rickyp wrote:Fate

He clearly does support murder

.

Do I really?

You believe that life begins at conception. The creation of a zygote.

Right. And, I'm right.

Before and after 1981, there have been countless scientific monographs and scholarly articles—in embryology, developmental biology, and genetics—explicitly affirming that a human being at the earliest stage of development comes to be at fertilization. Here are three of many, many examples:

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 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)



“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) 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” (emphasis added; Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Mueller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 8). (Many other examples could be cited, some of which may be found here: http://clinicquotes.com/list-of-quotes- ... onception/ )

That is the authority of science. On request, we can cite dozens more examples. The authorities all agree because the underlying science is clear. At fertilization a sperm (a male sex cell) unites with an oocyte (a female sex cell), each of them ceases to be, and a new entity is generated. This new entity, initially a single totipotent cell, then divides into two cells, then (asynchronously) three, then four, eight and so on, enclosed all the while by a membrane inherited from the oocyte (the zona pellucida). Together, these cells and membrane function as parts of a whole that regularly and predictably develops itself to the more mature stages of a complex human body.

So, anyways . . . there you have it.

The blueprint is there...but the building is yet to be erected. A bunch of cells has not attained the status of being a human being. No brain, no consciousness, no heart,no eyes, no face, no ears, no fingers, no thumb, no lungs, no legs...nothing indicative of human beings. People's intuitive feeling about fetuses is correct--the farther in development they get, the more that they have a human appearance, after they get a heartbeat...the less we are comfortable with abortions. But a zygote..no, not a human life. That comes from religious doctrine. We use the word "vegetable" to describe someone who has no conscious life, who is permanently in a coma. Consciousness appears to be the best definition of human life because that is when there is awareness. I think, therefore I am...

Human life is when a fetus reaches a certain level of development such that it is a unified entity with at least most of the attributes of a human being.

freeman3

Human life is when a fetus reaches a certain level of development such that it is a unified entity with at least most of the attributes of a human being

and can be sustained ad grow out side the womb.

Fate

So, anyways . . . there you have it

If zygotes are alive the average fertile woman not on birth control is killing over 600 lives every year. (By choosing not to be on birth control) Is this average woman a murderer?
And if she's not .... then how can a woman who chooses not to allow a zygote or fetus to develop to the point of being sustainable be any more guilty?

I'll note that none of your quotations make the point that the zygote is a live human being.

I am pretty sure that DF has in the past maintained a difference between "kill" and "murder", and particularly as regards the Sixth Commandment.

And one definition of murder is to "unlawfully kill". So if it is a legal killing, then it is not murder. Abortion is legal, and when legally carried out is therefore not murder.

Odd that DF demands I step in for every minor insult but wants to double down on the insistence that saying someone supports murder is a fine and proper means of discourse.

I do note that "preaching to the choir" is now perfectly acceptable, and no longer grounds for accusations of "bullying" that cause someone to leave.

Contraception does not kill a zygote, it prevents the formation of one. And there are only likely to be about 13 a year as that is the usual number of eggs that are put out of the ovaries at one per 28-30 days.

Do stop confusing yourself, and others, Ricky.

danivon wrote:I am pretty sure that DF has in the past maintained a difference between "kill" and "murder", and particularly as regards the Sixth Commandment.

And one definition of murder is to "unlawfully kill". So if it is a legal killing, then it is not murder. Abortion is legal, and when legally carried out is therefore not murder.

Odd that DF demands I step in for every minor insult but wants to double down on the insistence that saying someone supports murder is a fine and proper means of discourse.

I do note that "preaching to the choir" is now perfectly acceptable, and no longer grounds for accusations of "bullying" that cause someone to leave.

I didn't double down on anything.

I am currently doubled-over, watching the atheists deny science with their opinions and zero evidence.

But, that's okay. You pretend that we are incredibly lucky (given the odds against a climate that would sustain life), live in a random universe even though order exists all around you, and now you deny that scientists understand what human life is.

It's all good.

I do not deny that a zygote, embryo or fetus is "life". Indeed, an egg or a spermatazoa are also "life" and all are human in that they contain human DNA. So is a human hair, and each of our organs, and our blood etc. Also it is parts of our bodies we do not need or want, such as a tonsil, an appendix, a sixth toe or some of our excretia.

The main difference is that a zygote/embryo/fetus is also different genetically from the host body, and if it does implant properly and manage to grow without major defect, and the mother stays healthy, and it is not aborted, it would become a human over time.

But it is not yet "a human" - one reason is that the split to form identical twins / triplets etc takes place a while after the fertilisation. So a single zygote may end up being two or more humans. Or, that a single human can be a chimera, made up of two non-identical zygotes.

And so I do get that what abortion is is the death of an organism, and that it is human. But that does not mean that it is a "person", or " a human" as distinct from being "human". Spontaneous abortion (or miscarriage) and deliberate abortions are therefore deaths, and the latter is a killing.

And my point was, as expertly glossed over, that not all killings are murder, something you yourself have pointed out when we discussed what the sixth Commandment says - many think it is "Thou shalt not kill", but you and others are clear that it is in fact "Thou shalt not murder".

Not all killing is murder.

And supporting killings (as begrudgingly as we do, by being pro-choice we are supporting the right to kill a fetus) is not the same as supporting murder.

danivon wrote:I do not deny that a zygote, embryo or fetus is "life". Indeed, an egg or a spermatazoa are also "life" and all are human in that they contain human DNA. So is a human hair, and each of our organs, and our blood etc. Also it is parts of our bodies we do not need or want, such as a tonsil, an appendix, a sixth toe or some of our excretia.

