Supreme Court’s Roe ruling would trample the religious freedom of every Jewish American

originally posted by: Annee
Ignorant?

You have 2 LIVING CHILDREN -- that you struggle to feed, clothe, house, educate, etc.

Do not bring a 3rd child into this.

I agree, why are you telling us and not the women who have baby after baby they can't afford? Birth control is 99% effective. 1 in 100 women who are responsible and use it will get pregnant and have 1 baby. 1 in 10,000 will have 2. 1 in 1 million will have the 3rd child you talk about.

Clearly what we have are irresponsible people and a culture of parents not providing for children.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Annee

The child is 'living' at the moment of conception, scientific fact.

The CHILD is LIVING when it can survive outside the womb.

A zygote with the potential to be a living human -- is not.

You can preach to me all day long -- a LIVING CHILD requires nurturing, food, housing, love, shelter, etc -- I do not support bringing any child into this world that is unwanted before they even have those needs.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Annee

The child is 'living' at the moment of conception, scientific fact.

The CHILD is LIVING when it can survive outside the womb.

A zygote with the potential to be a living human -- is not.

You can preach to me all day long -- a LIVING CHILD requires nurturing, food, housing, love, shelter, etc -- I do not support bringing any child into this world that is unwanted before they even have those needs.

False. It is a unique living life form at the moment of conception. That's a fact. A zygote ticks every single box for being alive, every single one. There is no preaching, the only one with religious like beliefs are you, not me.

Feel free to give me a definition for determining whether something is alive that a zygote fails.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Annee

The child is 'living' at the moment of conception, scientific fact.

The CHILD is LIVING when it can survive outside the womb.

A zygote with the potential to be a living human -- is not.

You can preach to me all day long -- a LIVING CHILD requires nurturing, food, housing, love, shelter, etc -- I do not support bringing any child into this world that is unwanted before they even have those needs.

False. It is a unique living life form at the moment of conception. That's a fact. A zygote ticks every single box for being alive, every single one. There is no preaching, the only one with religious like beliefs are you, not me.

Feel free to give me a definition for determining whether something is alive that a zygote fails.

If you think you need to be right -- I do not care.

Again, I support LIVING CHILDREN -- those OUTSIDE THE WOMB who need to be loved, fed, cared for, educated, housed, etc.

DO NOT bring an unwanted child into this world.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Understood. Personally I like the stand your ground laws. If you're life is in danger then by all means protect yourself accordingly.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Annee

The child is 'living' at the moment of conception, scientific fact.

The CHILD is LIVING when it can survive outside the womb.

A zygote with the potential to be a living human -- is not.

You can preach to me all day long -- a LIVING CHILD requires nurturing, food, housing, love, shelter, etc -- I do not support bringing any child into this world that is unwanted before they even have those needs.

False. It is a unique living life form at the moment of conception. That's a fact. A zygote ticks every single box for being alive, every single one. There is no preaching, the only one with religious like beliefs are you, not me.

Feel free to give me a definition for determining whether something is alive that a zygote fails.

If you think you need to be right -- I do not care.

Again, I support LIVING CHILDREN -- those OUTSIDE THE WOMB who need to be loved, fed, cared for, educated, housed, etc.

DO NOT bring an unwanted child into this world.

I don't need to be right, I simply follow science. You on the other hand do need to be right, and make up your own rules to ensure you are. I haven't brought any children into this world I don't support, so don't talk to me, talk to the people doing it. Why do they keep bringing children into the world they can't support when it's so easy not to?

Why do you make your own rules and definitions and ignore science and biology?

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Understood. Personally I like the stand your ground laws. If you're life is in danger then by all means protect yourself accordingly.

100%, and I am absolutely pro-choice. When a mother's life is in danger she should have the choice to protect it, and I can't imagine ever facing that choice, or being in a family forced to live with the consequences no matter what choice they make. Any family in that position needs all of our love and support, and they have mine.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
...and luck, just to get to implantation.

"Potential". That's a scientific fact.

Over 25% of born infants don't make it to 1, so it also requires a lot of luck. Half don't make it to adulthood. So at what age do they stop being a 'potential' person? If it's the age when they no longer need 'luck' to survive I don't think we have many, if any, humans at all.

They stop being potential infants when they're born. They stop being potential adults when they achieve adulthood.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Annee

The child is 'living' at the moment of conception, scientific fact.

The CHILD is LIVING when it can survive outside the womb.

A zygote with the potential to be a living human -- is not.

You can preach to me all day long -- a LIVING CHILD requires nurturing, food, housing, love, shelter, etc -- I do not support bringing any child into this world that is unwanted before they even have those needs.

False. It is a unique living life form at the moment of conception. That's a fact. A zygote ticks every single box for being alive, every single one. There is no preaching, the only one with religious like beliefs are you, not me.

