How many men have no clue

a reply to: TheRedneck

And I am not going to argue that with you any more.

Excellent. You're a liar, and I don't come here to argue with you. I come here to defend my sisters and women's rights to their own bodies.

... you know that is a lie.

I know that you are lying.

And how many states actually bragged about how late in a pregnancy they could rip a baby limb from limb and get away with it? How many stories about people in those states suggesting infanticide (post-natal abortions)?

Zero. Your ignorance leads you.

You attacked people's religion without cause, just like you are still doing

I call it was it is, and abortion bans are nothing less than religion being forced on women and their families.

The fact that Roe v. Wade was an improper decision is exactly what the Supreme Court ruled.

I know you read the decision, so stop lying through your teeth.

You're lying again. You said that SCOTUS said that ROE V Wade and abortion are unconstitutional. That's a lie and you know it.

AND YOU LOST IT ALL.

What a tiny worm of a person, that would think that 50% of the US population should have their rights stripped because they disapprove of the way a few of them talk.

a reply to: Quadrivium

2. Which authority would you most likely trust to give you an unbiased answer?
A. philosophy
B. theology
C. psychology
D. sociology
E. law
F. polotics
G. science

Every area listed above, through examination, will find that women, with the help of their health professionals, are perfectly capable of making reproductive decisions about their bodies and their lives on their own.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What are you, 6?

Every post you have ever made on ATS is stored in the database, for anyone who wants to look for themselves. So is every post I have ever made. I encourage anyone who wants to to look up our past posts.

So much for your "evolved humans" argument...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Quadrivium

Wrong?
Nothing, if you don't think the premeditated killing of an infant, adolescent, adult or elderly human being is not "wrong".
They are all human beings, just in different stages of development.

Well you are equating "persons" with one cell, and I don't see it, sorry. I don't see anywhere that a Zygote is referred to as a person or human being, normally it is referred to as a single cell. You and like people want to say it is equal and it is not. I do agree as the development goes along we should be able to say that is now developed enough to suggest it is it is a human being. Some cultures see that using a rubber or pulling out is stopping life too as a sperm and egg is also a stage in the process, can't have any of it without those two things, but magic doesn't just happen when the sperm enters the egg, but chemical processes do.

If these are the guns your are going to stick to then my expectations is you will be sad most of your life.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

2. Which authority would you most likely trust to give you an unbiased answer?
A. philosophy
B. theology
C. psychology
D. sociology
E. law
F. polotics
G. science

Every area listed above, through examination, will find that women, with the help of their health professionals, are perfectly capable of making reproductive decisions about their bodies and their lives on their own.

I figured you wouldn't Couldn't answer the question.
To answer the question, you would have to admit, after reproduction, it's no longer just the woman's life in question.
Your non-answer shows that you know, but you refuse to admit, that Abortion is the premeditated killing of another human being.

a reply to: Xtrozero
You too?
Is it the way I present information or is it others intentional misrepresenting what I say?
If not intentional is it a reading comprehension problem?
I truly am not trying to insult you here, I am just trying to understand what is keeping the information from getting through.

Well you are equating "persons" with one cell, and I don't see it, sorry.

When and where have I done this?

I don't see anywhere that a Zygote is referred to as a person or human being, normally it is referred to as a single cell.

When and where did I claim it was?
While the Zygote starts as a single cell it does not stay that way very long.
Furthermore, many biologist think that, even when it is a single cell, it is the beginning of a human's life cycle. There may be some argument there so I don't use the term Zygote, and I don't ever remember saying such.
I constantly say "Once mitosis begins, a new human being is created".
Zygotes divide through a process known as mitosis. Once mitosis begins, it is not longer a single cell.

You and like people want to say it is equal and it is not. I do agree as the development goes along we should be able to say that is now developed enough to suggest it is it is a human being.

I am sorry, but this is just your opinion, based on something other than science.

Some cultures see that using a rubber or pulling out is stopping life too as a sperm and egg is also a stage in the process, can't have any of it without those two things, but magic doesn't just happen when the sperm enters the egg, but chemical processes do.

The Sperm is not a human being.
The Egg is not a human being.
After mitosis begins, in a fertilized egg (zygote) it becomes a new individual human being.

Magic? Who said anything about magic?
Magic falls more in line with your beliefs. You believe a human being, at the beginning of it's life cycle, is not a human being until "person-hood" is magically bestowed upon them. While in all actuality they are the exact same human being (or chemical process, as you put it) at the moment mitosis begins, until the day they die. Through every stage of development they are the exact same human being.

if these are the guns your are going to stick to then my expectations is you will be sad most of your life.

