Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?

[emilynghiem]

It's odd how you people can kill children without a care in the world

When and how did they become fully developed children in the womb again?

They are children. They are human. I'll bet you think that there really are 64 "genders".

You aren't proving they are fully developed children. You are saying they are. Who are you to make that decision? God?

What scientific proof can you present that tells us they are fully developed children?

Dear BWK and Ambivalent1
Perhaps better terms are "personhood" and when does the "conscious will" of a person
enter the body or develop as a separate identity from the mother.

Either way, this spiritual process of when does a separate consciousness enter the body
becomes FAITH BASED, so BWK is basically justified in contesting this as not something
Govt or laws can regulate or legislate because it involves personal beliefs.

Since this issue is going to get into personal beliefs and conflicts, regardless,
we might as well ask these questions BEFORE anyone gets involved with sexual
relations with anyone else.

Let's not wait until AFTER the point of pregnancy to discuss conflicting beliefs!

By acknowledging IN ADVANCE there are conflicts in beliefs BEFORE sexual relations are engaged in,
this can prevent people from engaging in sex to begin with if they don't agree on
the spiritual process and the terms of the sexual relations.

The more we get nowhere with comparing beliefs, the more
clear it is that people should be addressing these issues in advance, outside of govt.

We'd have to form agreements how to AVOID this whole situation from EVER coming up
in the first place, since we cannot agree how to define or manage the process AFTER pregnancy.

While I agree that it is best for the problem not to occur, it's going to occur whether we like it or not, as long as humans walk. Rape is never far off in the world of humans. And that's reality.

My issue with beliefs, is the fact that pro-lifers pretend to use their beliefs as a cover for factual information. I do not. I just use the information provided by publications from a scientific acknowledgement. I don't let my personal feelings or emotions cloud my visions for the truth, just so I can push my desired narrative. And pro-lifers do just that. That's the big difference between the two concepts.

Rape doesn't just have to keep happening, @BMK
People who rape already have problems that
can be detected and treated in advance.

Murder and other crimes can also be prevented,
by treating criminal illness like other diseases
that should not go unchecked to the point they become deadly.

If we can catch diabetes and cancer in earlier stages,
we can do the same with criminal disorders, abuse and addictions.

Sure, not all cases have symptoms that are caught early enough,
this happens with other diseases also that aren't always detected in advance
when they could have been treated easier.

So while I agree that not all cases of sickness can be caught and treated in time,
that's not the same as just allowing rape, murder and crime to keep happening.

We still should invest in setting up the most effective means of screening
and treating people for abusive or addictive disorders in advance.

I believe it helps to take the approach that someday ALL diseases and ills
can be caught in time, treated and cured BEFORE they cause worse danger, damages or death.

The more we address the cases we can do something about,
the reduction in crime and violence will save more resources to
invest in prevention, and we can improve on the mental health
process of early screening, treatment and cure to address more difficult cases in the future.

If we don't start now, the backlog on our criminal justice system keeps costing
us more and more, where the waste of billions of dollars in state resources on
legal/court costs and incarceration is taking away from our capacity to invest
in preventative health care, education and medical treatment to prevent crime and abuse in the first place.

Even if we can't catch all cases yet, that's no reason to neglect this approach.

If we are ever going to perfect the science of treating diseases early on,
including criminal sickness, we must start somewhere.
Instead of acting like there is nothing we can do to prevent it, so why bother?

 

[Lakhota]

When and how did they become fully developed children in the womb again?

They are children. They are human. I'll bet you think that there really are 64 "genders".

You aren't proving they are fully developed children. You are saying they are. Who are you to make that decision? God?

What scientific proof can you present that tells us they are fully developed children?

Dear BWK and Ambivalent1
Perhaps better terms are "personhood" and when does the "conscious will" of a person
enter the body or develop as a separate identity from the mother.

Either way, this spiritual process of when does a separate consciousness enter the body
becomes FAITH BASED, so BWK is basically justified in contesting this as not something
Govt or laws can regulate or legislate because it involves personal beliefs.

