Why is the left so happy about abortions?

[Cecilie1200]

Biologically speaking, we know that at the moment the ovum and sperm fuse, they become a new, living organism, totally distinct from any other organism on the planet. This isn't even remotely in dispute by anyone in the medical and scientific communities. It's scientific fact, and as such, appears in embryology textbooks in college pre-med classes.

And that's the reason why the pro-abortion leadership on the left started convincing their uneducated sheep followers to babble about NON-scientific, poetical BS like "personhood": it has no rational, logical, objective meaning, and therefore the great semi-literate masses were inured against ever being convinced by silly things like facts.

So killing an ovum or a sperm is perfectly acceptable until they fuse. I guess the fertilized egg is more than the sum of it's parts. Where does that extra something come from? Semantics or the supernatural?

Yes, killing a haploid gamete is no different from the many, many normal body cells that slough off of you routinely every day.

And yes, a fertilized cell (zygote) is fundamentally different from normal body cells.

That "extra something" may or may not be supernatural, but it isn't merely semantic. It's science.

You may, or may not, remember that in science class in school, you were taught the heirarchy of organization: cell, tissue, organ, organ system, organism. (It's actually more complicated than that, but this is the basic heirarchy used to introduce students to the concept.) Obviously, not all lifeforms on Earth have all of these things, and all types of lifeforms apply them differently.

The relevant point here is that human beings are complex, multi-cellular organisms, which begin existence as a single-celled organism that rapidly multiplies itself, grows, and differentiates.

For clarity's sake, an organism is defined as "An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis."

So the "extra something" is that an ovum, or a sperm, is simply one cell which is a part of a larger organism, a cog in the machine, as it were. A zygote is a cell which IS the organism.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm connect to my father by a microscopic amount of proteins. You can play all the semantic games you choose, that tiny set of DNA proteins has no magic to it. It could neither think nor feel. Removed from that sperm cell would it even be considered to be alive? There were trillions of other sets of proteins that lost the race that night. So what?

Were you or were you not an organism, when you were in the zygote stage of your life?

I was. Is there something magical about 'organism'? Amoeba and bacteria are organisms.

Again, nothing "magical" about it. It's just science. (You seem really hung up on "magic", for some reason.) Amoeba and bacteria ARE one-celled organisms, you are correct. They are completely separate, individual life forms which consist of one cell.

Before you veer back off into "I'm ignorant, and I think it's brilliant" territory, a human zygote is fundamentally VERY different from an amoeba or bacterium, because they are simple, one-celled organisms which will always be simple, one-celled organisms. That's the sum total of their life cycle. A human zygote is a complex multi-cellular organism in the first stage of its life cycle. This stage, at which it is one cell, only lasts about 24 hours, because unlike amoeba and bacteria, a human zygote is designed by nature to become more complex.

 

[Leo123]

I'm not a lawyer and certainly no legal scholar but, so far as I know, viability is still the law of the land.

The prognosis of 'viability' could be an issue. In medicine the definition is: "Medicine (of a fetus or unborn child) able to live after birth.
‘what if the fetus were viable?’"

viable | Definition of viable in English by Oxford Dictionaries

If a fetus is capable of living after birth, then it is viable. Meanwhile the explanation the governor gave was it's ok to abort for non-viability then make the baby 'comfortable' before a decision to terminate. To me, that is opposite of the medical definition.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you agree that (according to our Constitution) a child's right to the equal protections of our laws should begin when their life does?

Or do you think their rights should only begin when the rest of society can not stomach or otherwise justify the denial of their rights anymore?

No and yes.

Legal rights are granted by societies, I don't believe in any God-given rights. As such a zygote/embryo/fetus/child/adult human is entitled to the rights granted by society.

Legal rights are RECOGNIZED by society. Or not, as the case may be. I suspect your belief that they are granted and not inherent has less to do with any real thought or philosophical evidence on your part, and more to do with the fact that you've been spoiled and coddled by living in a society which happens to recognize those rights. Chances are, you'd take a rather different view if you lived in a society which routinely ignored and violated them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A human sperm or an egg cell, un-united, have ONLY a potential to become a human organism.