By "guns", do you mean "facts"?
Why would facts make anyone unhappy, unless they spend a life time denying them?

a reply to: Xtrozero

I don't see anywhere that a Zygote is referred to as a person or human being

Ever heard the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".

Well in this post I am going to 'lead a human in information, but I can't make them think'.
In other words, this endeavor is probably going to be a HUGE waste of my time but, if you really are seeking knowledge, I would like to help.

So, here we go:

"A zygote [fertilized egg] is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete … 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."- . Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003)

"organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”- Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

"[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being." - Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008, p. 2):

“Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote.”- T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.

“The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation, and fertilization … The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.”- J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. 1974 Pages 17 and 23.

“As far as human ‘life’ per se, it is, for the most part, uncontroversial among the scientific and philosophical community that life begins at the moment when the genetic information contained in the sperm and ovum combine to form a genetically unique cell.”- Eberl JT. The beginning of personhood: A Thomistic biological analysis. Bioethics. 2000;14(2):134-157. Quote is from page 135.

“Your baby starts out as a fertilized egg… For the first six weeks, the baby is called an embryo.”- Prenatal Care, US Department Of Health And Human Services, Maternal and Child Health Division, 1990

Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed- From Human Embryology & Teratology (Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller [New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996], 5-55)
For reference to this quote and others:
An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole, and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.”- Merriam-Webster Dictionary

“Thus a new cell is formed from the union of a male and a female gamete. [sperm and egg cells] The cell, referred to as the zygote, contains a new combination of genetic material, resulting in an individual different from either parent and from anyone else in the world.”- Sally B Olds, et al., Obstetric Nursing (Menlo Park, California: Addison – Wesley publishing, 1980) P 136

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization … is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte."- Human Embryology and Teratology [3rd edition, New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001, p. 8]):

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”- Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence" - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris

I could go on and on but I am out of time. I will leave you with the following:

"The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception - fertilization…. Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth. At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development. The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being from the moment of conception."- When Human Life Begins, American College of Pediatricians, March 2004

a reply to: Quadrivium

It appears to me that he is having difficulty with the difference between a "person" and a "human being." Vernacular speech tends to equate the two, but there are specific differences when one starts analyzing the process to resolve an issue such as abortion.

A human being is an organism which is human (a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens) and which represents a unique organism separate and distinct from other members of the species. That occurs once the ovum is fertilized by the sperm (as your excerpts say).

A person is a much more general term. There really is no scientific definition of person; it is a legal and philosophical term. In everyday life, every human being we meet is also a person, so the average person will tend to equate the two terms in their mind. Many pro-abortionists use this to their advantage; Sookiechacha does so. By stating that the zygote is not a "person," they are insinuating it is also not a "human being."

However, that is false. Science can say it is a human being, but science cannot say it is a person. Only philosophy can say that, and "human being" is not a philosophical term. Some use this semantic argument intentionally, fully aware of the difference but more intent on achieving their personal agenda, while others, I believe, do so out of simple ignorance.

That is the crux of my argument. Call it what it is, and if that causes implications that one did not intend, then one needs to educate those who made the implications. I have no problem saying a zygote is not necessarily a person, because I'm not anywhere near sure it is. I have a huge problem saying a zygote is not a human being, because that is a direct lie.

I happen to think it becomes a person when it gains sentience, sometime between fertilization and delivery. I don;t know where that point is (although I believe it is more of a gradual change than a specific point), but I do believe we should err on the side of caution. We allow even those on death row for heinous crimes every benefit of the doubt before taking their life; should we not do similar for those who have not yet committed any crime?

Anyway, that is what I am seeing in Xtrozero's argument.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I agree, people do confuse the two. Some intentionally, some because they don't know the difference, as can be clearly seen throughout this thread.
IMHO, we would have to go by science. It has demonstrable, repeatable experiments that agree, human life starts at conception and continues through every stage of development, until the end of their life cycle.
This is beyond question in this day and age.