Since this issue is going to get into personal beliefs and conflicts, regardless,
we might as well ask these questions BEFORE anyone gets involved with sexual
relations with anyone else.

Let's not wait until AFTER the point of pregnancy to discuss conflicting beliefs!

By acknowledging IN ADVANCE there are conflicts in beliefs BEFORE sexual relations are engaged in,
this can prevent people from engaging in sex to begin with if they don't agree on
the spiritual process and the terms of the sexual relations.

The more we get nowhere with comparing beliefs, the more
clear it is that people should be addressing these issues in advance, outside of govt.

We'd have to form agreements how to AVOID this whole situation from EVER coming up
in the first place, since we cannot agree how to define or manage the process AFTER pregnancy.

While I agree that it is best for the problem not to occur, it's going to occur whether we like it or not, as long as humans walk. Rape is never far off in the world of humans. And that's reality.

My issue with beliefs, is the fact that pro-lifers pretend to use their beliefs as a cover for factual information. I do not. I just use the information provided by publications from a scientific acknowledgement. I don't let my personal feelings or emotions cloud my visions for the truth, just so I can push my desired narrative. And pro-lifers do just that. That's the big difference between the two concepts.

Rape doesn't just have to keep happening, @BMK
People who rape already have problems that
can be detected and treated in advance.

Murder and other crimes can also be prevented,
by treating criminal illness like other diseases
that should not go unchecked to the point they become deadly.

If we can catch diabetes and cancer in earlier stages,
we can do the same with criminal disorders, abuse and addictions.

Sure, not all cases have symptoms that are caught early enough,
this happens with other diseases also that aren't always detected in advance
when they could have been treated easier.

So while I agree that not all cases of sickness can be caught and treated in time,
that's not the same as just allowing rape, murder and crime to keep happening.

We still should invest in setting up the most effective means of screening
and treating people for abusive or addictive disorders in advance.

I believe it helps to take the approach that someday ALL diseases and ills
can be caught in time, treated and cured BEFORE they cause worse danger, damages or death.

The more we address the cases we can do something about,
the reduction in crime and violence will save more resources to
invest in prevention, and we can improve on the mental health
process of early screening, treatment and cure to address more difficult cases in the future.

If we don't start now, the backlog on our criminal justice system keeps costing
us more and more, where the waste of billions of dollars in state resources on
legal/court costs and incarceration is taking away from our capacity to invest
in preventative health care, education and medical treatment to prevent crime and abuse in the first place.

Even if we can't catch all cases yet, that's no reason to neglect this approach.

If we are ever going to perfect the science of treating diseases early on,
including criminal sickness, we must start somewhere.
Instead of acting like there is nothing we can do to prevent it, so why bother?

Gee, that's how most of us feel about gun control.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Lakhota

In general, ALL people under the jurisdiction of States and the US
should be equal under law, and enjoy equal protections, exercise and expression
of their beliefs regardless of creed.

Regardless what any of us BELIEVES about abortion, the laws should
reflect public consensus. States laws should ideally reflect a consensus
of the people under that government. And federal laws, rulings and government
should reflect a consensus of all people and States in the union.

If we do not agree on beliefs about abortion, abortion laws or solutions,
then no laws should be made establishing one belief or bias over others.
Instead of fighting over areas where we disagree, we should allow laws
to focus on just the areas where we do agree on common public policy and standard.

Where we cannot change or resolve conflicting beliefs, we should respect that
and agree to separate funding, jurisdiction and terms of policies
so that each person or group has equal freedom and protection for their
own beliefs and doesn't impose this on any other people or groups who disagree,
nor suffer obstruction or oppression by other such groups.

We should all exercise and respect equal rights and freedom of
ourselves and others to adopt and enforce the policies WE believe in,
and not impose these through govt on anyone else until we reach agreement.

That way, the laws of the State are fair and treat and include all people
of that State equally, regardless of creed. And same for the laws of our nation.

www.ethics-commission.net

 

[Dana7360]

This is a sincere poll. I would appreciate honest answers. If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons. I will not criticize your choice. I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.

NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances. In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.

That's a very easy question to answer.

The woman.

 

[Likkmee]

Priority ?
Condoms and/or facials

 

[emilynghiem]

Gee, that's how most of us feel about gun control.

Good point to compare abortion legislation with gun regulation.

Lakhota

1. Trying to ban and regulate guns is like trying to ban or regulate abortion.
2. Instead of addressing the MENTAL HEALTH issues behind gun violence
and the ABUSE of relationships or sex abuse that results in abortion.
3. So in both cases, to be fair:
if you don't believe that banning abortion addresses or solves the real problems causing it,
that's how gun rights advocates argue against regulations that don't solve the cause of gun violence either!

Thank you Lakhota

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sad but true.

Remember, ladies, that children are always a horrible burden and punishment, and you should view them with hatred, fear, and resentment. No good can ever come of childbirth unless you're really certain that YOUR personal existence needs a child as an accessory.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, it's time to start regulating men's bodies!

More La-Cooter insane, has-nothing-real-to-say bullshit. Thanks for admitting your defeat.

 

[Dragonlady]

The definition of "children" or "kid"is not included in any scientific publications describing a fetus in the womb. The only one making the fool, is you. If I'm the fool, show me where the fetus is described as Children or kid. If you can't, then you just walked into your own foolish nonsense proving nothing. So, for these posters to tell us we are "killing children or kids" is just a liar.

I don't want to speak for him, but to me it was obvious he was using that word as a synonym for baby or offspring. You're either being dense or intentionally dishonest by focusing on that word ("child") instead of the actual point. The bottom line is, the preborn is a brand new, genetically unique individual, a living human being. Forget the word "children" and address the actual point. It seems you can't, because you know (as you were shown) it's an inescapable scientific fact that the preborn is a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and I.

Posters on here are claiming that abortion kills children or kids, which is a lie, because there is no established Biological evidence that a fetus in the womb is either one. They hijack the narrative to feed everyone inaccurate information. The same that you are doing.

And as my previous post points out, the definition of human being, says it is a man, woman, or child. It does not reference the pre-born. Why? Because it can't? And why is that? Because the definition has not established that it is a human being in the womb that is experiencing life? And why is that? Because Life has not been established in the womb from a scientific interpretation. You would tell us it is life based on your own convenient interpretation, but you have zero proof. Therefore, no one can accurately claim life, children, or kid while the fetus is in the womb.

Open your eyes and look at the post right above your last one. Once again, you are making a fool of yourself by denying the scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a brand new human being, regardless of age, size or location.

You can argue that the preborn is not a person (which would also be incorrect) but to claim the preborn is not a human is blatantly ignorant and false.

Your biggest problem you have, is understanding your own publication. I already linked the definition of "life" to you through Wikipedia. What your publication is offering to you is this, that the zygote/embryo/ fetus will develop into a fully developed human being, while calling it a human being. It still is not a fully developed human being. And that is what you struggle to understand.You are simply desperate to inject an argument for your desired narrative, when you fail to understand the totality of the meanings from your own publications that you post. You don't get it, because you don't want to get it. You want to call it a human being? Knock yourself out. But even your own publication does not do that. You need to know how to understand the difference between a developing hb and a fully developed human being. Which is exactly what I have been trying to explain to you.

There you go again, using that ridiculous phrase "fully developed human being" which just shows that you STILL don't get it, and you're still putting forth your own confused ideas as fact.

No, the quotes are clear. They're all saying basically the same thing: human life begins at conception. There are numerous different stages of life - but in each of those stages, you have a genetically unique individual, living human being. And I didn't post a "publication" - I posted a variety of quotes, from different people, quotes from medical textbooks.

Again, a zygote or embryo is not supposed to look like a newborn or a child, it looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life.

It's getting boring trying to discuss this with you, because you're being repetitive, ignoring quotes from scientists and medical textbooks, and putting forth your own confused, politically-driven misguided ideas as fact.

