"My Body, My Choice": The Worst Abortion Talking Points

[PoliticalChic]

A fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in life-sustaining oxygen and nutrient early in development and is a LIVING BEING. After 5-6 weeks of pregnancy, the umbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen directly to the developing fetus's body.
For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, all the materials and energy for building a baby are supplied by secretions from glands in the uterus lining. Life begins at conception. The embryo protection law in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other law explicitly provides a similar definition of the appearance of early human life.

The fifth-grade textbook stated "Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin growing, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."

No one is disputing the fetus is alive.

An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.

LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive. What message board are YOU reading?! Do you want a damned list?!

"An entity"? Really? You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"? 'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.

Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws. Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed. Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not: the same difference between a slave and a free man. Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?

There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though. It is merely the difference between young and old.

Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong. The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person. At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.

I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations. Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.

By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.



There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:

1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’

2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”

3) Supreme Judge of the world, and

4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.

This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
Those rights include life.




Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.

Have an opinion?

 

[Cecilie1200]

What else do you know about God?


How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?

Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion. There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property". Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".

Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter. God gave women free will on abortion. You would take away what God gave us.

Abortion is the killing of another human being.
98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.


At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.

Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.


Here's what Virginia [Democrat] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother.”


So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.




Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.

When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.

The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.

Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all. That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.

So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.

So according to you, words are just sounds without meaning (or in this case, lines on a screen without meaning). Dead people are DEAD. They are human in origin, that is true, but they no longer meet the scientific definition of life.

A zygote, embryo, fetus - whichever stage you wish to focus on - DOES, however, meet the definitions of BOTH "human" and "alive".

One more time, and do us all a favor and print this out and pin it to your computer monitor, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves.

Life

Definition

noun, plural: lives

noun, plural: lives

(1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

A fetus grows; a corpse doesn't.

A fetus metabolizes; a corpose doesn't. (Because you probably don't know, "metabolizes" means processes food for use as fuel.)

A fetus responds to stimuli; a corpse doesn't.

A fetus adapts to environment; a corpse doesn't.

While a fetus is not capable of reproduction at that stage of life (as is true of many born people), he is developing that capability; a corpse cannot reproduce and never will.

I would also add that the definition of life is often expressed as including the ability to maintain homeostasis (physiological balance). This would be included in adaptation. Whatever the scientifically backward among us think, a fetus controls and maintains his own body, development, and homeostasis; the mother's body does not do that for him. The mother provides the environment for him to adapt to, and the nutrition for him to metabolize, but the fetus himself independently directs all of the above-listed processes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What else do you know about God?


How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?

Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion. There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property". Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".

Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter. God gave women free will on abortion. You would take away what God gave us.

Abortion is the killing of another human being.
98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.


At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.

Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.


Here's what Virginia [Democrat] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother.”


So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.




Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.

When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.

The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.

Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all. That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.

So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.

For Democrats, they do......they vote.

 

[Flopper]

Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion. There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property". Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".

Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter. God gave women free will on abortion. You would take away what God gave us.

Abortion is the killing of another human being.
98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.


At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.

Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.


Here's what Virginia [Democrat] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother.”


So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.




Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.

When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.

How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?


Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.

When is that?

As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.

No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."

The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The rise in STD’s is noteworthy. Guess which states are experiencing the highest rates?

U.S. States With High STD Rates Have One Thing In Common

Neat.

Now how about we factor race into your stats, shall we?

View attachment 262039

View attachment 262040

View attachment 262042


Just to name a few. Source: STDs in Racial and Ethnic Minorities - 2016 STD Surveillance Report

And race has what to with it?

Other than the fact that the states you want to wave around like a flag because "they're red states, so that means POLITICS are responsible!" often also have higher percentages of racial and ethnic minorities in their populations?

It is easy to show a correlation and causal effect as a result of politics and subsequent policy. And increased teen pregnancy and STD rates. Not so easy to with race.

For example the effects of shutting down Planned Parenthood Clinics in poor rural red states means a loss of available services that provided STD screening and treatment and education in areas where evidence based sexual education is frowned upon. Red state politicians still spout the old canards about how abortion causes cancer and a woman who is raped can't get pregnant because "the juices aren't flowing".