Feel free to give me a definition for determining whether something is alive that a zygote fails.

If you think you need to be right -- I do not care.

Again, I support LIVING CHILDREN -- those OUTSIDE THE WOMB who need to be loved, fed, cared for, educated, housed, etc.

DO NOT bring an unwanted child into this world.

I don't need to be right, I simply follow science. You on the other hand do need to be right, and make up your own rules to ensure you are. I haven't brought any children into this world I don't support, so don't talk to me, talk to the people doing it. Why do they keep bringing children into the world they can't support when it's so easy not to?

Why do you make your own rules and definitions and ignore science and biology?

A parasite is ""living"", a virus is ""living"' -- can they ""live"" without a host? NO

Neither can a zygote or fetus.

I'm not gonna do the circular """ LIVING """ thing. Done.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
...and luck, just to get to implantation.

"Potential". That's a scientific fact.

Over 25% of born infants don't make it to 1, so it also requires a lot of luck. Half don't make it to adulthood. So at what age do they stop being a 'potential' person? If it's the age when they no longer need 'luck' to survive I don't think we have many, if any, humans at all.

They stop being potential infants when they're born. They stop being potential adults when they achieve adulthood.

They stop being potential human life at conception. Every single living being, multi or single cellular, has a taxonomic classification.

There is no question, it is not debatable, a zygote is alive. They have a domain, kingdom, phylum , class, order, family, genus, and species, just like every other living being has.

Mine and yours is ....

Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: sapiens

Care to guess what a zygote's is?

a reply to: Annee

So you admit the zygote and fetus are alive. There is nothing circular, you just admitted I am right, and you are wrong.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Do I really have to keep reposting what you said? Are you having that much trouble keeping up?

You said

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

What you have is a potential human being, that still has a lot of bench marks to go through before being an "individual", including birth.

You certainly did say that it is not a "human being" (a living member of the human species) and that it is not an individual. It is already living, already human, and already an individual. The only potential is birth, which is simply a transition into a later phase of the life cycle. Everyone has potential to grow and mature, but we do not call them "potential humans."

If it does not implant, there is nothing that can be done. Implantation typically happens before any indication of pregnancy, and at that stage it cannot be sentient by any science we know. But no one took steps to kill it either.

You might as well try and equate dying in a tornado to being killed in a back alley for one's wallet. These things are not the same.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Annee

You can read, right? You know, figure out what those funny symbols mean?

I stated that your statement on multiple sciences existing is ignorant. I don't know what you're on about now. I wonder if you know what you're on about.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

They say keep religion out of it, then disregard science and demand we accept their religious belief.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

There is no question, it is not debatable, a zygote is alive.

Never said it wasn't.

They have a domain, kingdom, phylum , class, order, family, genus, and species, just like every other living being has.

A caterpillar is a potential butterfly. It is not a butterfly. A polliwog is a potential frog. It isn't a frog. An acorn isn't an oak tree.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

When a mother's life is in danger she should have the choice to protect it, and I can't imagine ever facing that choice, or being in a family forced to live with the consequences no matter what choice they make. Any family in that position needs all of our love and support, and they have mine.

They have mine as well, and I'll add my sympathy. That decision is a tragedy no matter the choice made. Never would I dream of involving myself into such a hard decision, and I don't think anyone else should either. I know no one I know has ever said otherwise.

Abortion to save the life of the mother is a no-brainer for me.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You certainly did say that it is not a "human being"

It's a potential human being. A fertilized human ovum is called a (human) zygote, or a (human) cytoplast, or a (human) embryo once it implants in the uterine wall.

Human Being
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Human Being

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

If a baby reaches term and comes out the birth canal it’s alive.

If a baby has to be delivered prematurely and is cut out of the mother by csection their logic leads me to think it must not be a living baby until it’s official due date.

If that isn’t the case and they disagree with the above how is it explained that a premature baby is a life but a baby that is late term aborted at the same time of gestation isn’t a life?

a reply to: Annee

Parasites that feed upon the host are in that respect no different than a dog or a tiger. Both are carnivores and eat other creatures to survive. Even herbivores consume other life... plants, believe it or not, are alive. So a parasite still fits the definition of living. ALL life consumes other life, usually but not always after it has died. And I will point out that the unborn child does not consume the mother... it simply shares nourishment.

Viruses are technically not alive. They do not exhibit life unless they invade a living cell.

Thankfully, your definition of life is incorrect... because you consume other life as well, and that would make you non-living. The human is alive at every single phase of development, to the fertilized egg and beyond to the unfertilized egg and sperm. It is only an individual after conception.

We are discussing scientific principles here. You apparently don't know anything about them.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

According to your definition, a person unable to speak is not a human being.

How old are most children when they learn to speak?

TheRedneck