Your premise, that the fetus "looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life", is utterly false. It's not a "human being", until it's sentient, aware, and able to breathe on its own.

Fully 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion". A fetus is NOT a human being. It's a potential human being, and a lot of stuff has to go right for that little zygote to make it as a fully formed human being.



Unless and until the

 

[Blues Man]

I don't want to speak for him, but to me it was obvious he was using that word as a synonym for baby or offspring. You're either being dense or intentionally dishonest by focusing on that word ("child") instead of the actual point. The bottom line is, the preborn is a brand new, genetically unique individual, a living human being. Forget the word "children" and address the actual point. It seems you can't, because you know (as you were shown) it's an inescapable scientific fact that the preborn is a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and I.

Posters on here are claiming that abortion kills children or kids, which is a lie, because there is no established Biological evidence that a fetus in the womb is either one. They hijack the narrative to feed everyone inaccurate information. The same that you are doing.

And as my previous post points out, the definition of human being, says it is a man, woman, or child. It does not reference the pre-born. Why? Because it can't? And why is that? Because the definition has not established that it is a human being in the womb that is experiencing life? And why is that? Because Life has not been established in the womb from a scientific interpretation. You would tell us it is life based on your own convenient interpretation, but you have zero proof. Therefore, no one can accurately claim life, children, or kid while the fetus is in the womb.

Open your eyes and look at the post right above your last one. Once again, you are making a fool of yourself by denying the scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a brand new human being, regardless of age, size or location.

You can argue that the preborn is not a person (which would also be incorrect) but to claim the preborn is not a human is blatantly ignorant and false.

Your biggest problem you have, is understanding your own publication. I already linked the definition of "life" to you through Wikipedia. What your publication is offering to you is this, that the zygote/embryo/ fetus will develop into a fully developed human being, while calling it a human being. It still is not a fully developed human being. And that is what you struggle to understand.You are simply desperate to inject an argument for your desired narrative, when you fail to understand the totality of the meanings from your own publications that you post. You don't get it, because you don't want to get it. You want to call it a human being? Knock yourself out. But even your own publication does not do that. You need to know how to understand the difference between a developing hb and a fully developed human being. Which is exactly what I have been trying to explain to you.

There you go again, using that ridiculous phrase "fully developed human being" which just shows that you STILL don't get it, and you're still putting forth your own confused ideas as fact.

No, the quotes are clear. They're all saying basically the same thing: human life begins at conception. There are numerous different stages of life - but in each of those stages, you have a genetically unique individual, living human being. And I didn't post a "publication" - I posted a variety of quotes, from different people, quotes from medical textbooks.

Again, a zygote or embryo is not supposed to look like a newborn or a child, it looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life.

It's getting boring trying to discuss this with you, because you're being repetitive, ignoring quotes from scientists and medical textbooks, and putting forth your own confused, politically-driven misguided ideas as fact.

Your premise, that the fetus "looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life", is utterly false. It's not a "human being", until it's sentient, aware, and able to breathe on its own.

Fully 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion". A fetus is NOT a human being. It's a potential human being, and a lot of stuff has to go right for that little zygote to make it as a fully formed human being.



Unless and until the

A newborn is not sentient or aware.

IMO Any reasonable person would realize that there is a point during gestation and before birth when the fetus is a baby.
At that point the lives of both the mother and the baby should be protected with equal vigor.

When that point is is something the experts can debate but viability outside the womb (taking into account modern medical support) and other factors such as the point of development of the brain and nervous system must be considered.

To say that a baby is not a baby 1 hour ( one day) before delivery and can therefore be aborted is an extreme and ridiculous position.

 

[whitehall]

What does "priority" mean in this sense? If a woman is intimidated (or threatened) by a boyfriend or acquaintence into hiring someone to kill her unborn baby, does it translate to "priority"? The dirty little secret is the people who benefit most from abortion are men. They get to see their future responsibilities disappear at the stroke of a scalpel while the women sometimes endures symptoms similar to PTSD for the rest of her life.