A human being, even in the zygote stage of their life, already IS one.

A zygote has, in my opinion, only the potential to become a person capable of feelings, emotions, thoughts, and everything else that makes humans unique in the world. Until they develop to (some) point they are no different than any other animal on the planet and not entitled to the legal protections of society.

You realize that science isn't a matter of opinion, and certainly not opinions formed by people who are thinking with their hormone glands and a shocking lack of education, right? Every single sentence you said would have any scientist on the planet rolling his eyes and telling you to go get some coffee while the smart people talk.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm connect to my father by a microscopic amount of proteins. You can play all the semantic games you choose, that tiny set of DNA proteins has no magic to it. It could neither think nor feel. Removed from that sperm cell would it even be considered to be alive? There were trillions of other sets of proteins that lost the race that night. So what?

Were you or were you not an organism, when you were in the zygote stage of your life?

I was. Is there something magical about 'organism'? Amoeba and bacteria are organisms.

Are amoeba and bacteria also human organisms with HUMAN biological parents?

If you have to sequence their DNA to answer that question I don't see how it matters.

You don't, oh "educated logical" one. Anyone with a powerful-enough microscope who knows what to look for (education, in other words) can tell the difference simply by looking at them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sequence as much dna as you like.

Show me an amoeba with a human being as its biological father.

If I showed you an egg cell you would not know if it was fertilized or even human, let alone know its' biological father.

Depends on whether or not he's ever studied embryology. I can assure you anyone with the appropriate education CAN tell you if the cell is fertilized, and if it's human.

You really think it's logical and scientific to base your argument on "I'm too ignorant to know the difference, therefore there isn't one?"

 

[justoffal]

I'm not a lawyer and certainly no legal scholar but, so far as I know, viability is still the law of the land.

The prognosis of 'viability' could an issue. In medicine the definition is: "Medicine (of a fetus or unborn child) able to live after birth.
‘what if the fetus were viable?’"

viable | Definition of viable in English by Oxford Dictionaries

If a fetus is capable of living after birth, then it is viable. Meanwhile the explanation the governor gave was it's ok to abort for non-viability then make the baby 'comfortable.' To me, that is opposite of the medical definition.

Wait just a minute here. You're trying to tell me that all of this uproar stems from permitting what has always been permitted? I'm not buying it! No! There is definitely a new element here. This is not about viability...this is about crossing the line and taking a life before the law assigns any consequences for it. The cheering and Glee stem from the perception of being granted the newly minted freedom to condemn an otherwise protected life.

Jo

 

[Leo123]

I'm not a lawyer and certainly no legal scholar but, so far as I know, viability is still the law of the land.

The prognosis of 'viability' could an issue. In medicine the definition is: "Medicine (of a fetus or unborn child) able to live after birth.
‘what if the fetus were viable?’"

viable | Definition of viable in English by Oxford Dictionaries

If a fetus is capable of living after birth, then it is viable. Meanwhile the explanation the governor gave was it's ok to abort for non-viability then make the baby 'comfortable.' To me, that is opposite of the medical definition.

Wait just a minute here. You're trying to tell me that all of this uproar stems from permitting what has always been permitted?I'm not buying it! No! There is definitely a new element here. This is not about viability...this is about crossing the line and taking a life before the law assigns any consequences for it. The cheering and Glee stem from the perception of being granted the newly minted freedom to condemn an otherwise protected life.

Jo

Actually those are my thoughts too. How can you call a 'fetus' non-viable, deliver it, make it 'comfortable' and then kill it? If it were non-viable wouldn't it die a birth naturally? Makes no sense to me.

 

[justoffal]

I'm not a lawyer and certainly no legal scholar but, so far as I know, viability is still the law of the land.

The prognosis of 'viability' could an issue. In medicine the definition is: "Medicine (of a fetus or unborn child) able to live after birth.
‘what if the fetus were viable?’"

viable | Definition of viable in English by Oxford Dictionaries

If a fetus is capable of living after birth, then it is viable. Meanwhile the explanation the governor gave was it's ok to abort for non-viability then make the baby 'comfortable.' To me, that is opposite of the medical definition.

