Yep because of the law, this is about HUMAN BEINGS not some legal construct. This is about the science which as the noted by my previous cite "The question of when human life begins is a matter of biology, not opinion. And the scientific facts are unambiguous: The life of a new human being initiates at the instant of sperm–egg fusion. While some individuals may deny this conclusion, it is supported by hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers (discussed here) and is entirely uncontested in the scientific literature. Dias accurately reports that a “scientific consensus” on this question has existed for over 150 years, ever since sperm–egg fusion was first viewed using a microscope. Amander Clark, the president-elect of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (hardly a bastion of pro-life sentiment), clearly endorses this consensus, telling Dias, “From the biologist point of view, I’d need to say life of a mammalian organism begins at fertilization.” In considering the specific question of when human life begins, the mammalian organism in question would be a human organism. And another term for “human organism” is “human being.” Having a SSN does not make you a human being. Do you subscribe to the belief that equality, freedom, and justice apply universally to all human beings?
FoxHastings said: ↑ A fetus is part of a woman until birth... DODGED QUESTIONS: Then what is the fetus doing in there ? WHY can't it be taken out and grow on it's own if it's separate? UNANSWERED Oh, my, could you show the book that shows that the fetus just "floats" inside the woman for no reason at all???? NO ANSWER HERE FOLKS! LOL LOL, is that English? What does that garbled sentence mean? Gugga ""growing a living it's life..." hilarious! and meaningless Still waiting for your "book that shows that the fetus just "floats" inside the woman for no reason at all??"" YES, IT IS....you claim the fetus is NOT part of a woman...so you must think "the fetus just "floats" inside the woman for no reason at all"" Can't explain to a science denier. you claim the fetus is NOT part of a woman...so you must think "the fetus just "floats" inside the woman for no reason at all"" Why ? YOU claimed I said things and YOU NEVER posted PROOF.
FoxHastings said: ↑ How TF would YOU know and so what? If they got a legal abortion why are you so upset ?? Anther dodge....claiming I'm upset because you have NOTHING else.
FoxHastings said: ↑ .FUNNY HOW YOU MADE CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT I ALLEGEDLY SAID BUT NEVER DID PROVIDE PROOF. Refute this post : BUT YOU COULDN'T FoxHastings said: ↑ GUGGADUH....you could have had a SSN at BIRTH..... But you couldn't get one BEFORE THAT."" SHOW WHERE IT IS WRONG. BUT YOU COULD NOT SHOW WHERE that WAS WRONG .... WHO SAID IT DID ? NOT ME. SHOW WHERE I SAID IT DID... AS USUAL, you canNOT show proof I ever said that. FoxHastings said: ↑ GUGGADUH....you could have had a SSN at BIRTH..... But you couldn't get one BEFORE THAT."" Right or wrong?????? SHOW WHERE THAT IS WRONG. BUT YOU COULD NOT SHOW WHERE that WAS WRONG .... You had NO complaints about my "formatting" before now....so you must be stumped You are right on schedule, whenever I stump Anti-Choicers they usually resort to ""OH MY, Your formatting ! It makes me not have answers ! """
FoxHastings said: ↑ I NEVER said it did and YOU have NEVER proven I did . You also NEVER answered: Why can't a fetus have an SSN? NOPE , because they are not legal persons until BIRTH. They are human but NOT A human being until birth.. The law only gives SSNs to "persons". YUP, even WOMEN which you don't... That guy does NOT make laws....he canNOT deem when a human becomes a legal person....he just has an opinion.
I provided you an objective study on reasons for late term abortion still waiting for you to refute and then a cite from a medical textbook or journal which states an unborn baby is a physical part of the mother. Ball is in your court to prove your claim.
FoxHastings said: ↑ I NEVER said it did and YOU have NEVER proven I did . You also NEVER answered: Why can't a fetus have an SSN? NOPE , because they are not legal persons until BIRTH. They are human but NOT A human being until birth.. The law only gives SSNs to "persons". YUP, even WOMEN which you don't... That guy does NOT make laws....he canNOT deem when a human becomes a legal person....he just has an opinion. I NEVER said it did and YOU have NEVER proven I did . Want me to stop "badgering" ? Then quit dodging and quit saying I said something I never said....as long as YOU keep saying it I will not stop pointing out how you can't prove it.
