The abortion issue troubles me mightily

[koshergrl]

That was the first man. He was created whole and God blew breath into him.

Subsequent humans (after the creation of Eve from Adam's rib, that is) are created in the womb:

Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Yes, thank you for backing up what I said lol
Life began at breath

No, life for ADAM began at breath.

God created Adam's children and all following generations in the womb.

That scripture did not refute what I said at all.

Yes, it does. It absolutely does. And the scripture about breathing breath into Adam to give him life is a specific account about ADAM. Not about subsequent life. The *breath of life* in Adam's children occurs before God plants them in the womb.

As is detailed in Jeremiah 1:5.

Also, the supposed first human life. That was my point.
Your scripture does not refute what I said.
I said "the bible states that life started at breath. Fetuses can't breath"
You backed that up and then posted an irrelevant scripture.

Yes, my scripture does refute it.
I'm sorry you aren't capable of understanding the written word.

 

[jillian]

Definitions are powerful.

Prolife people tend to define the unborn fetus as the most innocent, a human being that has the right to life just like the rest of us.

Pro-choice people tend to define the unborn fetus as a clump of cells in a woman's body that has no more rights than the woman's appendix.

If you want to understand both sides of the issue, look at the issue through the prism of both those definitions.

the people who are anti-choice are not pro life. that is a misnomer. they are pro birth. if that weren't the case, they would support women who were having children -- help them get educated, job trained, provide day care, food assistance if necessary. but the same people who say they're "pro-life" are the first to throw women to the wolves and condemn their children to hunger.

people who are pro choice want government out of our personal decisions. roe v wade was the compromise.

One major reason for choosing abortion is to avoid the responsibility of raising a child.

Still, I am not sure why you quoted my post....it seems that you view the pre-born as a clump of cells not deserving of legal protection.

That being said, I know lots of pro choice people that have adopted children (some with special needs), served as foster parents, give to local food banks, and do volunteer work for all sorts of people.

the term "pre-born" has no basis in science. it exists only as a propaganda tool.

that "clump of cells" is, in fact, a clump of cells until it isn't. that is why roe v wade acknowledge that life exists on a continuum.

mostly, it's no one else's decision but the person who will have to

I quoted your post because it mischaracterizes pro choice belief and is aggrandizing of anti-choice activists.

the sole issue is not your preference... it is when the interests of government become greater than the interests of the person whose body is involved.

btw, if you cared about pregnant women, you'd support easy access to contraceptives and to sex education for young people

but anti-choices don't believe in those things. they just want to "punish the harlots"

Funny how you confirmed my original post about pro choice believing that the unborn being simply a clump cells, not a person, and then say I mischaracterized pro choice belief.

if that's what you get from my post, then you're not reading it and you're imposing your own propaganda on it.

how about this, though. no one is wise enough to make those decisions for anyone else.....especially a person they don't know.

 

[TNHarley]

The definition of a human being states otherwise kosher.

Nonsense.

The definition does not dictate WHO is human. For example, did the *definition* of negroes as a higher form of animal make them animals?

No, it didn't. The definitions of "human" and "person" have been changed in the past few decades so that leftist monsters can get away with genocide. In fact, those who commit genocide HISTORICALLY change the *definition* of humanity to mask their intent and clean up their actions.

It doesn't change the reality..scientific and moral...regardless what you call them...unborn children are 100 percent human.

And you should be ashamed of yourself for buying into the disgusting fad of denk4outying them their humanity in order to justify their slaughter. Germans did the same, as did those who slaughtered Indians.

I totally understand your perspective on this.
However, an unborn fetus doesn't have humanity. Seems more of an emotional argument

Does a baby 5 seconds after birth have humanity? How about 5 seconds before birth? If yes to the first question and no to the second, what gave the baby humanity?

Yes
No
The actual birth and independence of life is about my entire argument.

Do you think a newborn baby is independent? Leave it to fend for itself and see how long it survives.

Lol obviously not.
The now human life is capable of far more things at that pount. Such as breathing and nourishment

 

[buttercup]

Some quotes from medical textbooks.


“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)


*********


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


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


*********


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


*********


“Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. was first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization:

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

*********


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

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


*********


“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)


*********


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

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

Quoted in Randy Alcorn “Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments” (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2000)


*********


“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


*********


Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419


“The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”


*********


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.”


*********


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.”

*********

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. (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.”

 

[koshergrl]

The emotional argument is that human fetuses aren't human. It has no basis in fact, or in science. It's just garbage meant to make baby killers feel better about what they support.