Then we have people like Sookie, who bring in their beliefs and thoughts and accuse others of "being religious fanatics".
As I told Xtrozero, when he said something about us getting into the "religious side of it":

Which I really try not to do, when discussing this subject.
Everyone has different beliefs, there is no way to prove who is right because philosophy, theology, psychology, sociology, law and politics evaluate this topic from different point of views and beliefs.
Science/biology, on the other hand, lay it out very clear in factual evidence that can be reproduced time and time again.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Regardless of anyone's "belief", abortion is the premeditated killing of another human being.
When you take their life, sentient or not, person or not, you are removing all of their remaining ability, their future ability for anything they could or would ever do. You are causing Total and Irreversible disability on another human being.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
I could go on and on but I am out of time. I will leave you with the following:

"The American College of Pediatricians...

One of the most conservative groups in the country who have been accused multiple times of misappropriating other's research, WTF else do you think they're gonna say?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Quadrivium
I could go on and on but I am out of time. I will leave you with the following:

"The American College of Pediatricians...

One of the most conservative groups in the country who have been accused multiple times of misappropriating other's research, WTF else do you think they're gonna say?

AND THEIR YOU GO.
The final bit of proof, I needed to confirm, that you lack Reading Comprehension skills and the ability to read more than one sentence at a time.
SMH.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Rightwing religious doctors say what?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Quadrivium

Rightwing religious doctors say what?

Anything else you would like to add?

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Anything else you would like to add?

Other than a small group of religious wacko doctors are going to issues statements that pro-lifers will cite because it agrees with them? Let me think on it....

a reply to: Quadrivium

When you take their life, sentient or not, person or not, you are removing all of their remaining ability, their future ability for anything they could or would ever do. You are causing Total and Irreversible disability on another human being.

You've made this argument before, but it is really the only area where we seem to disagree. In an absolute sense, you might be correct; I will grant that. However, as I have said many times, there are two (three?) human beings involved here. While we have been discussing the rights of the unborn, we should take care to also ensure we do not forget about the rights of the mother (and father).

There is no doubt that carrying a child to term is a physically and mentally draining experience. Also, there are cases where even if death did not occur to the mother, her life would be immeasurably damaged by the time off her career, the expenses, etc. Let's face it: the concept of causing disability sounds good, but in reality it is unworkable.

As with all legal discussions, the key is balance. What is the chance that the zygote will actually develop into a mature human? What are the costs to the mother (not just financially, but in all areas of life)? The chances for the child to fully develop increase as time goes on, and the costs to the mother decrease. At conception, the chance is actually very low that the child will survive into an embryo, much less maturity, while the mother has 9 months of cost ahead of her; at birth the child has a very high chance of living to maturity, while the mother has already paid her costs. The functions intersect at some point, and that is the point we need to define.

It is not, IMO, at conception (when the human being begins to exist), nor is it just before birth.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Anything else you would like to add?

Other than a small group of religious wacko doctors are going to issues statements that pro-lifers will cite because it agrees with them? Let me think on it....

Oh, I see.
Anything else?

a reply to: Quadrivium

I'll let you know.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Quadrivium

I'll let you know.

You sure?
No more Faulty Generalizations you wanna throw out?
No more jumping to conclusions?
Are you sure?
I know it's hard (for you) but take a moment to think about it.

Do you need me to post the definition of "Faulty Generalization"??
Or do you have it memorized?
It seems like the only argument you have.

a reply to: Quadrivium

No more Faulty Generalizations you wanna throw out?

Oh, (raises hand) I know the answer to this....

All people are human beings
Not all human beings are people
The human beings that never become people are nature's reproductive collateral damage.

a reply to: TheRedneck

You've made this argument before, but it is really the only area where we seem to disagree.

It does seem so, maybe not though.

However, as I have said many times, there are two (three?) human beings involved here. While we have been discussing the rights of the unborn, we should take care to also ensure we do not forget about the rights of the mother (and father).

ABSOLUTLY.
Yet, in the 99% of abortions who's rights, other than the third party (that had NO CHOICE), are being hindered?
What rights in particular come to mind?

While we have been discussing the rights of the unborn

Red, think about that statement....
Never once have I said anything about "the rights of the unborn".
The unborn are Human Beings.
Time and time again I have said "Human Rights" and "a Humans Basic Rights".
I have even told Gus that "Human Rights transcend the US Constitution". Our Constitution never has and never will GRANT us rights, all humans have them, regardless of location or status.

When does a human being's life begin? What authority do you trust the most to give an unbiased answer?

we should take care to also ensure we do not forget about the rights of the mother (and father).

Again, in 99% of abortions, where it was a consensual choice, what rights are you referring to that will not infringe on the rights of another human being?

