-in-law criticized me AND him.  
   I said  "she was bitter since our pregnancies which 
   took place at the same time".    Son said---what did 
   she say ?    My morula is better than your morula?


----------



## Leo123 (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> It's fully human at every point along the continuum.  That's in every embryology textbook ever written.


Yes it is a human life but not yet fully developed.


----------



## irosie91 (May 12, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Yes it is a human life but not yet fully developed.   I thought I was clear.


   my tonsils were human life too----but the doc 
   yanked them out and threw them away when I 
   was four


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

irosie91 said:


> reminds me of something my son told me
> when my sister-in-law criticized me AND him.
> I said  "she was bitter since our pregnancies which
> took place at the same time".    Son said---what did
> she say ?    My morula is better than your morula?


From what I have heard Jews have a religious exemption argument for abortions.  In other words, laws which make abortion illegal would violate the religious practice of the Jews.

Do you know anything about this?  Did I state it correctly?


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

irosie91 said:


> my tonsils were human life too----but the doc
> yanked them out and threw them away when I
> was four


Were your tonsils a new genetically distinct human being?


----------



## Leo123 (May 12, 2022)

irosie91 said:


> my tonsils were human life too----but the doc
> yanked them out and threw them away when I
> was four


But, your tonsils would never develop into a human being.


----------



## alang1216 (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> Again... at conception a new genetically distinct HUMAN BEING is created.  So abortion... by definition does end the life of a human being.


Did you miss speak when you wrote "DNA, fingerprints, retinal scans, etc. are artifacts of being human.  It's humans that deserve protection, not the artifacts."?  If you didn't I'm confused as to what constitutes a "new genetically distinct HUMAN BEING".


----------



## irosie91 (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> From what I have heard Jews have a religious exemption argument for abortions.  In other words, laws which make abortion illegal would violate the religious practice of the Jews.
> 
> Do you know anything about this?  Did I state it correctly?


   no----you got it all wrong.   The religious issue is 
   that the life and welfare of the mother take prece-
   dence over the pregnancy.     The dictum can to 
   broadly interpreted to include psychological 
   welfare.    Jewish ethos, however sees miscarriage 
   as a TRAGEDY do be avoided


----------



## irosie91 (May 12, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> But, your tonsils would never develop into a human being.


   depends on the presence of absence of stem cells


----------



## Leo123 (May 12, 2022)

irosie91 said:


> depends on the presence of absence of stem cells


When has a tonsil ever developed into a human being?  Hell you'd choke to death first.


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

irosie91 said:


> no----you got it all wrong.   The religious issue is
> that the life and welfare of the mother take prece-
> dence over the pregnancy.     The dictum can to
> broadly interpreted to include psychological
> ...


The way I heard it was that the woman had to accept the pregnancy.  That the decision to proceed or terminate was her decision to make.


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

irosie91 said:


> depends on the presence of absence of stem cells


How many times has that ever happened?


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> When has a tonsil ever developed into a human being?


Never.  This is her saying anything to get the outcome she wants.


----------



## alang1216 (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> It's not that you don't think well as much as it's that you have a preference for an outcome and are biased against anything that threatens that.


Thank you.  I think.  We all have our moral code, explaining and defending it is not a bias but an exchange of ideas.


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Did you miss speak when you wrote "DNA, fingerprints, retinal scans, etc. are artifacts of being human.  It's humans that deserve protection, not the artifacts."?  If you didn't I'm confused as to what constitutes a "new genetically distinct HUMAN BEING".


It's not an exhaustive list and out of context with the fact that every point along the continuum it is fully human and has the appropriate characteristic of that life stage.

Your playing small does not serve the world.


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Thank you.  I think.  We all have our moral code, explaining and defending it is not a bias but an exchange of ideas.


It is when it is outsides the bounds of reality.


----------



## Leo123 (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> How many times has that ever happened?


Never, just think about a pregnant neck....


----------



## irosie91 (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> How many times has that ever happened?


   the tonsils are LYMPHOID TISSUE----chock full of 
   stem cells ----especially in a young person.  ---
_sheeeesh   there may be thousands of me in a 
      land fill somewhere_


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

irosie91 said:


> the tonsils are LYMPHOID TISSUE----chock full of
> stem cells ----especially in a young person.  ---
> _sheeeesh   there may be thousands of me in a
> land fill somewhere_


That was totally non-responsive.  Look if you need to make ridiculous arguments to dismiss the humanity of living human beings that's between you and God.  But don't expect me not to see through your silly distractions to avoid facing reality.

