Abortion Survivor Melissa Ohden: "What About My Choice?"

[Papageorgio]

So, when are they considered a fully developed human being, because as far as I know it isn't until the late teens when the human is fully developed. Your definition says nothing about the human being needing to be fully developed to be considered a human being.

A zygote is the beginning of a human being in as many scientist agree.

Did you say "the beginning"? That's what I thought you said. That's not what the definition of "LIfe" says. It says "human being". The beginning is a developing zygote, transforming into a fully developed human being. The definition doesn't talk about a "beginning human being"?.

A zygote is a human being, not a fully developed however it is a human being.

So, when are they considered a fully developed human being, because as far as I know it isn't until the late teens when the human is fully developed. Your definition says nothing about the human being needing to be fully developed to be considered a human being.

A zygote is the beginning of a human being in as many scientist agree.

Did you say "the beginning"? That's what I thought you said. That's not what the definition of "LIfe" says. It says "human being". The beginning is a developing zygote, transforming into a fully developed human being. The definition doesn't talk about a "beginning human being"?.

Which a zygote in many scientists world is the beginning of life.

The paper I presented does not mention life beginning at that time. And the written definition tells us that life is a human being, not a developing zygote. We can go round and round, and the definition won't change for you. Only in your head.

Well I disagree with your view of when life begins, I have science that tells us that life begins within 24 hours of conception.

Where

Actually I'm not. I stated the definition of "Life" in the dictionary. "The existence of a human being". A zygote is not a fully developed human being.

So, when are they considered a fully developed human being, because as far as I know it isn't until the late teens when the human is fully developed. Your definition says nothing about the human being needing to be fully developed to be considered a human being.

A zygote is the beginning of a human being in as many scientist agree.

Did you say "the beginning"? That's what I thought you said. That's not what the definition of "LIfe" says. It says "human being". The beginning is a developing zygote, transforming into a fully developed human being. The definition doesn't talk about a "beginning human being"?.

A zygote is a human being, not a fully developed however it is a human being.

Actually I'm not. I stated the definition of "Life" in the dictionary. "The existence of a human being". A zygote is not a fully developed human being.

So, when are they considered a fully developed human being, because as far as I know it isn't until the late teens when the human is fully developed. Your definition says nothing about the human being needing to be fully developed to be considered a human being.

A zygote is the beginning of a human being in as many scientist agree.

Did you say "the beginning"? That's what I thought you said. That's not what the definition of "LIfe" says. It says "human being". The beginning is a developing zygote, transforming into a fully developed human being. The definition doesn't talk about a "beginning human being"?.

Which a zygote in many scientists world is the beginning of life.

In the beginning !!!

I agree.

What scientists world? Can you provide us with the scientific publication from actual scientists who draw that conclusion? And, with their explanations?

When Human Life Begins

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

When Do Human Beings Begin?

Now you can spin it all and we are back to name calling.

 

[Coyote]

If there is no life, there is no development. Dead things don't change and grow.

Thats not true. Crystals grow. After you are dead your fingernails and hair continue to grow.

Actually, no, they do not. The skin around them shrinks as the body dries out, which makes them appear to grow, but they do not in fact continue growing. Crystals "grow"in the sense that they accrue more and more of the same molecules in larger lattices, but there is no differentiation or replication. A living human, OTOH, has cells that replicate themselves and vastly different kinds of cells all functioning together. So try to split linguistic hairs all you want, but an unborn baby is very much alive.

If the baby were NOT alive, the abortionist would not concern himself with making sure he was dead before pulling him out of the mother's body.

You are correct. nails and hair dont continue to grow but as I mentioned crystals do grow and they are not living. You said dead (non living) things dont grow. You were wrong. Yes a fetus is alive. Its not a person until its born.

For that matter cells can grow and reproduce in a Petri dish. That doesn’t make them a person.

It is against the law to murder an unborn child.

But it isn’t against the law to have an abortion.

