It's a medical fact. Life begins at conception.

[RWNJ]

Admin closed this thread because it contained no original content. So here it is.

ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.

So, if life begins at conception, doesn't that mean that it should be protected by the 14th Amendment? The only difference between a fully grown adult and a zygote is form, not nature. They both have a unique genetic identity. They are both members of the human species.

When Human Life Begins

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But not fact of law.

 

[mamooth]

Life obviously doesn't begin at conception, being it existed before conception.

Claims that a human being is formed at conception are purely subjective opinions, no matter who makes them.

Humanity over all of human history has used "human, born and alive" to define a human being. Claims such as the OP makes are very recent historical revisionism from the pro-life crowd.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Nine times out of ten, original content equates to throwing a hand grenade. lol. Crazy.

 

[buttercup]

But not fact of law.

We all know that laws are not always correct. I know some people like to debate the legal side of it, but the important thing is the reality.... when does a human being begin? According to science, it's clear. From day one.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Life obviously doesn't begin at conception, being it existed before conception.

Claims that a human being is formed at conception are purely subjective opinions, no matter who makes them.

Humanity over all of human history has used "human, born and alive" to define a human being. Claims such as the OP makes are very recent historical revisionism from the pro-life crowd.

And that’s the importance of privacy rights jurisprudence: it safeguards each individual’s right to decide for himself, consistent with his own good faith and good conscience, when life begins, free from unwarranted interference from the state, absent coercion by government.

 

[buttercup]

Life obviously doesn't begin at conception, being it existed before conception.

Claims that a human being is formed at conception are purely subjective opinions, no matter who makes them.

Humanity over all of human history has used "human, born and alive" to define a human being. Claims such as the OP makes are very recent historical revisionism from the pro-life crowd.

Not this nonsense again. You're confusing "life" as in a part of a human being (a cell, or an egg or sperm) and an actual human being. Stop repeating lies and misleading BS.

Here's something for you to read: Libertarians for Life - Abortion and the Question of the Person

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But not fact of law.

We all know that laws are not always correct. I know some people like to debate the legal side of it, but the important thing is the reality.... when does a human being begin? According to science, it's clear. From day one.

We don’t ‘know’ any such thing.

Again, the right to privacy protects your freedom to believe human life begins at conception, to believe that abortion is ‘wrong,’ and to be free to express that opinion with impunity – in addition to prohibiting the state from compelling a woman to give birth against her will.

 

[buttercup]

We don’t ‘know’ any such thing.

Are you actually claiming that all laws are correct? Yes or no?

 

[Natural Citizen]

But not fact of law.

'individuated...'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Life obviously doesn't begin at conception, being it existed before conception.

Claims that a human being is formed at conception are purely subjective opinions, no matter who makes them.

Humanity over all of human history has used "human, born and alive" to define a human being. Claims such as the OP makes are very recent historical revisionism from the pro-life crowd.

Not this nonsense again. You're confusing "life" as in a part of a human being (a cell, or an egg or sperm) and an actual human being. Stop repeating lies and misleading BS.

Here's something for you to read: Libertarians for Life - Abortion and the Question of the Person

No one is ‘spreading lies.’

And yet again: no one is seeking to compel you to believe anything you don’t want to believe – have at it, knock yourself out.

But as a fact of law you may not seek to compel others to believe as you do through force of law.

 

[mamooth]

Not this nonsense again.

The OP? I agree. "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" is not an argument, but it's all pro-lifers have.

You're confusing "life" as in a part of a human being (a cell, or an egg or sperm) and an actual human being.

No, I'm not. You don't seem to understand what the discussion is about. A pro-lifer made a crazy claim that life begins at conception. As life existed before conception, that claim is absolutely wrong. Nothing you've said changes that fact. Your unsupported subjective claim that a zygote is human being does not change the indisputable fact that life does not begin at conception.

Stop repeating lies and misleading BS.

You're the one telling the big lie that a zygote is a human being. Given how all of humanity over all of history says you're wrong, why are you pushing such BS?

You'll need to come up with something better than "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" eventually, you know. Can you try to do so sooner than later?

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Life obviously doesn't begin at conception, being it existed before conception.

Claims that a human being is formed at conception are purely subjective opinions, no matter who makes them.

Humanity over all of human history has used "human, born and alive" to define a human being. Claims such as the OP makes are very recent historical revisionism from the pro-life crowd.

And that’s the importance of privacy rights jurisprudence: it safeguards each individual’s right to decide for himself, consistent with his own good faith and good conscience, when life begins, free from unwarranted interference from the state, absent coercion by government.

You mean kill the unborn?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Admin closed this thread because it contained no original content. So here it is.

ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.

So, if life begins at conception, doesn't that mean that it should be protected by the 14th Amendment? The only difference between a fully grown adult and a zygote is form, not nature. They both have a unique genetic identity. They are both members of the human species.

When Human Life Begins

It's fact that all animals, you know, the ones you eat, HAVE LIFE.

That's how much you care about life.You kill life in order to eat it. Go figure.

 

[buttercup]

No one is ‘spreading lies.’

And yet again: no one is seeking to compel you to believe anything you don’t want to believe – have at it, knock yourself out.

But as a fact of law you may not seek to compel others to believe as you do through force of law.

That post wasn't to you, it was to someone else. And I'm not talking about the law here, you can talk about that with others if you want.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Personhood does not begin at conception.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Life obviously doesn't begin at conception, being it existed before conception.

'individuated...'

 

[Natural Citizen]

Personhood does not begin at conception.

'individuated...'

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Personhood does not begin at conception.

Of course it does, when else could it start?

Personhood: the quality or condition of being an individual person.

The baby in the womb is a different individual than the mother, they are not the same person, they are two different individuals. There is no other point in the maturation process that they become two separate individuals, they start that way.

 

[mamooth]

'individuated...'

So why do you keep saying that word?