The main difference is that a zygote/embryo/fetus is also different genetically from the host body, and if it does implant properly and manage to grow without major defect, and the mother stays healthy, and it is not aborted, it would become a human over time.

But it is not yet "a human" - one reason is that the split to form identical twins / triplets etc takes place a while after the fertilisation. So a single zygote may end up being two or more humans. Or, that a single human can be a chimera, made up of two non-identical zygotes.

So, the scientists know nothing.

Furthermore, how does it even make sense to say, essentially, it's not a human life because . . . well, it might turn out to be two or even three human lives? Oh, in that case, by all means, kill it.

And so I do get that what abortion is is the death of an organism, and that it is human. But that does not mean that it is a "person", or " a human" as distinct from being "human". Spontaneous abortion (or miscarriage) and deliberate abortions are therefore deaths, and the latter is a killing.

Well, you are free to argue the difference between a human and a person. However, now you are entering areas of ethics and metaphysics, not science. So, your opinion is just that.

And my point was, as expertly glossed over, that not all killings are murder, something you yourself have pointed out when we discussed what the sixth Commandment says - many think it is "Thou shalt not kill", but you and others are clear that it is in fact "Thou shalt not murder".

Not all killing is murder.

True.

And supporting killings (as begrudgingly as we do, by being pro-choice we are supporting the right to kill a fetus) is not the same as supporting murder.

Again, opinion.

A law saying a human being is not a person . . . an interesting concept. Every time it has been in operation, horrific things have ensued.

Barring something new, I'm done with this. I won't argue metaphysics and you cannot argue with the science.

Now, back to Planned Parenthood. The newest video is from an eyewitness to PP doing something monstrous.

This latest video catches the nation’s biggest abortion business harvesting the brain of an aborted baby who was still alive.

The video (SHOWN BELOW) features Holly O’Donnell, a licensed phlebotomist who unsuspectingly took a job as a “procurement technician” at the fetal tissue company and biotech start-up StemExpress in late 2012. That’s the company that acts as a middleman and purchases the body parts of aborted babies from Planned Parenthood to sell to research universities and other places. StemExpress was partnered with Planned Parenthood up until last week, when it quietly announced it ended its relationship with the abortion corporation.

The new video includes O’Donnell’s eyewitness narrative of the daily practice of fetal body parts harvesting in Planned Parenthood abortion clinics. She tells the harrowing story of harvesting an intact brain from a late-term male unborn baby whose heart was still beating after the abortion.

O’Donnell describes the harvesting, or “procurement,” of organs from a nearly intact late-term baby aborted at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s Alameda clinic in San Jose, California.

You can believe it or not, but this certainly warrants investigation.

danivon wrote:I do not deny that a zygote, embryo or fetus is "life". Indeed, an egg or a spermatazoa are also "life" and all are human in that they contain human DNA. So is a human hair, and each of our organs, and our blood etc. Also it is parts of our bodies we do not need or want, such as a tonsil, an appendix, a sixth toe or some of our excretia.

The main difference is that a zygote/embryo/fetus is also different genetically from the host body, and if it does implant properly and manage to grow without major defect, and the mother stays healthy, and it is not aborted, it would become a human over time.

But it is not yet "a human" - one reason is that the split to form identical twins / triplets etc takes place a while after the fertilisation. So a single zygote may end up being two or more humans. Or, that a single human can be a chimera, made up of two non-identical zygotes.

And so I do get that what abortion is is the death of an organism, and that it is human. But that does not mean that it is a "person", or " a human" as distinct from being "human". Spontaneous abortion (or miscarriage) and deliberate abortions are therefore deaths, and the latter is a killing.

And my point was, as expertly glossed over, that not all killings are murder, something you yourself have pointed out when we discussed what the sixth Commandment says - many think it is "Thou shalt not kill", but you and others are clear that it is in fact "Thou shalt not murder".

Not all killing is murder.

And supporting killings (as begrudgingly as we do, by being pro-choice we are supporting the right to kill a fetus) is not the same as supporting murder.

This is a very well considered post. The recognition that abortion is a killing is not typically made on the pro-choice side.

danivon

Do stop confusing yourself, and others, Ricky

I confused you?
First I referred to women NOT on birth control as the ones with perishable zygotes. And the mis-comprehension is on you.
And following are the numbers with a source.
And the point is that by defining zygotes as life, one has to accept that fertile women regularly end life.... and that doesn't seem right.

With Birth Control:
Sample size: 100 fertile women
0.15 dead zygotes per month
2 dead zygotes by the end of the year

Without Birth Control:
Sample size: 100 fertile women
Each month 16% become pregnant and 16% have dead zygotes
85 dead zygotes by the end of the year

- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... 6AcTR.dpuf

Interesting debate about when life begins:

http://www.thesurvivaldoctor.com/2013/0 ... ion-issue/

What does the Bible say?

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/19/ ... Conception

The evolving position of the Catholic Church:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03/21 ... n-history/

freeman3 wrote:Interesting debate about when life begins:

http://www.thesurvivaldoctor.com/2013/0 ... ion-issue/

The pro-choice person says "no" and says we don't know when life ends either.

Okay, so . . . shouldn't we, if he's right, err on the side of caution? That OUGHT to be the presumption, right?

What does the Bible say?

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/19/ ... Conception

The guy writes under a pseudonym--and makes a hash of the Bible.

The evolving position of the Catholic Church:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03/21 ... n-history/

It's a human institution, no matter what it thinks it is.

So, 85 per year over 100 women = 600 per woman per year?

DF, are you done or not?