Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

reply to post by luciddream


They aren't even sure when the human life cycle begins or that a human zygote is always a human zygote, no matter how much it looks like a fish zygote.

I doubt they are going to understand cell differentiation.

Originally posted by timetothink
Why has this thread been allowed to spiral so far out of control??

Poor beez...

It just shows the selfishness that has allowed us to think killing unborn children is OK.....


MY rights, her rights, his rights.....unborn...nothing nada zip

"Who cares about the kid..I'm keeping my money!!"

Sickening.


And waaaaay off topic.

Actually very telling. It illustrates that they can't argue on the central premise and have to resort to a more "winnable" aspect.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


A cell is a living thing.

The cell is the basic structural and functional unit of all known living organisms. It is the smallest unit of life that is classified as a living thing,
en.wikipedia.org...(biology)

A human cell is a living thing. The ovum is living and the sperm is living. The fertilization of a cell doesn't change the history of a human origin as first being a single celled, unfertilized living thing.

Life doesn't begin at conception, it was already there. You're just sanctifying some kind of perceived sacredness of a biological chemical reaction.

reply to post by Golf66

Negative - I just go with logic. A cell, or organism even a human one that cannot provide the basic life support functions for itself is not alive.

Can we leave a 1 yr old baby alone to live by itself?, i doubt it will live, thus it is not "alive", then it should be OK to kill 1 yr old, Infanticide should be legal?

A fetus is not alive until it takes its first breath. It is a dependant organism the potential for life not life.

Fetus uses oxygen thru umbilical cord, just like nutrients. Who says First breathe outside the world = alive?

what about a baby 1 hr before delivery? still a non living entity? i just want to know how ignorant people really are.

Once cells takes shape, its over.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Alright Genius,

Pick which one of these is the human:

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

reply to post by luciddream

Once cells takes shape, its over.

What shape? Is it over at fertilization or at the time the zygote attached to the uterus. Is it "over" at first division or at the eighth?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

A cell is a living thing.

The cell is the basic structural and functional unit of all known living organisms. It is the smallest unit of life that is classified as a living thing,
en.wikipedia.org...(biology)

A human cell is a living thing. The ovum is living and the sperm is living. The fertilization of a cell doesn't change the history of a human origin as first being a single celled, unfertilized living thing.

Life doesn't begin at conception, it was already there. You're just sanctifying some kind of perceived sacredness of a biological chemical reaction.

I just want to know when is it living? i can't really response to you without misunderstanding you.

a body cell, sperm cell/egg cell, fertilized cell is entirely different.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by luciddream

 

Once cells takes shape, its over.

What shape? Is it over at fertilization or at the time the zygote attached to the uterus. Is it "over" at first division or at the eighth?

3-4 weeks after that its a living organism. 2-3 weeks is when blastocysts assign instruction for the cells to forum into a shape, a shape is formed around 3-4 weeks.

reply to post by luciddream


It's not different, it is all intrinsic to the biological process. You can't have one without the other. It's all part of the cycle. There's no definite point that one can claim this is life, but this is not.

A brief pause.

I'd like to that everyone for keeping this thread going. I know this is not a debate where resolution will be found, but I do hope that someone, anyone will take a different look at this very difficult issue.

Carry on.

reply to post by luciddream


Thank you for your OPINION.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by Golf66

 

Can we leave a 1 yr old baby alone to live by itself?, i doubt it will live, thus it is not "alive", then it should be OK to kill 1 yr old, Infanticide should be legal?



Fetus uses oxygen thru umbilical cord, just like nutrients. Who says First breathe outside the world = alive?

what about a baby 1 hr before delivery? still a non living entity? i just want to know how ignorant people really are.

Once cells takes shape, its over.

THE FIRST BREATH THING IS MAKING FUN OF THE BIBLE.

THE HUMAN FETUS IS ALIVE, BUT IT'S A PARASITE.

"THIS IS SCIENCE:
HUMAN FETUS IS NOT A BABY (GOOGLE THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CHART), but a parasite because of the biological relationship that’s based on the behavior of one organism (fetus) and how it relates to the woman's body:
As a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B, HCG and INDOLEAMINE 2, 3-DIOXYGENASE --- so her body doesn't kill it, and it can continue stealing her nutrients to survive, and causing her harm or potential death."

galerouth.blogspot.com...



The fetus "1-hour away from birth" thing is a cop-out... it's still a parasite to a woman's body.