 

[Aletheia4u]

Thats not true. Crystals grow. After you are dead your fingernails and hair continue to grow.

Actually, no, they do not. The skin around them shrinks as the body dries out, which makes them appear to grow, but they do not in fact continue growing. Crystals "grow"in the sense that they accrue more and more of the same molecules in larger lattices, but there is no differentiation or replication. A living human, OTOH, has cells that replicate themselves and vastly different kinds of cells all functioning together. So try to split linguistic hairs all you want, but an unborn baby is very much alive.

If the baby were NOT alive, the abortionist would not concern himself with making sure he was dead before pulling him out of the mother's body.

You are correct. nails and hair dont continue to grow but as I mentioned crystals do grow and they are not living. You said dead (non living) things dont grow. You were wrong. Yes a fetus is alive. Its not a person until its born.

For that matter cells can grow and reproduce in a Petri dish. That doesn’t make them a person.

It is against the law to murder an unborn child.

But it isn’t against the law to have an abortion.

 

[Aletheia4u]

The reason why they kills the baby in the womb? Once the baby comes out, it is not considered an abortion but murder. But a partial birth abortion is when they leave one part of the baby in the womb while killing the baby. Hillary wasn't the first to suggested to bring back the Hyde amendment. They are under the control of the Global elite.

 

[Aletheia4u]

The reason why they kills the baby in the womb? Once the baby comes out, it is not considered an abortion but murder. But a partial birth abortion is when they leave one part of the baby in the womb while killing the baby. Hillary wasn't the first to suggested to bring back the Hyde amendment. They are under the control of the Global elite.

 

[The Purge]

The above poster doesn't realize that there are protests against everything, from getting into and out of an unwinnable war to being the worlds policeman, to going crazy about a SUPPOSED racist slur to SCOTUS JUDGE..... We all have the ability to think, some think at a much higher level and YOU must decide where you stand on issues that DEFINE what America is, and what you want it to be.....BUT morals and ethics have been around for centuries, and I tend to stay in that area. Your FREEDOM is important, but when does it interfere with another's life....If you aren't responsible enough to want to fuck and don't take precautions, which EVERONE has been taught in school since the 1980's YOU deserve to have a PENALTY accessed, whether it is to kill that baby and go to jail for YEARS, and mandatory sterilization, or to carrying that baby to fruition and let it be adopted. Not saying there are not circumstance where it is beyond a woman control, and each case should be looked at and adjudicated, but those are truly rare. You worry about being raped, get on the pill so there is virtually NO CHANCE of pregnancy. Common sense, along with killing your baby is simply lacking in half of America.... I believe it all comes down to ABNORMALS wanting to change America into their failed idea of what utopia is.

 

[Asclepias]

It is impossible for life to begin at conception, because that is the beginning of the development process. If the zygote that becomes a Fetus does not develop to the stage of birth, and after, there never was a life. When Does a Human Life Begin? 17 Timepoints | DNA Science Blog

If there is no life, there is no development. Dead things don't change and grow.

Thats not true. Crystals grow. After you are dead your fingernails and hair continue to grow.

Actually, no, they do not. The skin around them shrinks as the body dries out, which makes them appear to grow, but they do not in fact continue growing. Crystals "grow"in the sense that they accrue more and more of the same molecules in larger lattices, but there is no differentiation or replication. A living human, OTOH, has cells that replicate themselves and vastly different kinds of cells all functioning together. So try to split linguistic hairs all you want, but an unborn baby is very much alive.

If the baby were NOT alive, the abortionist would not concern himself with making sure he was dead before pulling him out of the mother's body.

You are correct. nails and hair dont continue to grow but as I mentioned crystals do grow and they are not living. You said dead (non living) things dont grow. You were wrong. Yes a fetus is alive. Its not a person until its born.

For that matter cells can grow and reproduce in a Petri dish. That doesn’t make them a person.

Henrietta Lacks and her cells changed the medical profession.