Wait just a minute here. You're trying to tell me that all of this uproar stems from permitting what has always been permitted?I'm not buying it! No! There is definitely a new element here. This is not about viability...this is about crossing the line and taking a life before the law assigns any consequences for it. The cheering and Glee stem from the perception of being granted the newly minted freedom to condemn an otherwise protected life.

Jo

Actually those are my thoughts too. How can you call a 'fetus' non-viable, deliver it, make it 'comfortable' and then kill it? If it were non-viable wouldn't it die a birth naturally? Makes no sense to me.

What I saw was the ghoulish jubilation of
Zombie humans eager to redefine society.
They seem to think that they have been given New permissions.

Jo

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's move on to Alang's "my feelz are logic!" argument regarding pain, emotions, and thoughts, "all the things which make humans unique in the world" (yeah, nothing poetic and romantic THERE. That's all hard, cold science and fact ). Here's what she has said:

"I've raised children. The feel pain, think, and show emotion, even when they are very young. Fertilized eggs don't. Why do you call a fertilized egg a baby or a child?"

Rare Disease Prevents Georgia Girl From Feeling Pain | health.am

Ashlyn is among a tiny number of people in the world known to have congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis, or CIPA - a rare genetic disorder that makes her unable to feel pain.

That’s because the genetic mutation that causes CIPA only disrupts the development of the small nerve fibers that carry sensations of pain, heat and cold to the brain.

She can't feel pain any more than a zygote can. Is she not a child?

Coma Definition, Causes, Symptoms & Treatment

Patients in a coma are unable to think consciously and lack awareness of their surroundings . . .

Are comatose patients people?

Also, I should point out that humans are NOT unique in being able to feel pain, feel and express emotions, and to think. Most complex animals can do all of the above, to one degree or another. Do you not have pets? I have a nine-month-old kitten named Firefly. I store her bag of kitten chow in the same drawer in the bottom of the bathroom cabinet, and have done so since I adopted her at 9 weeks old. When she first came to my house, she would sit in the middle of whatever room she was in and meow repeatedly when she was hungry. Within a week, she progressed to sitting next to her food bowl and meowing. A couple of months later, she started seeking me, specifically, out wherever I was in the house and following me around, meowing. She never meows at anyone else in the house for food, because I'm the only one who pours food in her bowl. Last month, she started prying the drawer open with her paw, and I had to put a child-lock on it. She has never shown any interest in prying open any other drawer in the house, even though they're all exactly the same. Just the one with her food.

So tell me. Does Firefly think? I can assure you, she isn't human.

 

[Chuz Life]

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws already define and recognize "children in the womb " "in ANY stage of development."

Thankfully, your idiotic denials have, for the most part, already been defeated.

Thanks for being such a great foil though!

Yet our same laws recognize a woman's right to choose.

Are our laws infallible?

You are just as free to overturn our nation's nearly forty fetal HOMICIDE laws as I am free to challenge Roe and other rulings. Right?

May the most compelling facts and arguments be the thing that wins in the end.

Correction.

Infallible.

Damn auto correct.

 

[Coyote]

A woman has a choice to make that will affect her life........offer her a better option

Tell me why I should care more about HER life when she obviously doesn't have any regard for her own child's life or rights.

Notice that was not put forth as a question. There is a reason for that.

Human beings (including the moms AND their children) have RIGHTS and those rights are not contingent upon whether or not ANYONE cares about anything. So, the "caring" shit is nothing more than a diversion attempt and a red herring.

The one thing they do not have is the right to another human beings body.

If someone (anyone really) were to grab you and then connect your body to theirs in such a way that YOU would die if the connection is severed before the time of 7-9 months. . . .

You don't think you would have a right to expect that connection to be maintained?

You don't need to answer because the fact is you WOULD. Whether you think you would or not.

I heard that before and it is irrelevent. That has never happened. It is an excuse to legitimize control over another's body.

If it so irrelevant, why didn't supreme court justice Potter Stewart say otherwise when he said that once personhood is established for children in the womb, the case FOR abortion is near IMPOSSIBLE to make.