I suspect it makes you feel better to blame it on race though.

The problem with that is Planned Parenthoods are rare in rural red states. Usually located in inner city areas...why is that I wonder?

The same as any business: you go where there's the best chance of making money.

 

[Flopper]

A fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in life-sustaining oxygen and nutrient early in development and is a LIVING BEING. After 5-6 weeks of pregnancy, the umbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen directly to the developing fetus's body.
For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, all the materials and energy for building a baby are supplied by secretions from glands in the uterus lining. Life begins at conception. The embryo protection law in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other law explicitly provides a similar definition of the appearance of early human life.

The fifth-grade textbook stated "Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin growing, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."

No one is disputing the fetus is alive.

An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.

LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive. What message board are YOU reading?! Do you want a damned list?!

"An entity"? Really? You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"? 'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.

Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws. Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed. Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not: the same difference between a slave and a free man. Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?

There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though. It is merely the difference between young and old.

Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong. The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person. At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.

I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations. Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.

By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.



There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:

1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’

2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”

3) Supreme Judge of the world, and

4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.

This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
Those rights include life.




Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.

Have an opinion?

The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child. A fetus is certainly not a child.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in life-sustaining oxygen and nutrient early in development and is a LIVING BEING. After 5-6 weeks of pregnancy, the umbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen directly to the developing fetus's body.
For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, all the materials and energy for building a baby are supplied by secretions from glands in the uterus lining. Life begins at conception. The embryo protection law in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other law explicitly provides a similar definition of the appearance of early human life.

The fifth-grade textbook stated "Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin growing, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."

No one is disputing the fetus is alive.

An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.

LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive. What message board are YOU reading?! Do you want a damned list?!

"An entity"? Really? You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"? 'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.

Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws. Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed. Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not: the same difference between a slave and a free man. Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?

There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though. It is merely the difference between young and old.

Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong. The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person. At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.

I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations. Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.

Actually, you've just put your finger on the point: "personhood" is the subject of debate because pro-aborts lost the debate on science, and they had to move the goalposts and make it about feelings and opinions.

Fetus and embryo are the correct MEDICAL terms, depending on the stage of development; but "human" is also a scientific term, and equally as appropriate, however much the ignorant unwashed masses want to project their "feelz" onto it. They project those same "feelz" onto the words fetus and embryo, by trying to insist that they mean something other than a living human being. It's a bad idea to let the language be redefined by the lowest rank of the intelligence scale.

 

[buttercup]

So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in life-sustaining oxygen and nutrient early in development and is a LIVING BEING. After 5-6 weeks of pregnancy, the umbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen directly to the developing fetus's body.
For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, all the materials and energy for building a baby are supplied by secretions from glands in the uterus lining. Life begins at conception. The embryo protection law in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other law explicitly provides a similar definition of the appearance of early human life.

The fifth-grade textbook stated "Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin growing, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."

No one is disputing the fetus is alive.

An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.

LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive. What message board are YOU reading?! Do you want a damned list?!

"An entity"? Really? You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"? 'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.

Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws. Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed. Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not: the same difference between a slave and a free man. Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?

There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though. It is merely the difference between young and old.

Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong. The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person. At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.

I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations. Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.

By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.



There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:

1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’

2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”

3) Supreme Judge of the world, and

4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.

This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
Those rights include life.




Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.

Have an opinion?

The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child. A fetus is certainly not a child.

But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.


How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?


. So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.






This is the position of the Democrat Party:

"...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”

"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table,..."


It's called infanticide. That's the reality.

 

[Leo123]

The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child. A fetus is certainly not a child.

A fetus is a human developing into an infant. Abortion precludes that development using death.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Abortion is the killing of another human being.
98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.


At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.

Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.


Here's what Virginia [Democrat] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother.”


So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.




Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.

When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.

How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?


Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.

When is that?

As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.

No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."

The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.