NOPE you claimed the fetus is NOT part of a woman FIRST ...so you must think "the fetus just "floats" inside the woman for no reason at all"" BTW, if it's not part of the woman she has every right to get rid of it
Not in this thread. Jolley did. Then you said Now prove it using medical textbooks or journals that the unborn baby is a physical part of the mother. I already proved it to you using the science and you could not refute it then There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body. Consider the following: An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body. Though it’s possible for someone to have a transplanted organ that does not share the same genetic code as the rest their body, that transplanted organ does match the genetic code of the original donor. The same can not be said of an unborn child. Human embryos are not independently generated by the woman. According to former United States Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop,"we should not view the unborn baby as an extension of the woman's body [because] it did not originate only from the woman. The baby would not exist without the man's seed."1 In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."2 It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body," there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother.3 By the latest count, 38 states have fetal homicide laws which protect the rights of unborn children independently of the mother—except in the case of abortion.4 These laws make it possible to charge someone who kills a pregnant woman with two counts of murder. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?" Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.5 C. Everett Koop, M.D., and Francis A. Schaeffer, Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (Fleming H. Revell Company, 1979), 40. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000), 57. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5 “State Laws on Fetal Homicide and Penalty,” National Conference of State Legislatures (May 1, 201 http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58. https://abort73.com/abortion/mothers_body/ Support your fallacious claim with the science.
. Well it's THIS thread that is being discussed....and are you now DENYING the fetus is not part of the woman's body ??? FoxHastings said: ↑ NOPE you claimed the fetus is NOT part of a woman FIRST ...so you must think "the fetus just "floats" inside the woman for no reason at all"" BTW, if it's not part of the woman she has every right to get rid of it
No, but theirs does. And again, a sperm cell is a alive and exits,so by your earlier definition why doesn't it count? Which is correct. Life doesn't "begin at conception". Life began millions of years ago. So what? It is still human life. Again, so what? All the building blocks are there, and it isn't a muture human until it is a mature human, and there are many stages of development along the way. A plot of land and a blueprint isn't a functional building yet, but neither is a dug out foundation. Why should we suddenly care about it at any paricular stage? The best arguments usually are about gaining self awareness or nerve endings or SOMETHING that should draw our rational sympathy. I see zero reason to care any more about an egg a second after fertilization than I cared about it a second before? What rational foundation could there be other than religious gobbledygood like "its a soul going in there!"? Sure, let's follow the science. She's not wrong when she says what she does. She's just not making any argument against abortion.
Did you look up the difference between a haploid and diploid cell? Did you read the cite I posted? Mine didn't it began when I was conceived how about you? YES as I have been saying citing the science and what I learned as a biology major. How about sticking with the science instead of such arbitrary points in the development of human beings? And that is the life of a human being begins at conception not at some other time later. How about sticking with our founding principles and the self evident truth we are CREATED with our inherent right to our life? And she is patently wrong in what she says. Do you know the purpose of the placenta and uterus is to make sure the unborn baby and mother are kept separate BECAUSE they are no a part of each other but entirely unique and separate human beings as again I cited from the science. If they were not kept separate the mothers body would attack and kill the child.
I told you what I think and that is what the science says and not this nonsense that an unborn baby is a physical part of the mother as you fallaciously claimed and of course cannot prove to be the facts.
FoxHastings said: ↑ . Well it's THIS thread that is being discussed....and are you now DENYING the fetus is not part of the woman's body ??? FoxHastings said: ↑ NOPE you claimed the fetus is NOT part of a woman FIRST ...so you must think "the fetus just "floats" inside the woman for no reason at all"" BTW, if it's not part of the woman she has every right to get rid of it
Why do you continue to try and put words in my mouth when I have already given you a response. Quote me saying "the fetus just "floats" inside the woman for no reason at all" And then prove your claim that the baby in the womb is a physical part of the mother. I posted from the science otherwise, ball in your court.
