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

[Moonglow]

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

Finally, it was with the advent of the cell theory developed by Schleiden and Schwann in 1839 that it was recognized that the embryo develops from the single-celled zygote.1 Directly based upon this observation and the knowledge that the single-celled zygote was alive and an independent being,

Is this what you are basing your argument upon, since you were very vague about it,,,It may be in existence but it isn't independent until later, much later...

 

[JakeStarkey]

GG, you are not the law, you don't understand the law, so you can write as silly as you want, and is only that: just silly.

A fetus has neither parity nor priority over the mother: flat fact.

 

[JakeStarkey]

'individuated...'

So why do you keep saying that word?

Individuate | Definition of Individuate by Merriam-Webster

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/individuate
Define individuate: ... Definition of individuate. individuated; individuating. transitive verb. 1: to give individuality to

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We don’t ‘know’ any such thing.

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

No one is ‘claiming’ anything.

It’s the simple acknowledgment of a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, beyond dispute:

‘"Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.’

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Your ‘argument’ is with the courts, not message board posters who cite facts of law.

 

[MarkDuffy]

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

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

Yes, life begins at conception. This was breaking news to you? Life never ended, both egg and sperm are alive and both human.

No, as long as the fetus is in utero, it is part of the woman's body. The fetus does not become a child until about 20-24 weeks. At the child stage there are very few abortions and they occur only when the baby is deformed, brain dead or the life of the mother is threatened.

Abortion is not about the life of the embryo/fetus. It is about the rights of the mother.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

GG, you are not the law, you don't understand the law, so you can write as silly as you want, and is only that: just silly.

A fetus has neither parity nor priority over the mother: flat fact.

Legally you are correct, it has to be that way to justify a million dead babies a year.

That does not change the science behind the fact that the baby in the womb is a separate, individual being from the day it is conceived. There is no other option with regards to the science of the matter.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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

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

Yes, life begins at conception. This was breaking news to you? Life never ended, both egg and sperm are alive and both human.

No, as long as the fetus is in utero, it is part of the woman's body. The fetus does not become a child until about 20-24 weeks. At the child stage there are very few abortions and they occur only when the baby is deformed, brain dead or the life of the mother is threatened.

Abortion is not about the life of the embryo/fetus. It is about the rights of the mother.

The sperm and the egg are not "human" any more than your finger is a human. They are parts of the human body, they are not human.

The fetus is in utero, is not part of the woman's body, it is merely using the woman's body for a certain length of time.

 

[MarkDuffy]

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.

This is very true.

My only objection is to your use of Pro-Life. They aren't. They are anti-abortion and anti-Mom

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Abortion is not about the life of the embryo/fetus. It is about the rights of the mother.

on this part you are 100% correct, it cannot be about the life of the fetus as then it would be incomprehensible to kill. Thus it has been made about the mother, when in reality it is just semantics.

 

[Natural Citizen]

'individuated...'

So why do you keep saying that word?

''the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism..."

 

[buttercup]

We don’t ‘know’ any such thing.

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

No one is ‘claiming’ anything.

It’s the simple acknowledgment of a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, beyond dispute:

‘"Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.’

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Your ‘argument’ is with the courts, not message board posters who cite facts of law.

I asked you a simple question. You're going back-and-forth now. Is it that hard to answer with a yes or no?

Now you seem to be agreeing with me that laws are not always correct… Which is what I said in the first place. Thank you.

 

[mamooth]

Of course it does, when else could it start?

At birth. That's the standard all of humanity has used over all of human history.

"Person" or "human being" is a legal and social definition, so trying to make it a medical or scientific definition is historical revisionism, an exercise in attempting to define yourself as correct.

Pro-life logic is basically "I define a zygote as a human being, therefore a zygote is a human being." It's not very convincing. Their standards are entirely subjective, being that objective standards subjectively chosen are still subjective. Hence, they're no better than any other subjective standard.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Personhood does not begin at conception.

Indeed it does not

 

[mamooth]

''the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism..."

So?

That's someone's opinion, subjectively chosen.

 

[Natural Citizen]

'individuated...'

So why do you keep saying that word?

Individuate | Definition of Individuate by Merriam-Webster

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/individuate
Define individuate: ... Definition of individuate. individuated; individuating. transitive verb. 1: to give individuality to

Precisely. Meaning not a collective.

 

[Natural Citizen]

''the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism..."

So?

That's someone's opinion, subjectively chosen.

And so is yours. It's just dumb luck that you're likely a collectivist by nature, huh?

I happen to be on topic, however.

 

[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.

You mean kill the unborn?

Or not.

Whatever it is you believe.

If you believe the ‘unborn’ are ‘persons,’ that abortion is ‘wrong,’ then don’t have an abortion, counsel others to not have an abortion.

But understand that those who disagree with you have an opinion just as valid as yours.

The problem, of course, is authoritarian conservatives who want to compel conformity through force of law.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Indeed it does not

Well, then, why can a doctor be sued if he harms a fetus?

 

[MarkDuffy]

GG, you are not the law, you don't understand the law, so you can write as silly as you want, and is only that: just silly.

A fetus has neither parity nor priority over the mother: flat fact.

Legally you are correct, it has to be that way to justify a million dead babies a year.

That does not change the science behind the fact that the baby in the womb is a separate, individual being from the day it is conceived. There is no other option with regards to the science of the matter.

It is not a baby

 

[mamooth]

And so is yours.

Yep. Never said otherwise. The differences between us?

I'm honest about it.

I'm using the same standard the whole planet has used over all of human history. You're using weirdass historical revisionism.

My opinion is practical. It works. Yours fails.

And my opinion pushes liberty, while yours pushes slavery.

It's just dumb luck that you're likely a collectivist by nature, huh?

Ruh-roh. Someone just got triggered by the whole liberty concept.