No, it's medical. YOU want it to be a religious thing, because you want that straw man to target. It's very notable that you want to set it out as a debate parameter, but you don't want to source it.

Try this quote on for size, and then tell me "it's religious, not medical":

1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

(Special thanks for PoliticalChic, for saving me the time of looking it up myself.)

Your quote, on the other hand, comes straight out of an op-ed piece, right down to the part you attempted to claim as your own: "This is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one." I don't doubt that Dr. Paulson has a vested interest in seeing things this way, since his livelihood as a "fertility specialist" would be very complicated by the notion that the embryos he treats as money-making commodities are actually human beings in their own right. Nevertheless, what he's not telling you is that that is NOT what he was taught in medical school embryology courses.

Now we know why you didn't want to source your quote. Thanks, Google.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in life-sustaining oxygen and nutrient early in development and is a LIVING BEING. After 5-6 weeks of pregnancy, the umbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen directly to the developing fetus's body.
For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, all the materials and energy for building a baby are supplied by secretions from glands in the uterus lining. Life begins at conception. The embryo protection law in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other law explicitly provides a similar definition of the appearance of early human life.

The fifth-grade textbook stated "Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin growing, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."

No one is disputing the fetus is alive.

An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.

LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive. What message board are YOU reading?! Do you want a damned list?!

"An entity"? Really? You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"? 'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.

Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws. Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed. Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not: the same difference between a slave and a free man. Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?

There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though. It is merely the difference between young and old.

Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong. The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person. At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.

I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations. Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.

By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.



There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:

1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’

2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”

3) Supreme Judge of the world, and

4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.

This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
Those rights include life.




Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.

Have an opinion?

The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child. A fetus is certainly not a child.

"Certainly not a child" because why? Because you don't "feel" that it is?

 

[buttercup]

The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child. A fetus is certainly not a child.

That is not scientific at all. I hate to be repetitive, but I'm amazed we're still arguing this.

“...it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.”

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

*********

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”

Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D, the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization. From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40

*********

“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

*********

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”

James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

*********

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”

Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

*********

National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...

The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.”

Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” LifeNews.com 11/18/13

*********

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

*********

“In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of a new individual.”

Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144

*********

“The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”

Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55

*********

Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3

“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”

*********

Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943

“Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun. ”

*********

Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986

“but the whole story does not begin with delivery. The baby has existed for months before – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”


*********

Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”

*********

Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3

“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”

*********

Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

*********

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:

“[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
​

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Nazis passes laws claiming the unborn no longer 'persons.'
The Nuremberg Race Laws


Oh.....wait......

.....that was the Democrats.





"The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 officially excluded Jews from German citizenship and limited their rights as members of society. Also included in the Nuremberg Laws were specific definitions of who was legally considered a Jew."
The Nuremberg Laws | My Jewish Learning


There's a kind of echo there.......

 

[Flopper]

A fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in life-sustaining oxygen and nutrient early in development and is a LIVING BEING. After 5-6 weeks of pregnancy, the umbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen directly to the developing fetus's body.
For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, all the materials and energy for building a baby are supplied by secretions from glands in the uterus lining. Life begins at conception. The embryo protection law in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other law explicitly provides a similar definition of the appearance of early human life.

The fifth-grade textbook stated "Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin growing, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."

No one is disputing the fetus is alive.

An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.

LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive. What message board are YOU reading?! Do you want a damned list?!

"An entity"? Really? You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"? 'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.

Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws. Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed. Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not: the same difference between a slave and a free man. Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?

There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though. It is merely the difference between young and old.

Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong. The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person. At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.

I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations. Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.

Actually, you've just put your finger on the point: "personhood" is the subject of debate because pro-aborts lost the debate on science, and they had to move the goalposts and make it about feelings and opinions.

Fetus and embryo are the correct MEDICAL terms, depending on the stage of development; but "human" is also a scientific term, and equally as appropriate, however much the ignorant unwashed masses want to project their "feelz" onto it. They project those same "feelz" onto the words fetus and embryo, by trying to insist that they mean something other than a living human being. It's a bad idea to let the language be redefined by the lowest rank of the intelligence scale.