 

[buttercup]

I don't want to speak for him, but to me it was obvious he was using that word as a synonym for baby or offspring. You're either being dense or intentionally dishonest by focusing on that word ("child") instead of the actual point. The bottom line is, the preborn is a brand new, genetically unique individual, a living human being. Forget the word "children" and address the actual point. It seems you can't, because you know (as you were shown) it's an inescapable scientific fact that the preborn is a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and I.

Posters on here are claiming that abortion kills children or kids, which is a lie, because there is no established Biological evidence that a fetus in the womb is either one. They hijack the narrative to feed everyone inaccurate information. The same that you are doing.

And as my previous post points out, the definition of human being, says it is a man, woman, or child. It does not reference the pre-born. Why? Because it can't? And why is that? Because the definition has not established that it is a human being in the womb that is experiencing life? And why is that? Because Life has not been established in the womb from a scientific interpretation. You would tell us it is life based on your own convenient interpretation, but you have zero proof. Therefore, no one can accurately claim life, children, or kid while the fetus is in the womb.

Open your eyes and look at the post right above your last one. Once again, you are making a fool of yourself by denying the scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a brand new human being, regardless of age, size or location.

You can argue that the preborn is not a person (which would also be incorrect) but to claim the preborn is not a human is blatantly ignorant and false.

Your biggest problem you have, is understanding your own publication. I already linked the definition of "life" to you through Wikipedia. What your publication is offering to you is this, that the zygote/embryo/ fetus will develop into a fully developed human being, while calling it a human being. It still is not a fully developed human being. And that is what you struggle to understand.You are simply desperate to inject an argument for your desired narrative, when you fail to understand the totality of the meanings from your own publications that you post. You don't get it, because you don't want to get it. You want to call it a human being? Knock yourself out. But even your own publication does not do that. You need to know how to understand the difference between a developing hb and a fully developed human being. Which is exactly what I have been trying to explain to you.

There you go again, using that ridiculous phrase "fully developed human being" which just shows that you STILL don't get it, and you're still putting forth your own confused ideas as fact.

No, the quotes are clear. They're all saying basically the same thing: human life begins at conception. There are numerous different stages of life - but in each of those stages, you have a genetically unique individual, living human being. And I didn't post a "publication" - I posted a variety of quotes, from different people, quotes from medical textbooks.

Again, a zygote or embryo is not supposed to look like a newborn or a child, it looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life.

It's getting boring trying to discuss this with you, because you're being repetitive, ignoring quotes from scientists and medical textbooks, and putting forth your own confused, politically-driven misguided ideas as fact.

Your premise, that the fetus "looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life", is utterly false. It's not a "human being", until it's sentient, aware, and able to breathe on its own.

Fully 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion". A fetus is NOT a human being. It's a potential human being, and a lot of stuff has to go right for that little zygote to make it as a fully formed human being.



Unless and until the

In your politically-driven, misguided, unscientific opinion. Honestly, to deny that the preborn is a human makes you look ignorant, I'm trying to help you here:


“….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] 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.”

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

Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

*********

“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)

*********

“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)

*********


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” 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

*********



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.”

*********

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.”

*********

“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.”

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

*********

“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."

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

 

[Lakhota]

Women come first.

 

[Lakhota]

Great question. I can't think of any. Can anyone think of any?

 

[Lakhota]

Some food for thought...

I Had An Illegal Abortion Before Roe v. Wade. This Is Why Women Of My Generation Must Share Our Stories.

 

[Redfish]

can you quote the language in the constitution that makes abortion a right?

Landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

thats a legal stretch and everyone knows it. But I asked for language from the CONSTITUTION. Why cant you admit that it doesnt exist. the constitution is silent on abortion.

 

[Redfish]

They are children. They are human. I'll bet you think that there really are 64 "genders".

You aren't proving they are fully developed children. You are saying they are. Who are you to make that decision? God?

What scientific proof can you present that tells us they are fully developed children?