Originally posted by luciddream
Wow, first time i'm going to disagree with a lot of poster i usually agree with...

People assume that if you are Pro-Life = you are religious... Sorry, An atheist here as well as a soon to be Research(hopefully)

Microbiologist.

I'm not fully against abortion BUT i do have a limit, in my opinion, contraceptive, morning after pills, condom, are OK, but once the baby goes from Blastocyst(2 weeks) > take shape with assigned cells(brain cells, heart cells, organs cells etc.)(3week-4week), that's when my Anti-Abortion kicks in. Im OK with abortion if its from Incest, rape, danger for mother, abnormalities in the child.

Just to get this right, your no pro-life, but in the instance that the woman is raped or incest is a factor, your more than happy to kill that life? The fault in this argument is that your judging rights to abortion based on how the baby was conceived, Like it makes a difference!?

I agree men should have rights or a say on a pregnancy resulting in consensual sex.

I disagree, when we start in that territory (removing rights from the individual) its almost like saying a woman has the right to demand her partner get a vasectomy. Lets avoid that way of thinking by giving people ownership of their own body. A man may have his opinion - And it usually counts for something, but he has no right when it comes to HER body/life.

However, i'm okay with giving women the option to do final say

The option isnt your's to give, thought i would just throw that in there.

BUT if the women's decision is different from Man's then the Man should have NO responsibility and should just leave the women who does not want to bear you children, she is clearly not your interest.

Agreed.

I'm going to give the same answer as always for people recommending adoption if you are against abortion... the thing is i have an ego problem, just like all the rest of the animals on this planet.. I WANT TO PASS MY GENES.

You can have your own biological kids and adopt to. Its a bit funny that you can care about millions of lives when it comes to abortion but you cant care for someone who is already on this planet and in need of some love and a good home? Maybe your heart isn't as big as you think it is?

If some women is so against child birth why don't use have the tubes tied,

Maybe this is the stupidest thing said in this thread so far, but i'll bite anyway, That operation is irreversible and dangerous to say the least. Vasectomy's are much easier with very little risk. Why tie your tubes when there is a wide range of contraception around.

than you can have all the one night stand you like...

Because all unwanted pregnancies come from sluts.

also this goes for men, if you are someone who don;t want child, have a vasectomy.

Because that wont mess with his ego eh?

Child birth in inconvenient? i'm sorry, walking on land is inconvenient for me as well, sadly the nature did not give me wings...

Childbirth is very inconvenient to women, for many around the world with no access to medical care it results in death. Not to mention how the female anatomy has to change in order to harbour and grow another human being for 9months, and, as soon as they;'re born, physically look after them without any sort of break. That comment is pretty ignorant, actually a bit of offensive.. This is why men shouldn't really be having such strong opinions on a subject that will never effect them.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by luciddream

 

Thank you for your OPINION.

!! are you telling me that

2 week = blastocyst and
3-4 weeks = shape formation and
5-6th week is brain activity?

is my OPINION?...................

reply to post by blackpeppper


Apparently we were all very similar at one time. But somehow we were accorded rights, while the younger aspects of ourselves were not.

So it's more about age than anything else.

Age is what is denying pre-born infants civil rights.

Science is very much divided on the issue. Stating that there is a definitive answer to when human life begins is disingenuous at best. To boldly type science baby - suck it is a cop out.

Doctors, Scientists, Biologists and others in academia debate this all the time. Depending on their personal views they try to prove their side is right.

When I Googgle "when does human life begin biologically" I get 72,000,000 results. Admittedly, a lot form organizations both pro-life and pro-choice with clear agendas.

However, a good portion of the information is from colleges and hospitals, made by scientific experts with examples to back up how it begins anywhere from two weeks before the moment of conception, to conception, to birth and a lot of places in between.

I'm not talking about us on ATS having differing opinions I am talking about biologists, doctors and such.

This is a question that causes enormous debate, is very contentious and there is no easy and correct answer scientifically. Each country (in the US each State) makes its own decision as to when one can chose abortion and thus you can see there is no consensus largely because there is no "scientific" correct answer.

Whenever the issue is debated it rapidly becomes clouded by moral, ethical and religious views and everyone has their own opinion!

Opinions aside there is no automatic SCIENCE - THE END winner button for this debate OKS.

.

reply to post by blackpeppper

REALLY? You called a fetus, a baby... that's a misnomer and an oxymoron to the human development chart, thus you wasn't using science, but an appeal to emotion.

