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

[Natural Citizen]

'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."' ibid

". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." (Declaration of Independence)

Find Judicial review in Article III and get back to us. Your partisan clowns in gowns are a temporary indulgence that can be changed with a swing vote. They've been operating outside the parameters of the constitution for decades. The founders would have hanged them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Funny how none of the pro choice liberals commenting on this thread want to debate the science in the OP, their fallback is the law. Funny how when scientific fact doesn't agree with you, you pivot to the character of the person making the argument or leap onto a flimsy authoritative pedestal. In the case of the latter, an appeal to authority.

Think of it this way, the law and science disagree on the premise of when human life begins. But since we pride ourselves on knowledge, I would assume the facts and observations made by science would take precedent in discussions like these...ah well. Who am I kidding?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Personhood does not begin at conception.

Why do you say that? A zygote has the same DNA as a fully grown person. That makes it a person.

Either you are ignorant or worse pretending to be ignorant.

You know what the law is.

This thread is not about the law. It is about the medical definition of when life begins. It begins at conception. No one has been able to refute this yet. But feel free to keep trying. It's pretty amusing.

No, it’s about the law.

For more than 40 years civil rights advocates have battled with authoritarian conservatives hostile to the privacy rights of women.

This thread’s premise is one of the social right’s more tedious and inane tactics.

Conservatives are as dishonest as they are reprehensible.

 

[buttercup]

W/o law you have no rights

Do you honestly believe that? This is getting into a different topic, but you are wrong. There is such a thing as natural law. Our founding documents like the Declaration of Independence support that. But even if they didn't state that, it would still be true.

 

[buttercup]

No, it’s about the law.

For more than 40 years civil rights advocates have battled with authoritarian conservatives hostile to the privacy rights of women.

This thread’s premise is one of the social right’s more tedious and inane tactics.

Conservatives are as dishonest as they are reprehensible.

Don't you think that the person who started this thread would know what his thread is about? It's about life beginning at conception. Not the law

 

[MarkDuffy]

Tell us more about this "Right to life".

Money wasted on any luxuries could be used to save lives. I assume you're living a monastic lifestyle now, given how concerned you are about the Right to Life.

No? Your own selfish conveniences takes precedence over the Right to Life of others? Imagine that. You ask much more of pregnant women than you're willing to give yourself.

That's absolutely hilarious that you use those words because that is precisely what abortion on demand is all about… Selfish convenience. Selfish convenience. Selfish convenience. That is exactly it, for your side.

Welcome to freedom, individual liberty, personal responsibility, apple pie and the American Way!

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, it cited subjective opinions. I can find "peer-reviewed" material basing personhood on skin color. By your standards, we'd have to accept that. I reject your standards.

Yeah, you reject science. Move along.

It's defined by what humanity has always used. Yours is defined by very recent bizarre historical revisionism.

No, Mamooth, I'm not. There is no historical revisionism here, just an OP you refuse to acknowledge. Your ambiguous statements aside...

So you're saying sperm and egg aren't alive? You don't seem grounded in reality.

They must be, or they wouldn't be driven to form the life you and I are now. Think about it. Oh wait.

When you insult people then whine about insults, you look like a whiner and a hypocrite. Laughable.

Tissue? You're finished. Exit stage left

 

[MarkDuffy]

Nobody has ever said they were pregnant with a zygote.

So proof by colloquialism is what you're going to use to justify removing liberty?

I believe one humans life trumps another humans liberty


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Until the child is born. Then you contards say FU to the child and whine about YOUR personal liberty.

 

[Natural Citizen]

privacy rights of women.

There's no such thing as women's rights. Rights don't come as groups.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Tell us, if your weird definition is correct, how is it humanity knew what a person was before we knew how conception worked?

Have you seen a pregnant woman before? Seriously, how can you be this dense?

 

[buttercup]

Welcome to freedom, individual liberty, personal responsibility, apple pie and the American Way!

If you actually think about what you are celebrating, it is truly ugly and nauseating. It's certainly not true liberty. Libertinism, maybe.

 

[Lakhota]

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

So do pregnant women's rights under Roe v. Wade.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Indeed it does not

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

The same way a doctor can be sued for any medical malpractice.

Why can a person be charged with two murders for killing a pregnant woman if the baby is not a person?

A wanted pregnancy is different from an unwanted pregnancy.

There is no difference in the baby that is in the womb.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Again it is all about the woman's rights. If she wants the child, then taking the child is murder. If she does not, it is not murder.

If you contards were not so binary, you would be able to understand complex phenomena.

 

[MarkDuffy]

And for your side it’s about the authoritarian conservative who wants to compel conformity, contempt for the rights of the individual, and the unwarranted anger common to most rightists that anyone dare disagree with you.

So much for ‘small government’ conservatives.

Wrong, because I know full well that hearts and minds need to be changed first before laws are changed. All I'm doing is trying to get people to wake up and see that human life does not begin the moment the head pops out of the birth canal. And that human life is precious, at every stage.

Just to add… More and more people are waking up. According to studies, more and more young people are becoming prolife and abortion is becoming more a thing of the past. It probably has a lot to do with new technologies that show the baby in the womb, but for whatever reason, times are changing.

Unwanted children can destroy lives and become a burden on society.

You republicans keep wanting to eliminate any care for children after they are born.

You have no standing to argue abortion.

 

[RWNJ]

FYI. A person is defined in the dictionary as a human being. If a fetus is not a human being, then what is it?

 

[mamooth]

Funny how none of the pro choice liberals commenting on this thread want to debate the science in the OP,

I've been debating it. The pro-lifers have been running, as they always do. You'll run too. You always do. You'll toss out more appeals to authority, demand we accept them, and have a fit when we point out they're just opinions that you've elevated to sacred dogma.

Think of it this way, the law and science disagree on the premise of when human life begins.

Science says human life is a continuum. Pro-lifers have a meltdown when that simple fact of biology is mentioned.

But since we pride ourselves on knowledge, I would assume the facts and observations made by science would take precedent in discussions like these...ah well. Who am I kidding?

So, got another appeal to authority for us? Or are you just going to power-pout at me and say you won't speak to me any more?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Again it is all about the woman's rights. If she wants the child, then taking the child is murder. If she does not, it is not murder.

If you contards were not so binary, you would be able to understand complex phenomena.

Ha. Well. I do most of my work against it by way of organized political action. I'm more of a doer than a talker. Though, I've found myself posting here more than I should.

It's true, though, you can't legislate morality. Society has a moral problem. And you sure are a reflection of that by your tenor.

 

[mamooth]

FYI. A person is defined in the dictionary as a human being. If a fetus is not a human being, then what is it?

A fetus.

Why did you think that was a tough question?

 

[buttercup]

Unwanted children can destroy lives and become a burden on society.

You republicans keep wanting to eliminate any care for children after they are born.

You have no standing to argue abortion.

There is no such thing as an unwanted child. Just an unwanted pregnancy. But even if what you were saying is true, which it isn't, that still would not justify the taking of an innocent human life. Logical fallacies all over the place there.

 

[RWNJ]

FYI. A person is defined in the dictionary as a human being. If a fetus is not a human being, then what is it?

A fetus.

Why did you think that was a tough question?

A fetus is a human being. What else could it be?