 

[Chuz Life]

No one said anything about a fully developed human being. We are talking on when life begins and it begins when a cell starts developing independently of it's environment. You are moving the goal posts.

Actually I'm not. I stated the definition of "Life" in the dictionary. "The existence of a human being". A zygote is not a fully developed human being.

So, when are they considered a fully developed human being, because as far as I know it isn't until the late teens when the human is fully developed. Your definition says nothing about the human being needing to be fully developed to be considered a human being.

A zygote is the beginning of a human being in as many scientist agree.

Did you say "the beginning"? That's what I thought you said. That's not what the definition of "LIfe" says. It says "human being". The beginning is a developing zygote, transforming into a fully developed human being. The definition doesn't talk about a "beginning human being"?.

A zygote is a human being, not a fully developed however it is a human being.

No one said anything about a fully developed human being. We are talking on when life begins and it begins when a cell starts developing independently of it's environment. You are moving the goal posts.

Actually I'm not. I stated the definition of "Life" in the dictionary. "The existence of a human being". A zygote is not a fully developed human being.

So, when are they considered a fully developed human being, because as far as I know it isn't until the late teens when the human is fully developed. Your definition says nothing about the human being needing to be fully developed to be considered a human being.

A zygote is the beginning of a human being in as many scientist agree.

Did you say "the beginning"? That's what I thought you said. That's not what the definition of "LIfe" says. It says "human being". The beginning is a developing zygote, transforming into a fully developed human being. The definition doesn't talk about a "beginning human being"?.

Which a zygote in many scientists world is the beginning of life.

The paper I presented does not mention life beginning at that time. And the written definition tells us that life is a human being, not a developing zygote. We can go round and round, and the definition won't change for you. Only in your head.

What you are describing is called "metamorphosis."

Do you have anything to support your claim that Human Beings reproduce by metamorphosis (like frogs and butterflies do?)

 

[Chuz Life]

Actually I'm not. I stated the definition of "Life" in the dictionary. "The existence of a human being". A zygote is not a fully developed human being.

So, when are they considered a fully developed human being, because as far as I know it isn't until the late teens when the human is fully developed. Your definition says nothing about the human being needing to be fully developed to be considered a human being.

A zygote is the beginning of a human being in as many scientist agree.

Did you say "the beginning"? That's what I thought you said. That's not what the definition of "LIfe" says. It says "human being". The beginning is a developing zygote, transforming into a fully developed human being. The definition doesn't talk about a "beginning human being"?.

A zygote is a human being, not a fully developed however it is a human being.

Actually I'm not. I stated the definition of "Life" in the dictionary. "The existence of a human being". A zygote is not a fully developed human being.

So, when are they considered a fully developed human being, because as far as I know it isn't until the late teens when the human is fully developed. Your definition says nothing about the human being needing to be fully developed to be considered a human being.

A zygote is the beginning of a human being in as many scientist agree.

Did you say "the beginning"? That's what I thought you said. That's not what the definition of "LIfe" says. It says "human being". The beginning is a developing zygote, transforming into a fully developed human being. The definition doesn't talk about a "beginning human being"?.

Which a zygote in many scientists world is the beginning of life.

The paper I presented does not mention life beginning at that time. And the written definition tells us that life is a human being, not a developing zygote. We can go round and round, and the definition won't change for you. Only in your head.

Law makers need to address this and get it out of the hands of the Supreme Court. Make it law, define what it is and that will settle it once and for all.

Something like this, maybe.

"As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

 

[beagle9]

The reason why they kills the baby in the womb? Once the baby comes out, it is not considered an abortion but murder. But a partial birth abortion is when they leave one part of the baby in the womb while killing the baby. Hillary wasn't the first to suggested to bring back the Hyde amendment. They are under the control of the Global elite.

You know, if they consciously understand and know that they have to kill the baby in the way that you spoke about above, and do it in order to stay legal under the rules or law, then that is some serious premeditated henious stuff going on.