I would respect you more if you were honest about your immorality.  Try owning it.


----------



## Leo123 (May 12, 2022)

irosie91 said:


> the tonsils are LYMPHOID TISSUE----chock full of
> stem cells ----especially in a young person.  ---
> _sheeeesh   there may be thousands of me in a
> land fill somewhere_


I've never seen a baby born out of a landfill.


----------



## irosie91 (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> That was totally non-responsive.  Look if you need to make ridiculous arguments to dismiss the humanity of living human beings that's between you and God.  But don't expect me not to see through your silly distractions to avoid facing reality.
> 
> I would respect you more if you were honest about your immorality.  Try owning it.


   immorality?


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

irosie91 said:


> immorality?


Sure.  Immorality.  Don't run from it.  Embrace it.

Hitler dehumanized Jews because it was easier to rationalize it wasn't immoral to end a human life.

That's no different than what pro-abortion proponents do to human life in the womb.  Rather than arguing that abortion isn't immoral, just say you know it is and still choose to support it.


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

irosie91 said:


> sheeeesh there may be thousands of me in a
> land fill somewhere


Which wouldn't be a genetically distinct new human being that never existed before and will never exist again.


----------



## alang1216 (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> It's not an exhaustive list and out of context with the fact that every point along the continuum it is fully human and has the appropriate characteristic of that life stage.
> 
> Your playing small does not serve the world.


And you claiming that there is a difference between fertilized egg DNA and any other DNA does not serve the world.  It is not DNA that makes us human, it is our brains, now those are truly unique and worthy of protection.  To trivialize them by equating them with DNA is horrific.


----------



## alang1216 (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> It is when it is outsides the bounds of reality.


Reality as defined by you?


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> And you claiming that there is a difference between fertilized egg DNA and any other DNA does not serve the world.  It is not DNA that makes us human, it is our brains, now those are truly unique and worthy of protection.  To trivialize them by equating them with DNA is horrific.


It's in every embryology textbook ever written.

I'd respect you more if you were honest about your immorality.


----------



## Leo123 (May 12, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> And you claiming that there is a difference between fertilized egg DNA and any other DNA does not serve the world.  It is not DNA that makes us human, it is our brains, now those are truly unique and worthy of protection.  To trivialize them by equating them with DNA is horrific.


A fertilized egg will most likely develop into a human being if not aborted.   A piece of DNA will not do that.  A human brain would not develop without a fertilized human egg, sperm and DNA.


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Reality as defined by you?


Science in this case. It's in every single embryology textbook ever written.  It's literally what they teach in universities.  I know it offends your sensibilities to support ending human lives and see yourself as good and just but it is not reality.


----------



## james bond (May 12, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Let us know how that works for you.  I'm very curious.


Electricity to the brain is good for many more things.  A guy who is a medical device consultant lives to close to where I am.  Maybe I can contact him.

Here's the device:















						Brain Stimulators - focus - take charge
					






					foc.us
				




'But batteries and electrodes are a lot easier to come by than the chemicals in drugs. That means that from a regulatory standpoint, tDCS will always be harder to control, says Hank Greely, a professor of law and bioethics at Stanford University. "If the FDA wanted to regulate it, how in the world could they regulate something where people can buy the raw materials for 25 bucks and make it themselves?"'









						Hacking The Brain With Electricity: Don't Try This At Home
					

Small jolts of electricity to the brain can treat diseases like epilepsy and Parkinson's. But some healthy people are trying electrical stimulation to make the brain sharper. And it may not be safe.




					www.npr.org
				




Are you game?


----------



## alang1216 (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> It's in every embryology textbook ever written.
> 
> I'd respect you more if you were honest about your immorality.


I'd respect you more if you didn't hide behind simple answers to complex questions.  Not every question can be answered by science.  For example, when should a child be allowed to vote?


----------



## alang1216 (May 12, 2022)

james bond said:


> Electricity to the brain is good for many more things.  A guy who is a medical device consultant lives to close to where I am.  Maybe I can contact him.
> 
> Here's the device:
> 
> ...


As I said, let me know how that works for you. I'm very curious.


----------



## alang1216 (May 12, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> A fertilized egg will most likely develop into a human being if not aborted.   A piece of DNA will not do that.  A human brain would not develop without a fertilized human egg, sperm and DNA.


I agree.  But until that fertilized egg develops into a human being, it is just a big molecule.


----------



## alang1216 (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> Science in this case. It's in every single embryology textbook ever written.  It's literally what they teach in universities.  I know it offends your sensibilities to support ending human lives and see yourself as good and just but it is not reality.