Dear BWK and Ambivalent1
Perhaps better terms are "personhood" and when does the "conscious will" of a person
enter the body or develop as a separate identity from the mother.

Either way, this spiritual process of when does a separate consciousness enter the body
becomes FAITH BASED, so BWK is basically justified in contesting this as not something
Govt or laws can regulate or legislate because it involves personal beliefs.

Since this issue is going to get into personal beliefs and conflicts, regardless,
we might as well ask these questions BEFORE anyone gets involved with sexual
relations with anyone else.

Let's not wait until AFTER the point of pregnancy to discuss conflicting beliefs!

By acknowledging IN ADVANCE there are conflicts in beliefs BEFORE sexual relations are engaged in,
this can prevent people from engaging in sex to begin with if they don't agree on
the spiritual process and the terms of the sexual relations.

The more we get nowhere with comparing beliefs, the more
clear it is that people should be addressing these issues in advance, outside of govt.

We'd have to form agreements how to AVOID this whole situation from EVER coming up
in the first place, since we cannot agree how to define or manage the process AFTER pregnancy.

While I agree that it is best for the problem not to occur, it's going to occur whether we like it or not, as long as humans walk. Rape is never far off in the world of humans. And that's reality.

My issue with beliefs, is the fact that pro-lifers pretend to use their beliefs as a cover for factual information. I do not. I just use the information provided by publications from a scientific acknowledgement. I don't let my personal feelings or emotions cloud my visions for the truth, just so I can push my desired narrative. And pro-lifers do just that. That's the big difference between the two concepts.

Rape doesn't just have to keep happening, @BMK
People who rape already have problems that
can be detected and treated in advance.

Murder and other crimes can also be prevented,
by treating criminal illness like other diseases
that should not go unchecked to the point they become deadly.

If we can catch diabetes and cancer in earlier stages,
we can do the same with criminal disorders, abuse and addictions.

Sure, not all cases have symptoms that are caught early enough,
this happens with other diseases also that aren't always detected in advance
when they could have been treated easier.

So while I agree that not all cases of sickness can be caught and treated in time,
that's not the same as just allowing rape, murder and crime to keep happening.

We still should invest in setting up the most effective means of screening
and treating people for abusive or addictive disorders in advance.

I believe it helps to take the approach that someday ALL diseases and ills
can be caught in time, treated and cured BEFORE they cause worse danger, damages or death.

The more we address the cases we can do something about,
the reduction in crime and violence will save more resources to
invest in prevention, and we can improve on the mental health
process of early screening, treatment and cure to address more difficult cases in the future.

If we don't start now, the backlog on our criminal justice system keeps costing
us more and more, where the waste of billions of dollars in state resources on
legal/court costs and incarceration is taking away from our capacity to invest
in preventative health care, education and medical treatment to prevent crime and abuse in the first place.

Even if we can't catch all cases yet, that's no reason to neglect this approach.

If we are ever going to perfect the science of treating diseases early on,
including criminal sickness, we must start somewhere.
Instead of acting like there is nothing we can do to prevent it, so why bother?

Gee, that's how most of us feel about gun control.

there is no equivalent to the second amendment regarding abortion. apples and oranges, dude

 

[Redfish]

Women come first.

except unborn women, right?

 

[sakinago]

If men want to control women's reproductive rights - then women should be able to control men's reproductive rights.

If men want to control women's reproductive rights - then women should be able to control men's reproductive rights.

Ugh, I’m so tired of this Gloria Steinem non-sensical argument that if men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament. It’s not even close to what clearly observable reality is. Lizard people controlling the levers of power is more believable because you have to prove a negative that the “shadow government” (whoever those people are) are not indeed lizard people. Abortion is clearly not a man vs women debate, that’s 100% provable BS.

The Abortion Issue Isn’t About ‘The Patriarchy’ - Quillette

“However, polling evidence suggests that American men, overall, are just as likely to be pro-choice as women. True, women are more likely to express support for abortion rights. But, surprisingly, women also are more likely to express opposition. Democrat women are slightly more likely than Democrat men to be pro-choice, but Republican women are more likely than Republican men to be pro-life. In other words, there is no major fault line in the abortion debate between men and women.”

