Killing Babies no Different from Abortion, Experts Say

Obviously it's settled in your mind, but not among scientists. They have as many varied opinions as the rest of us, as this online biology textbook explains:

No, it is well documented that Evangelical leaders were looking for an issue to galvanize their base. They considered school prayer and others, but chose abortion at random. It is also known that many of the leaders originally had moderate positions on abortion, and the RvW decision was even praised by some.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133.html#.VRsH7mdFC9o

Now you are saying that a single cell containing 46 chromosomes at conception was actually 2 individuals. It appears you will say anything.

 

It's an astonishingly simple distinction.

1 hour before birth a fetus is a connected part of it's mother's body under her control.

1 hour after birth, the fetus has become an independent individual person no longer living inside of another individual.

In the former scenario, the mother can choose abortion because the fetus is a part of her body. In the latter, the fetus no longer is and the mother's right of control over that part of it's fate has ended.

There's no slippery slope, no mysterious code, no moving goalposts, no wiggle room, and no bull(*)(*)(*)(*). It's the most straightforward objective way to call it that both recognizes the rights of an individual as well as recognizes when there is only one individual to speak of.

 

They DO??? I thought their prime role was as religious leaders

Well knock me down with a feather then - I didn't know the church gave out PHDs in science

 

I am not blaming you for my use of vague terminology because I am not being vague.

So once again, you claim I do not know what a strawman argument is, and then repeat the same strawman
arguments over and over. I think it is you that does not understand the meaning of a strawman argument.

And once again, you have failed to present your opinion as to when life begins. What is your point? If you
don't even have a point of contention, why are you replying? If you want to continue to play games then
do it somewhere else.

 

Now that is yet another great example of a strawman argument.

The question of when does life begin suddenly changed to when does someone become a person.

I am not arguing the latter.

 

Oh my goodness! And all this time I thought you were arguing against me!

Welcome to the Pro-Life side. I am glad I was able to persuade you with
my cogent arguments.

 

They believe in science. I did not say they were scientists, although, I would bet that there are some priests who have PhD's in science.

They are not mutually exclusive.

 

Again, you never let facts get in your way.....

Your resentment of using words accurately is odd.......but it must make you feel better to be wrong.

I'll try to help but I'm using English so it may be a challenge:

No one is "Pro-Abortion".

There are people who believe in women's rights and women's right to CHOOSE. They are called Pro-Choice.


There are people who don't believe women have rights and have no right to choose .

The are called Anti-Choicers.

I would call them "pro-Life" but that is inaccurate as they ONLY care about the life of the fetus and NO one else.

 

There is also a word in the English language called "obfuscate".

The word "choice" is on the other hand is defined as the "act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities." As you can see, the word abortion does not appear in the definition of the word "choice" and is unrelated to the issue for that matter. "Choice" is merely a noun as in option or alternative.

These options, alternatives or "choices" can apply to virtually every aspect of human life or human endeavour. "To chose" is too broad of a verb to be used in such a narrow subject matter. It was intentionally chosen because people are normally for someone having choices and options. Who could be against that? But this in and of itself is an intentional OBFUSCATION.

To say that no one is "pro-abortion" while at the same time declaring a belief in a woman's right to choose the option of having an abortion is completely counter-intuitive. For if no one were for abortions, then there would be no desire, market, or demand for abortions. Obviously, there is a demand for abortions, and those who wish to provide, facilitate, promote or have abortions are by necessity and definition for abortion, or "pro-abortion."

Now to say that people that are against abortions are "anti-choicers" is just a blanket generalization. It does not describe that for which they are against explicitly. Nowhere in the nomenclature of the word "choice" once again is there the word or words "abortion." It is not found in the definition of the word itself. And being that it can be used in many situations and aspects of daily life is applicable to many many things. I am against abortion, but I am pro-choice for contraceptives. I am pro-choice for gun ownership. I am pro-choice for healthcare insurance purchases.

To say that Pro-Lifers only care about the life of the fetus is once again a sweeping generalization which is not based in fact. Most Pro-Life organizations have support groups for pregnant mothers, unwed mothers to assist them, and to provide them with their needs. While Pro-abortions organizations do not provide counseling for the mothers who have been through the trauma of abortions and the depression or other post traumatic stress or regrets for which they are subjected. They only care about the money they receive for the abortions.

 

You are not arguing ANYTHING. You just yell "strawman!" and run away. Here is my post again so you can address the points made, unless your response was a concession. Are you going to continue to claim "life begins at conception" is settled science? Because I provided proof it is not:

 

Blahblah blahblah blah ... you ARE good at obfuscating.....the topic of the thread, the forum you are in, are about abortion...... and the terms I used relate to that topic....

 

Life does begin at conception. The fact that twins are conceived at the same moment does not disprove this theory.

If you believe that life does not begin at conception, when does life begin?

 

Cerebral electrical activity can be detected as early as 6 weeks. The embryo begins to wiggle around at 7 weeks.
At 19 weeks, it would be hard for anyone to argue it's not a baby.

 

This seems rather nonsensical, as the fetus can survive outside the mother before then. These are premature babies flailing around their arms and legs. Would you have us believe there is nothing going on inside their little heads?

 

No, knowing the scientific fact that the lifespan of a mammalian organism begins at fertilization is not part of any extreme view, >>>MOD EDIT Flamebait Removed<<<

 

That is a religious view, not a scientific fact.

 

>>>MOD EDIT Flamebait Removed<<<

It is... literally... a textbook scientific fact that the lifespan of sexually reproducing organisms on this planet begins with the zygote stage of life. You want me to cite one of the ones on my bookshelf for you? Are you worth that effort, or will you just attack the source?

Get thee to an education.

Yeah, celebrate the status quo of hateful bigotry. That'll show everyone.

 

If it is a textbook scientific fact, why do so many scientists have other theories?

 

If you want to prove the premise you're asserting in this question, why are you asserting this quote which does not address the concept at all?

"science say about when an embryo becomes a person"

That logical fallacy, Cady, is called "moving the goalposts."

Do that a lot do you?



Science can't tell you when something becomes a person. Person is a legal definition. Person is subjective. None of which has anything to do with the point at hand... which is that objectively, a sexually reproducing organism's lifespan begins at fertilization.

 

Endlessly repeating your mantra proves nothing.

You failed to prove otherwise.

Life doesn't begin with the fertilized egg, because the components of a fertilized egg (sperm and ovum) are alive before fertilization.

 

The authors are using the terms interchangeably as shown in this statement from the article: " Fertilization. Some scientists take a genetic approach, and suggest that life begins at fertilization" Personhood is subjective, and so are theories about the beginning of life.

 

The onus is actually on the one making the claim to prove that life in fact does begin at conception.

That said, it is so ridiculously easy show that life begins prior to conception >>>MOD EDIT Flameebait Removed<<<

In order to prove that life in fact does not begin at conception one needs only show that something prior to the zygote is in fact alive.

Both the egg and sperm are "alive".

Animate does not come from inanimate.

>>>MOD EDIT Flameebait Removed<<<

 

It was you who claimed that life begins at conception. I it is up to you to prove your claim.

That said, I have already given you a number of comments that prove you claim completely false.

There is no "beginning of life" that can be proven. Who knows when life began on earth.

One thing for sure is that life did not begin with some modern woman getting pregnant.

That is absolutely false and no rational person denies it.