Exactly! It's almost comical that they actually think science is on their side, when you simply cannot get around the fact that human life does not begin when the head pops out, that is so childish and inane.

LOL it is far more complicated than that..

Nope. It's not.

Your POV is born of a desire to negate guilt on your part. At some point you have relied upon either the idea of, or the actual commission of, abortion in order to justify or eliminate the consequences of sex with a vulnerable woman you had no respect for.

 

[TNHarley]

Yes, thank you for backing up what I said lol
Life began at breath

No, life for ADAM began at breath.

God created Adam's children and all following generations in the womb.

That scripture did not refute what I said at all.

Yes, it does. It absolutely does. And the scripture about breathing breath into Adam to give him life is a specific account about ADAM. Not about subsequent life. The *breath of life* in Adam's children occurs before God plants them in the womb.

As is detailed in Jeremiah 1:5.

Also, the supposed first human life. That was my point.
Your scripture does not refute what I said.
I said "the bible states that life started at breath. Fetuses can't breath"
You backed that up and then posted an irrelevant scripture.

Yes, my scripture does refute it.
I'm sorry you aren't capable of understanding the written word.

Please explain how. Thanks.

 

[TNHarley]

The emotional argument is that human fetuses aren't human. It has no basis in fact, or in science. It's just garbage meant to make baby killers feel better about what they support.

Exactly! It's almost comical that they actually think science is on their side, when you simply cannot get around the fact that human life does not begin when the head pops out, that is so childish and inane.

LOL it is far more complicated than that..

Nope. It's not.

Your POV is born of a desire to negate guilt on your part. At some point you have relied upon either the idea of, or the actual commission of, abortion in order to justify or eliminate the consequences of sex with a vulnerable woman you had no respect for.

A baby being born is far more colorful than saying only its head pops out.
Lol wth

 

[koshergrl]

No, life for ADAM began at breath.

God created Adam's children and all following generations in the womb.

That scripture did not refute what I said at all.

Yes, it does. It absolutely does. And the scripture about breathing breath into Adam to give him life is a specific account about ADAM. Not about subsequent life. The *breath of life* in Adam's children occurs before God plants them in the womb.

As is detailed in Jeremiah 1:5.

Also, the supposed first human life. That was my point.
Your scripture does not refute what I said.
I said "the bible states that life started at breath. Fetuses can't breath"
You backed that up and then posted an irrelevant scripture.

Yes, my scripture does refute it.
I'm sorry you aren't capable of understanding the written word.

Please explain how. Thanks.

Like I said. If you can't understand it, you can't understand it. If you deny reality, I can't help you.

 

[TNHarley]

jillian didn't the ancient Jewish believe a baby was just mere water before 40 days or so?

 

[TNHarley]

That scripture did not refute what I said at all.

Yes, it does. It absolutely does. And the scripture about breathing breath into Adam to give him life is a specific account about ADAM. Not about subsequent life. The *breath of life* in Adam's children occurs before God plants them in the womb.

As is detailed in Jeremiah 1:5.

Also, the supposed first human life. That was my point.
Your scripture does not refute what I said.
I said "the bible states that life started at breath. Fetuses can't breath"
You backed that up and then posted an irrelevant scripture.

Yes, my scripture does refute it.
I'm sorry you aren't capable of understanding the written word.

Please explain how. Thanks.

Like I said. If you can't understand it, you can't understand it. If you deny reality, I can't help you.

Reality? Lol

 

[buttercup]

Still waiting to hear why location determines humanity, in your view. If that is not your view, then please address that example I posted called "The two Heathers."

 

[ding]

By any definition.
Zygote/embryo/fetus simply describes a stage of development.
But the animal is still the animal no matter what stage of development it is.

A chimp zygote is a chimp at that stage of development.
A horse embryo is a horse at that stage of development.
A whale fetus is a whale at that stage of development.

Whether born or not, the being is still the species that it is. A human embryo isn't non-human. It's a HUMAN embryo. Which is to say, it is HUMAN.

The definition of a human being states otherwise kosher.

Nonsense.

The definition does not dictate WHO is human. For example, did the *definition* of negroes as a higher form of animal make them animals?

No, it didn't. The definitions of "human" and "person" have been changed in the past few decades so that leftist monsters can get away with genocide. In fact, those who commit genocide HISTORICALLY change the *definition* of humanity to mask their intent and clean up their actions.

It doesn't change the reality..scientific and moral...regardless what you call them...unborn children are 100 percent human.

And you should be ashamed of yourself for buying into the disgusting fad of denk4outying them their humanity in order to justify their slaughter. Germans did the same, as did those who slaughtered Indians.