FoxHastings said: ↑ . Well it's THIS thread that is being discussed....and are you now DENYING the fetus is not part of the woman's body ??? FoxHastings said: ↑ NOPE you claimed the fetus is NOT part of a woman FIRST ...so you must think "the fetus just "floats" inside the woman for no reason at all"" A logical conclusion. BTW, if it's not part of the woman she has every right to get rid of it TOO funny...now YOU don't like other people doing your trick...claiming someone said something that they didn't ! HAHAH how does it feel? I NEVER said you said that I said : FoxHastings said: ↑ NOPE you claimed the fetus is NOT part of a woman FIRST ...so you must think "the fetus just "floats" inside the woman for no reason at all"" BTW, if it's not part of the woman she has every right to get rid of it NOPE you claimed the fetus is NOT part of a woman FIRST .... and now you're trying to dodge that
I read what you quoted. It is scientifically sound but irrelevant to the topic of the thread as far as i can see. That is a question more of philosophy than science. What does "you" mean exactly? You have very few of the same cells you had 10 years ago, nevermind as the fetus you developed from. You didn't encode any memories then that you have now either. There was no brain. You are trying to talk philosophy and language, not science. Science can only tell us what your cite says, that there are multiple cells and the process to grow into later stages is underway. But that is not an argument regarding abortion or anything else. To then equate a freshly fertilized egg with a mature human with a brain, nerve cells, self awareness, etc just because both have human nucleic acid they can build from is nonsense. See, there's the trick I anticipated above, plus a little national self centeredness (we are not all from your country). I have more in common with a dog than either the dog or I have in common with a freshly fertilized egg. That is just as scientifically true as what you cited above.
I see we have a zealot from both sides of the issue in this thread. One who thinks a mere egg is our equal and another who thinks its perfectly ok to kill an infant seconds before birth. Fun fun
So what? You are trying to argue by legal jargon? Corporations are persons. They are not human beings. Laws do not determine what is moral or rational. Would you support slavery it it was not outlawed?
The science is perfectly relivant and you confuse haploid and daploid cells and then cells and organisms. It is science not philosophy that determines when the human life begins. That you replenish cells as they is irrelevent. I am talking PURE SCIENCE. Biology and embryology to be precise. Shall I cite the textbooks for you as I certainly can. And that is an argument against the pro-abortion fallacious rationalizations that since the baby is not a human being the mother can kill it. If we are going to discuss abortion then we should do so accurately as to what happens in an abortion. The unambiguous scientific concsensus is that a human being is killed. No one equates a human being in the embryonic stage of life with a mature human being any more than a new born baby with a mature human being. Human beings do not reach the stage of maturity until their adult attest are reached. Why do you deny the science? See, there's the trick I anticipated above, plus a little national self centeredness (we are not all from your country). I have more in common with a dog than either the dog or I have in common with a freshly fertilized egg. That is just as scientifically true as what you cited above.[/QUOTE]
Not here you did and I already cited my claim. Ball in your court. I can only surmise you cannot support your claim with science to back it up. Checkmate.
FoxHastings said: ↑ BTW, if it's not part of the woman she has every right to get rid of it OH LOOK! ANOTHER Anti-Choice poster who HAS TO MAKE UP STUFF TO HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY AT ALL And like your friend YOU HAVE NO PROOF AT ALL.....why are you guys so much alike ? Have NONE of you got any good argument ?
FoxHastings said: ↑ NOPE , because they are not legal persons until BIRTH. Not jargon, facts , legal facts which cancel out your feeeeeelllllings... WTF ? Irrelevant No, but they do determine what is the law. Why would you ask that silly question? I see logic escapes you also..
FoxHastings said: ↑ NOPE you claimed the fetus is NOT part of a woman FIRST .... and now you're trying to dodge that NOPE you never showed how a fetus is totally separate from the woman it's in. Just othe'rs opinions...NO facts. Besides if the fetus is separate then the woman has all the more right to kill it You sure avoid that statement along with all the other statements that are fact...