 

[Aletheia4u]

The reason why they kills the baby in the womb? Once the baby comes out, it is not considered an abortion but murder. But a partial birth abortion is when they leave one part of the baby in the womb while killing the baby. Hillary wasn't the first to suggested to bring back the Hyde amendment. They are under the control of the Global elite.

You know, if they consciously understand and know that they have to kill the baby in the way that you spoke about above, and do it in order to stay legal under the rules or law, then that is some serious premeditated henious stuff going on.

This is a partial birth abortion. But they are working on a Postpartum abortion. When the baby is out of the womb.Pretty soon, they are going to work their way up to grad school years.

 

[Aletheia4u]

The reason why they kills the baby in the womb? Once the baby comes out, it is not considered an abortion but murder. But a partial birth abortion is when they leave one part of the baby in the womb while killing the baby. Hillary wasn't the first to suggested to bring back the Hyde amendment. They are under the control of the Global elite.

You know, if they consciously understand and know that they have to kill the baby in the way that you spoke about above, and do it in order to stay legal under the rules or law, then that is some serious premeditated henious stuff going on.

This is a partial birth abortion. But they are working on a Postpartum abortion. When the baby is out of the womb.Pretty soon, they are going to work their way up to grad school years.

 

[Aletheia4u]

Most people believes that the culling is about depopulating. But it is not to depopulate. It is to harvest organs to store them up for themselves. We are like cattle to them.

 

[hadit]

It is impossible for life to begin at conception, because that is the beginning of the development process. If the zygote that becomes a Fetus does not develop to the stage of birth, and after, there never was a life. When Does a Human Life Begin? 17 Timepoints | DNA Science Blog

If there is no life, there is no development. Dead things don't change and grow.

Thats not true. Crystals grow. After you are dead your fingernails and hair continue to grow.

Actually, no, they do not. The skin around them shrinks as the body dries out, which makes them appear to grow, but they do not in fact continue growing. Crystals "grow"in the sense that they accrue more and more of the same molecules in larger lattices, but there is no differentiation or replication. A living human, OTOH, has cells that replicate themselves and vastly different kinds of cells all functioning together. So try to split linguistic hairs all you want, but an unborn baby is very much alive.

If the baby were NOT alive, the abortionist would not concern himself with making sure he was dead before pulling him out of the mother's body.

You are correct. nails and hair dont continue to grow but as I mentioned crystals do grow and they are not living. You said dead (non living) things dont grow. You were wrong. Yes a fetus is alive. Its not a person until its born.

For that matter cells can grow and reproduce in a Petri dish. That doesn’t make them a person.

They are alive, however, which is the point. To claim there is no life growing within the womb of a pregnant woman is to lie. To claim that life is not human is also to lie.

 

[Papageorgio]

If there is no life, there is no development. Dead things don't change and grow.

Thats not true. Crystals grow. After you are dead your fingernails and hair continue to grow.

Actually, no, they do not. The skin around them shrinks as the body dries out, which makes them appear to grow, but they do not in fact continue growing. Crystals "grow"in the sense that they accrue more and more of the same molecules in larger lattices, but there is no differentiation or replication. A living human, OTOH, has cells that replicate themselves and vastly different kinds of cells all functioning together. So try to split linguistic hairs all you want, but an unborn baby is very much alive.

If the baby were NOT alive, the abortionist would not concern himself with making sure he was dead before pulling him out of the mother's body.

You are correct. nails and hair dont continue to grow but as I mentioned crystals do grow and they are not living. You said dead (non living) things dont grow. You were wrong. Yes a fetus is alive. Its not a person until its born.

For that matter cells can grow and reproduce in a Petri dish. That doesn’t make them a person.

They are alive, however, which is the point. To claim there is no life growing within the womb of a pregnant woman is to lie. To claim that life is not human is also to lie.

It’s called justification and that is all the left has, is to dehumanize the baby in the womb so they don’t have to feel guilty when they knowing and willingly take a life..