“A feminist might respond with the argument that Christian voters’ support for pro-life positions is merely a symptom of the patriarchal streak embedded within religious doctrine more generally, which has always lent itself to implementing control of women’s lives. But Islam, which in many respects is regarded as more patriarchal in outlook that Christianity (especially when it comes to codes of conduct and dress), is comparatively more supportive of women’s right to abortion than Christianity. Both Sunni and Shia traditions typically prohibit abortion only after 120 days, as this is thought to be the point of “ensoulment,” at which time a human fetus develops its own right to life.”

“Those who support abortion rights in some form should be prepared to argue their case on the terrain that pro-lifers have traditionally claimed as their own: the apparent right to life (or lack thereof) of a human fetus during pregnancy. Continuing to assert a woman’s bodily autonomy is unlikely to progress the abortion debate, because very few people dispute that women should be in charge of their bodies. Nor does it advance the debate to focus on whether it is men or women who are passing laws in this area, since it tends to be religious viewpoint, not sex, that is correlated with attitudes.”

 

[dudmuck]

Posters on here are claiming that abortion kills children or kids, which is a lie, because there is no established Biological evidence that a fetus in the womb is either one. They hijack the narrative to feed everyone inaccurate information. The same that you are doing.

And as my previous post points out, the definition of human being, says it is a man, woman, or child. It does not reference the pre-born. Why? Because it can't? And why is that? Because the definition has not established that it is a human being in the womb that is experiencing life? And why is that? Because Life has not been established in the womb from a scientific interpretation. You would tell us it is life based on your own convenient interpretation, but you have zero proof. Therefore, no one can accurately claim life, children, or kid while the fetus is in the womb.

Open your eyes and look at the post right above your last one. Once again, you are making a fool of yourself by denying the scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a brand new human being, regardless of age, size or location.

You can argue that the preborn is not a person (which would also be incorrect) but to claim the preborn is not a human is blatantly ignorant and false.

Your biggest problem you have, is understanding your own publication. I already linked the definition of "life" to you through Wikipedia. What your publication is offering to you is this, that the zygote/embryo/ fetus will develop into a fully developed human being, while calling it a human being. It still is not a fully developed human being. And that is what you struggle to understand.You are simply desperate to inject an argument for your desired narrative, when you fail to understand the totality of the meanings from your own publications that you post. You don't get it, because you don't want to get it. You want to call it a human being? Knock yourself out. But even your own publication does not do that. You need to know how to understand the difference between a developing hb and a fully developed human being. Which is exactly what I have been trying to explain to you.

There you go again, using that ridiculous phrase "fully developed human being" which just shows that you STILL don't get it, and you're still putting forth your own confused ideas as fact.

No, the quotes are clear. They're all saying basically the same thing: human life begins at conception. There are numerous different stages of life - but in each of those stages, you have a genetically unique individual, living human being. And I didn't post a "publication" - I posted a variety of quotes, from different people, quotes from medical textbooks.

Again, a zygote or embryo is not supposed to look like a newborn or a child, it looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life.

It's getting boring trying to discuss this with you, because you're being repetitive, ignoring quotes from scientists and medical textbooks, and putting forth your own confused, politically-driven misguided ideas as fact.

Your premise, that the fetus "looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life", is utterly false. It's not a "human being", until it's sentient, aware, and able to breathe on its own.

Fully 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion". A fetus is NOT a human being. It's a potential human being, and a lot of stuff has to go right for that little zygote to make it as a fully formed human being.



Unless and until the

In your politically-driven, misguided, unscientific opinion. Honestly, to deny that the preborn is a human makes you look ignorant, I'm trying to help you here:


“….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] 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.”

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

Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

*********

“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)

*********

“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)

*********


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” 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

*********



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.”

*********

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.”

*********

“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.”

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

*********

“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."

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

congrats to you...