What does science say about the relative value of an adult human being vs a fertilized egg?


----------



## Leo123 (May 12, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I agree.  But until that fertilized egg develops into a human being, it is just a big molecule.


It is human life that is programmed to develop into a human being.  It is not one molecule it is cells that continually separate and replicate into a fully formed human being.  Abortion kills that life process.


----------



## james bond (May 12, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> As I said, let me know how that works for you. I'm very curious.


While it _sounds promising_, I need more evidence for use in healthy people.  I thought it may help you more because of you know.

It's not something you should do at home even though one can make it for around $25.  It's comparable to making drugs at home.

ETA:  This was much bigger in 2016 and a meetup group was formed, but it seems to have stopped.  They were meeting a couple blocks of where I worked downtown.

It sounds like a pill your mother gives you.


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I'd respect you more if you didn't hide behind simple answers to complex questions.  Not every question can be answered by science.  For example, when should a child be allowed to vote?


The science is simple.  What does being allowed to vote have to do with anything?  That's just another failed attempt by you to avoid admitting what you support is immoral.


----------



## ding (May 12, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> What does science say about the relative value of an adult human being vs a fertilized egg?


That the fertilized egg is a human being.  And not just any human being but one that has never existed before and will never exist again.


----------



## alang1216 (May 12, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> It is human life that is programmed to develop into a human being.


And until it does develop into a human being what is it?


----------



## alang1216 (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> The science is simple.  What does being allowed to vote have to do with anything?  That's just another failed attempt by you to avoid admitting what you support is immoral.


Science is the antithesis of morality.  What does science say about the morality of eating animals?  Sorry but science won't support your argument and once you understand my voting analogy you'll understand why.


----------



## alang1216 (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> That the fertilized egg is a human being.  And not just any human being but one that has never existed before and will never exist again.


Not an answer to my question.  Not surprising since there is no answer.  You're looking for something that doesn't exist.


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> "After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - *Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner*
> 
> Still not a life.


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> Sure.  Immorality.  Don't run from it.  Embrace it.
> 
> Hitler dehumanized Jews because it was easier to rationalize it wasn't immoral to end a human life.
> 
> That's no different than what pro-abortion proponents do to human life in the womb.  Rather than arguing that abortion isn't immoral, just say you know it is and still choose to support it.


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2022)

ding said:


> That the fertilized egg is a human being.  And not just any human being but one that has never existed before and will never exist again.



This is a flock of chickens, is it?


----------



## Leo123 (May 12, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> And until it does develop into a human being what is it?


It's a human life force meant to create a new human being and it is actively dividing and replicating to complete that task.      There are names for the different stages of development.   You're only kidding yourself if you think it's a 'molecule' (as you falsely said) or just a bunch of static cells.


----------



## alang1216 (May 13, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> It's a human life force


Life 'force'?  I'm not familiar with that concept, please elaborate?  Religious, spiritual, or Jedi?



Leo123 said:


> meant to create a new human being and it is actively dividing and replicating to complete that task.      There are names for the different stages of development.


We have names for most animals and rocks.  So?



Leo123 said:


> You're only kidding yourself if you think it's a 'molecule' (as you falsely said) or just a bunch of static cells.


At the moment of conception it is really just a molecular soup bubble.  No brain, no senses, nada.  You can't see it without a microscope or determine its' species without a battery of genetic tests.


----------



## james bond (May 13, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> And until it does develop into a human being what is it?


It's a living human being.  The Bible states life begins at conception.

That said, I stay out of these discussions because feeling-wise, not intellect-wise, I'm fine with killing liberals who are for abortion.  I can see myself pulling a shotgun to the face and celebrating with a nice beer afterward.  That's immoral, illegal, vengeful and just as bad as abortion.


----------



## alang1216 (May 13, 2022)

james bond said:


> It's a living human being.  The Bible states life begins at conception.


Chapter and verse?


----------



## james bond (May 13, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Chapter and verse?


Why don't you believe ME?  It's there.  I think you'll get it when you die.  Think of it as I just spiritually pulled my shotgun to your face.


----------



## alang1216 (May 13, 2022)

james bond said:


> Why don't you believe ME?  It's there.


You have proved less than trustworthy in the past, that coupled with your lack of knowledge and propensity to repeat whatever you've been told makes you an unreliable source.


----------



## james bond (May 13, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> You have proved less than trustworthy in the past, that coupled with your lack of knowledge and propensity to repeat whatever you've been told makes you an unreliable source.