There is no doubt that carrying a child to term is a physically and mentally draining experience.

This..... This, coupled with the simple fact that rape and incest victims had no choice, is why I changed my stance.
Their right to choose, when and where, to reproduce was taken away. The fact that it may endanger their state of mind, having to carry another human that was brought forth in a terrible act of violence, that was out of their control, would most likely endanger the mother's mental state beyond measure.

You seemed to agree, that if a mother's life was endanger, special consideration should be given. Yet, when it came to rape and incest, you were more on the side of her keeping this new human and putting them up for adoption.
While I agree, she should have access to any and all resources to help, if she chooses to do so, I also understand that all people do not have the same mental fortitude.
Still, I would not celebrate the death of this new human as I value all human life and it also did not have a choic

her life would be immeasurably damaged by the time off her career, the expenses, etc.

This statement probably bothered me the most, out of your entire post.
Why? Because, in the case of 99% of abortions, it was a choice FREELY made. It is something they CHOSE to do, KNOWING the possible outcome of their actions.
Why should another human being get a death sentence because of something they had no choice in?

Let's face it: the concept of causing disability sounds good, but in reality it is unworkable.

You really think so?
Do you see pulling the plug, on a brain dead person, and abortion as the same thing?
If so, why and how?

Both are human beings.
Both of their lives started at conception.
What's the difference?

The human on life support has no ability left. Their ability for anything else, they would or could ever do, is gone. They have reached the end of their life cycle. They are totally and irreversibly disabled.
The human in the womb is the EXACT OPPISITE.
It is just starting it's life cycle.
They have all of their remaining ability, for everything and anything they will ever do, ahead of them.

As with all legal discussions, the key is balance.

Damn Red, you are a stickler.
Who's legal discussion?
What law?
What gives you, or anyone else, the right to place value on a human life that was freely brought into being, through no choice of their own.
Maybe I was wrong. This and the rest of your post has probably bothered me the most.

What is the chance that the zygote will actually develop into a mature human?

Only time will tell. If they were freely conceived, what right do we have to deny them the chance?

What are the costs to the mother (not just financially, but in all areas of life)?

What is the cost to the human being with that had no choice?

At conception, the chance is actually very low that the child will survive into an embryo, much less maturity, while the mother has 9 months of cost ahead of her;

I do not see the point in this entire statement. If the human being does not survive the Zygote stage of development, it died a natural death. The mother would not carry it for 9 months. What are you trying to infer?

The functions intersect at some point, and that is the point we need to define.

"We" already have.
At conception.
The only problem is that many want to place a value on a human life with no way of knowing the value that human life will have, what their full ability will be, if left alone to continue their life cycle.

I do not mean any offence but you honestly seem to have more in common with Gus and Sookie, than you don't. In a sense all three of you are on the same spectrum.
You are suffering from a type of the same mentality. To them it's their belief and feelz, to you it's the law and the Constitution. Yet, both have equal outcomes, the premeditated killing of a human being, is justified.
You are at the:

It is not, IMO, at conception (when the human being begins to exist), nor is it just before birth.

point.
I believe I remember Gus stating 23 or 24 weeks in another thread.
And Sookie? Who the hell knows, maybe the "KILL, KILL, KILL, DIE, DIE, DIE" stage (yeah, may be a little off on that one).

Spectrum examples:

What is it that enables one group of human beings to treat another group as though they were subhuman creatures?
A rough answer isn't hard to come by. Thinking sets the agenda for action, and thinking of humans as less than human paves the way for atrocity. The Nazis were explicit about the status of their victims. They were Untermenschen — subhumans — and as such were excluded from the system of moral rights and obligations that bind humankind together. It's wrong to kill a person, but permissible to exterminate a rat. To the Nazis, all the Jews, Gypsies and others were rats: dangerous, disease-carrying rats.

www.npr.org...
and...

When old Nazis would say in their memoirs in the 1950s or 60s or later on, well, yes, it got a bit out of hand and I wasn’t in favour of killing them, it would have been enough just to dump them in the Lublin Reservation or Siberia, we’re talking about a difference of degree.

And these men did not intervene to stop the mass murder because the mass murder was simply another point along the spectrum. They might not have been willing to go to that point but it was on the same spectrum. They had no love for Jews, they had no compassion for Jews, they had no feeling of obligation to Jews as human beings, and it has to be said that these people had very little feeling of obligation to human beings at all outside of the Volk, the racial community, and even in the inner core to their own people.

and...