To which, the pro abort lawyer (Sarah Weddington) agreed.

Hmmm.

Imagine that.

Feel free to tell me why I should ignore their take on it and adopt yours instead.

Your free to adopt any opinions you wish. You are not however free to force your opinions on another’s body.

 

[Chuz Life]

Tell me why I should care more about HER life when she obviously doesn't have any regard for her own child's life or rights.

Notice that was not put forth as a question. There is a reason for that.

Human beings (including the moms AND their children) have RIGHTS and those rights are not contingent upon whether or not ANYONE cares about anything. So, the "caring" shit is nothing more than a diversion attempt and a red herring.

The one thing they do not have is the right to another human beings body.

If someone (anyone really) were to grab you and then connect your body to theirs in such a way that YOU would die if the connection is severed before the time of 7-9 months. . . .

You don't think you would have a right to expect that connection to be maintained?

You don't need to answer because the fact is you WOULD. Whether you think you would or not.

I heard that before and it is irrelevent. That has never happened. It is an excuse to legitimize control over another's body.

If it so irrelevant, why didn't supreme court justice Potter Stewart say otherwise when he said that once personhood is established for children in the womb, the case FOR abortion is near IMPOSSIBLE to make.

To which, the pro abort lawyer (Sarah Weddington) agreed.

Hmmm.

Imagine that.

Feel free to tell me why I should ignore their take on it and adopt yours instead.

Your free to adopt any opinions you wish. You are not however free to force your opinions on another’s body.

You must mean like the way proaborts force their opinions on the children they kill.

Literally.

 

[jasonnfree]

Yet it's usually republicans who get off on hearing about mothers and children getting kicked off food stamps and health care in red states. Most of them don't give a damn about anything but the almighty dollar. Such pigs.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yet it's usually republicans who get off on hearing about mothers and children getting kicked off food stamps and health care in red states. Most of them don't give a damn about anything but the almighty dollar. Such pigs.

Guilty conscience coping mechanism noted.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yet it's usually republicans who get off on hearing about mothers and children getting kicked off food stamps and health care in red states. Most of them don't give a damn about anything but the almighty dollar. Such pigs.

"Yet Republicans are terrible people for some vague things I'm just SURE that they all do, no I don't have proof, but I want to feel superior!"

 

[alang1216]

A zygote is a cell which IS the organism.

And the significance of that is...? That zygote has DNA, RNA, a nucleus, a membrane, organelles, etc., like most other cells.

I understand your point but you have not convinced me that a zygote deserves the same legal rights as an adult woman. People smarter and more learned than me have agreed that until the fetus is viable, abortion should be legal at the discretion of the mother. This sounds reasonable to me. This is an issue where there will NEVER be anything like universal agreement but I'm good with my position.

 

[alang1216]

A human zygote is a complex multi-cellular organism in the first stage of its life cycle.

True but the zygote is not a complex multi-cellular organism. When it becomes one it should be protected. It needs to be judged on what it is, not on what it might become.
Go watch the Minority Report (pretty good movie):

Based on a story by famed science fiction writer Philip K. Dick, "Minority Report" is an action-detective thriller set in Washington D.C. in 2054, where police utilize a psychic technology to arrest and convict murderers before they commit their crime. Tom Cruise plays the head of this Precrime unit and is himself accused of the future murder of a man he hasn't even met.​

 

[alang1216]

A human sperm or an egg cell, un-united, have ONLY a potential to become a human organism.

A human being, even in the zygote stage of their life, already IS one.

A zygote has, in my opinion, only the potential to become a person capable of feelings, emotions, thoughts, and everything else that makes humans unique in the world. Until they develop to (some) point they are no different than any other animal on the planet and not entitled to the legal protections of society.

You realize that science isn't a matter of opinion, and certainly not opinions formed by people who are thinking with their hormone glands and a shocking lack of education, right? Every single sentence you said would have any scientist on the planet rolling his eyes and telling you to go get some coffee while the smart people talk.

If you know any smart people let me know, I've love to talk with them.