What did I do?  Name a couple.

Besides, you're a worse human being by believing in abortion when the Bible states life begins at conception.  You won't change because of the Bible.  That's why I spiritually shot you and that you'll get it when you die.  That makes you less trustworthy.  That's the truth.

The best thing I can do is not answer any of your questions anymore.  I've done it faithfully for all this time, but won't anymore.  You figure it out yourself.


----------



## alang1216 (May 13, 2022)

james bond said:


> What did I do?  Name a couple.
> ...
> the Bible states life begins at conception.


Still waiting for chapter and verse?  Or did you just make that up?


----------



## there4eyeM (May 13, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Still waiting for chapter and verse?  Or did you just make that up?


These guys only have their opinion to express. You can't expect definite proof from them because it doesn't exist. This is an issue that is easy to subvert with propaganda and false comparisons. There is no other situation as reproduction, pregnancy and child bearing. This concerns women. Rationally, women should decide. Rationality, as in most other subjects, has little effect upon debate here. Some want to impose their morality on others. This will be decided in courts and ballot boxes and many will never be satisfied. It is similar to the second amendment stupidity in that intransigence always gains the upper hand in discussion and no valid compromise is possible.


----------



## alang1216 (May 13, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> These guys only have their opinion to express. You can't expect definite proof from them because it doesn't exist. This is an issue that is easy to subvert with propaganda and false comparisons. There is no other situation as reproduction, pregnancy and child bearing. This concerns women. Rationally, women should decide. Rationality, as in most other subjects, has little effect upon debate here. Some want to impose their morality on others. This will be decided in courts and ballot boxes and many will never be satisfied. It is similar to the second amendment stupidity in that intransigence always gains the upper hand in discussion and no valid compromise is possible.


Bond is welcome to his opinions, what irks me is when people like him hold up the Bible in support of their morality when it does no such thing.


----------



## Leo123 (May 13, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Life 'force'?  I'm not familiar with that concept, please elaborate?  Religious, spiritual, or Jedi?
> 
> 
> We have names for most animals and rocks.  So?
> ...


Life force is what causes a fertilized egg to be human life and start development.  

A fertilized egg is not a ‘bubble’ that is an inaccurate name.  You already tried denigrating it to a ‘molecule’ I called you on that.  Now in your desperation, you say it’s a bunch of ‘molecules’ I see now that in order to kill life you must first strip it of it’s natural right to live.


----------



## alang1216 (May 13, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Life force is what causes a fertilized egg to be human life and start development.
> 
> A fertilized egg is not a ‘bubble’ that is an inaccurate name.  You already tried denigrating it to a ‘molecule’ I called you on that.  Now in your desperation, you say it’s a bunch of ‘molecules’ I see now that in order to kill life you must first strip it of it’s natural right to live.


OK.  What if a doctor removes a woman's egg and combines it with a man's sperm in a test tube.  If it isn't implanted in a woman it would have no chance to develop.   Is that fertilized egg a human being if it doesn't get implanted?  If it does get implanted?


----------



## there4eyeM (May 13, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Bond is welcome to his opinions, what irks me is when people like him hold up the Bible in support of their morality when it does no such thing.


The Bible, given our limited human mind, cannot be taken for more than metaphor. Obviously, large segments of scripture have long ago been abandoned as regards literal application.


----------



## Leo123 (May 13, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> OK.  What if a doctor removes a woman's egg and combines it with a man's sperm in a test tube.  If it isn't implanted in a woman it would have no chance to develop.   Is that fertilized egg a human being if it doesn't get implanted?  If it does get implanted?


Ok, first you denigrate it to a molecule, now you want to say it is not a life because if starved of it’s nutrients and place to develop it will cease it’s development and die.  All in an effort to try to take a life without conscience. That really borders on psychopathy.


----------



## alang1216 (May 13, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Ok, first you denigrate it to a molecule, now you want to say it is not a life because if starved of it’s nutrients and place to develop it will cease it’s development and die.  All in an effort to try to take a life without conscience. That really borders on psychopathy.


Says the one who is unable to answer simple questions.  I'm beginning to think you really haven't thought this through.  Please feel free to come back when you're better prepared.


----------



## Leo123 (May 13, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Says the one who is unable to answer simple questions.  I'm beginn*ing to think you reall*y haven't thought this through.  Please feel free to come back when you're better prepared.


*You just don’t like my answers because I nailed you and you have no cogent reply.  Come back when you’re better prepared, which will be never.*


----------