I totally understand your perspective on this.
However, an unborn fetus doesn't have humanity. Seems more of an emotional argument

Does a baby 5 seconds after birth have humanity? How about 5 seconds before birth? If yes to the first question and no to the second, what gave the baby humanity?

Yes
No
The actual birth and independence of life is about my entire argument.

You sound like a lawyer.

 

[BETH-MIDAN]

Is someone trying to explain that an embryo is accessory to its species ?

 

[JoeMoma]

Nonsense.

The definition does not dictate WHO is human. For example, did the *definition* of negroes as a higher form of animal make them animals?

No, it didn't. The definitions of "human" and "person" have been changed in the past few decades so that leftist monsters can get away with genocide. In fact, those who commit genocide HISTORICALLY change the *definition* of humanity to mask their intent and clean up their actions.

It doesn't change the reality..scientific and moral...regardless what you call them...unborn children are 100 percent human.

And you should be ashamed of yourself for buying into the disgusting fad of denk4outying them their humanity in order to justify their slaughter. Germans did the same, as did those who slaughtered Indians.

I totally understand your perspective on this.
However, an unborn fetus doesn't have humanity. Seems more of an emotional argument

Does a baby 5 seconds after birth have humanity? How about 5 seconds before birth? If yes to the first question and no to the second, what gave the baby humanity?

Yes
No
The actual birth and independence of life is about my entire argument.

Do you think a newborn baby is independent? Leave it to fend for itself and see how long it survives.

Lol obviously not.
The now human life is capable of far more things at that pount. Such as breathing and nourishment

You sure are hung up on this breathing thing. A doctor can induce labor in a preg woman perhaps a week or two earlier than she would have the baby naturally. By your reasoning, taking that first breath somehow turns that thing into a living baby even when birth is induced early.

 

[TNHarley]

Still waiting to hear why location determines humanity, in your view. If that is not your view, then please address that example I posted called "The two Heathers."

It has nothing to do with geography lol
It's SCIENCE

 

[koshergrl]

The definition of a human being states otherwise kosher.

Nonsense.

The definition does not dictate WHO is human. For example, did the *definition* of negroes as a higher form of animal make them animals?

No, it didn't. The definitions of "human" and "person" have been changed in the past few decades so that leftist monsters can get away with genocide. In fact, those who commit genocide HISTORICALLY change the *definition* of humanity to mask their intent and clean up their actions.

It doesn't change the reality..scientific and moral...regardless what you call them...unborn children are 100 percent human.

And you should be ashamed of yourself for buying into the disgusting fad of denk4outying them their humanity in order to justify their slaughter. Germans did the same, as did those who slaughtered Indians.

I totally understand your perspective on this.
However, an unborn fetus doesn't have humanity. Seems more of an emotional argument

Does a baby 5 seconds after birth have humanity? How about 5 seconds before birth? If yes to the first question and no to the second, what gave the baby humanity?

Yes
No
The actual birth and independence of life is about my entire argument.

You sound like a lawyer.

No he really doesn't.
He sounds like someone who has relied heavily on abortion to relieve him of the consequences of his exploitation of vulnerable women.

 

[koshergrl]

Still waiting to hear why location determines humanity, in your view. If that is not your view, then please address that example I posted called "The two Heathers."

It has nothing to do with geography lol
It's SCIENCE

No, it's NOT.

"Science" dictates an unborn baby is every bit as HUMAN as a born baby.

 

[jillian]

jillian didn't the ancient Jewish believe a baby was just mere water before 40 days or so?

I don't know. sorry. what I do know is that the idea is that it isn't a person until the head crowns. I'm pretty much in the... I think people should make their own decisions, with their doctors and the people closest to them. politicians sure shouldn't make those decisions.

 

[buttercup]

Still waiting to hear why location determines humanity, in your view. If that is not your view, then please address that example I posted called "The two Heathers."

It has nothing to do with geography lol
It's SCIENCE

Yes, I absolutely agree it is science. And according to science, life begins when the sperm and egg fuse together, forming a brand new genetically distinct human being. I posted numerous quotes from medical textbooks on the previous page which maybe you missed.

And if you agree that location is not what matters, then please address the example I posted a few pages back called "The two Heathers."

 

[ding]

Still waiting to hear why location determines humanity, in your view. If that is not your view, then please address that example I posted called "The two Heathers."

It has nothing to do with geography lol
It's SCIENCE

Your belief couldn't be farther from science. Go talk to an embryologist or pick up any embryology text book. They even have pictures.