Oh, bullshit. Fetus and embryo have exact scientific meanings. You use terms such babies, humans, and human beings to convey the idea that they are lovable babies when the fact is they are just developing organisms.

 

[Dragonlady]

Less that half of the fertilized eggs ataach to the womb wall & are aborted.

SO you think God is this stupid & inefficient that the would reach down & place a soul in that zygote & then take it back in a couple of days when half are flushed out.

What happened to the "breath of life"?

What else do you know about God?


How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?

Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion. There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property". Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".

Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter. God gave women free will on abortion. You would take away what God gave us.

Abortion is the killing of another human being.
98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.


At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.

Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.


Here's what Virginia [Democrat] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother.”


So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.




Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.

When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.

The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.

Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all. That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.

So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.

 

[Dragonlady]

The Nazis passes laws claiming the unborn no longer 'persons.'
The Nuremberg Race Laws


Oh.....wait......

.....that was the Democrats.





"The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 officially excluded Jews from German citizenship and limited their rights as members of society. Also included in the Nuremberg Laws were specific definitions of who was legally considered a Jew."
The Nuremberg Laws | My Jewish Learning


There's a kind of echo there.......

Only because your head is empty.

 

[Dragonlady]

No one is disputing the fetus is alive.

An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.

LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive. What message board are YOU reading?! Do you want a damned list?!

"An entity"? Really? You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"? 'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.

Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws. Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed. Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not: the same difference between a slave and a free man. Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?

There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though. It is merely the difference between young and old.

Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong. The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person. At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.

I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations. Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.

By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.



There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:

1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’

2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”

3) Supreme Judge of the world, and

4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.

This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
Those rights include life.




Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.

Have an opinion?

The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child. A fetus is certainly not a child.

But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.


How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?


. So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.






This is the position of the Democrat Party:

"...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”

"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table,..."


It's called infanticide. That's the reality.

We’ve agreed to nothing of the kind. An acorn is NOT an oak tree, and a zygote is not a human being.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

No one is disputing the fetus is alive.

An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.

LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive. What message board are YOU reading?! Do you want a damned list?!

"An entity"? Really? You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"? 'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.

Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws. Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed. Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not: the same difference between a slave and a free man. Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?

There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though. It is merely the difference between young and old.

Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong. The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person. At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.

I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations. Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.

By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.



There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:

1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’

2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”

3) Supreme Judge of the world, and

4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.

This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
Those rights include life.




Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.

Have an opinion?

The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child. A fetus is certainly not a child.

"Certainly not a child" because why? Because you don't "feel" that it is?

Left loons are big on the "feelz"....and word salad.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Nazis passes laws claiming the unborn no longer 'persons.'
The Nuremberg Race Laws


Oh.....wait......

.....that was the Democrats.





"The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 officially excluded Jews from German citizenship and limited their rights as members of society. Also included in the Nuremberg Laws were specific definitions of who was legally considered a Jew."
The Nuremberg Laws | My Jewish Learning


There's a kind of echo there.......

Only because your head is empty.

You mean you object to being compared to Nazis????


How so?


Liberals endorse the majority of plans the Nazis did, both are socialists with no concern for human life.....



And this:
"...traces the use and evolution of the Holocaust analogy in the pro-life movement. Pro-life activists likened abortion to the Nazi Holocaust from the earliest days of the movement. But equating the deaths of millions of fetus to the deaths of millions of Jews ....

....the Holocaust resulted from German society’s adoption of the “new ethic,” a belief that only persons whose lives do not inconvenience others deserve to live.

Abortion providers have not stopped with terminating pregnancies; rather, they experiment on the fetuses they abort, kill defective infants, sell fetal body parts, and euthanize the aged. Although the public is largely deceived about the nature of their acts, Americans’ indifference renders them as guilty for a holocaust as Germans were for the Jewish genocide. Thus those who perform abortions, as well as those who defend the legality of their actions, are Nazis in our midst."
https://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/sectionchs/documents/beisel.pdf




You don't like being compared to Nazis???

Stop acting like them.