I'm calling it a baby because baby is a non-scientific term. I am not differentiating between zygote or fetus...thus I use the generic term of baby which is defined as a young being.

and abortion lowers CRIME. It's from Freakonomics.

Well, if it's from Freakanomics....it MUST be true.

Stop lying to these people about the science of reproduction, love and using myths like Christianity to force them not to abort

Christianity...who is using Christiantiy???

Oh right...just another pro-choicer trying to move the discusstion over to religion.

That's a sign that you are losing.

reply to post by Golf66

Easy there John Wayne I never intimated that you supported protecting human cells. I only pointed out that your argument that the zygote contains human DNA and therefore a human is not a very good one. I only pointed out all our cells contain human DNA.

Context helps...maybe you should read the entire conversation instead of jumping in mid way.

Another member suggested that there is NO DIFFERENCE between a fish zygote and a human zygote...I claimed that there is in fact a difference...the human zygote contains human DNA, the fish zygote contains non-human DNA.

I could really write a book about how every abortion conversation will go...you guys are very predictiable...parasite, fingernails, burden on society...play by play I could write it.

Negative - I just go with logic. A cell, or organism even a human one that cannot provide the basic life support functions for itself is not alive. A fetus is not alive until it takes its first breath. It is a dependant organism the potential for life not life.

You are definately not using logic.

And since you want to go with a fetus not being alive until it takes it's first breath...then I guess you support late term and partial birth abortions....correct???

Now I get to wait and see you back peddle and claim that what you really meant was blah blah blah....

I don't have a problem with a woman choosing to have a medical procedure to remove an unwanted organism from her womb.

See, you can't say it.

Which is why you are being so obtuse about biology...you can't bring yourself to say you support killing babies.

I understand...I would have a hard time sleeping too if I supported abortion and didn't lie to myself to dehumanize the baby....it's a common psychological response.

Ok, Professor, help me out please provide any link to any document that is generally medically accepted as the definitive conclusion on when human life begins.

Look at you, trying to divert the discussion once again.

I clearly stated Biology...not Medical definitions.

If you want to pick an arbitrary bodily function as declaring something human...more power to you...as long as you realize it is illogical and against all known Biology.

And you need to change your terminology, you aren't keeping up...when pro-choice people start using this argument...you have to change to "personhood" and not "human life"...or else you look very ignorant because Biology clearly defines when life begins.

Again, you stated the presence of human DNA in the zygote is what made it human.

The prescence of human DNA is what differentiates a human zygote from a fish zygote...that was the point I was making. Context is everything.

Therefore, it is no more alive than any other cell or organ in the body that contains human DNA - it is not "alive".

Human cells are not their own organism...there is a little thing call multi-celled organisms.

Again...a Biology course would do you good.

Originally posted by luciddream

Who says First breathe outside the world = alive?

The law - when a child is carried to term and delivered but never breathed on its own it is issued a stillborn certificate not a "death certificate" - do you know what the opposite of death is?

Life, to get a death certificate in most States the baby must have shown some kind reaction to stimuli, breathing, or other involuntary life functions to be granted a birth certificate followed by a death certificate.

Originally posted by luciddream
what about a baby 1 hr before delivery? still a non living entity? i just want to know how ignorant people really are.

Again for purposes of the law even if a fetus is at full term had a heartbeat 10 minutes ago in the womb and it never takes its first breath = no death certificate. It is a stillborn - i.e. never a living child.

Also, I can find 100 doctors to refute that human life begins at conception - and 100 more to refute that and 100 others to opine somewhere in between.

You need to stop acting as if this is a done deal in the medical community. It is far from it.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

A cell is a living thing.

The cell is the basic structural and functional unit of all known living organisms. It is the smallest unit of life that is classified as a living thing,
en.wikipedia.org...(biology)

A human cell is a living thing. The ovum is living and the sperm is living. The fertilization of a cell doesn't change the history of a human origin as first being a single celled, unfertilized living thing.

Life doesn't begin at conception, it was already there. You're just sanctifying some kind of perceived sacredness of a biological chemical reaction.

A cell is a unit of life...it is not always a living organism.

New animal life begins at conception...for all animals, not just humans. Basic Biology.

I challenge you, go take a biology class...and on the test when it ask you "When does new biological life form?" I want you to answer "no one knows".

Let me know how well you do in that class.