Texas 6-week abortion ban takes effect after Supreme Court inaction

You are the one language policing. You don't do that unless the words someone else uses causes you some sort of angst.

 

Hey you're the one posting to the contrary LMFAO

And your right, and actually wrong! It's a pleasure reading your conflicted posts

 

You have to wonder what other states will follow suit.

 

So what? Yes, a zygote grows until it's born, then it continues to grow until it's about 20. You are picking a point in this growth arbitrarily.

It's also an appeal to emotion, based on a body part that has corresponding colloquial meanings.

Ancient cultures - for this conversation, the Egyptians and Hebrews - believed the heart was the source of thought. "Heart" has since come to mean benevolence, enthusiasm, mood, essence, center. These alternate definitions/usages are derived straight from the ancients, as they believed the heart was the source of all these characteristics, as well as being the essence of what makes one human.

They were wrong. Logically and scientifically, related to "when life begins," a functioning heart is no different than a functioning liver, or more vitally, a viable pair of lungs.

The moment the heart beats is arbitrary and meaningless.

 

Firstly, your claim that ' it is what you use to determine why one life means more than another if it makes it ethical or not' is extremely if not entirely subjective and contextual which segways us right to the classic Trolley problem dilemma (or the Good Place if you prefer). And that means different people can have different opinions as to when it is ethical or not ethical to take a human life. Context and situation are vital. You've already stated that yes, in some circumstances it is morally correct to take a human life. So we come back to the fact that your disagreement is with pro-abortionsists is really just about when it's permissible to take a life not if. Which means that like it or not your in the same moral/ethical boat (or perhaps trolley car) as pro-abortionists.

Secondly, 'women and children first' is not a morally equivalent situation to the abortion/death penalty. In former the male concerned is making the determination that someone else's life has more value/is more important than their own life. (BTW as an aside I would suggest that technically John 15:13 is a gender neutral moral teaching.) The example you have given involves a conscious decision (perhaps also part instinctive) made by one individual to sacrifice their life in order to save others. In the case of abortion or the death penalty the person who is going to die is NOT the one making that decision. That distinction is important. One is 'I will kill or let myself die', the other - 'I will kill or let others die'. Not the same thing at all.

 

You're going to hear the questions from 1860? THAT'S your argument? Yay for you. Keep arguing things that are no longer true.

 

For the living, not the unborn.

 

Because you have done no such thing.

 

Oh I am perfectly aware of this. Ife begins at conception. But this law specifies the heart beat specifically. Which last I checked...no zygote I know of has a beating heart so anyone wishing to bring up zygote in this discussion needs to deal with that reality.

This law is merely a step in the right direction

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Pregnancy means there is a ZEF....science isn't voodoo.
Pregnancy means there is a ZEF....science isn't voodoo.... a zygote isn't a baby, an embryo isn't a baby, a fetus isn't a baby....science isn't voodoo.....try it !!!


I don't need anything to make me feel better about killing it....I don't need an emotional sop....I prefer science and facts...some others fear them..





LOL, another Anti-Choicers who had to enter the world of "Make Up Stuff When They Have No Argument".


Maybe someday you won't be so obsessed with ME that you can comment on the topic.....but I doubt it (OBVIOUSLY TRUE )

So words like Zygote, embryo, fetus cause you angst ???? Why?

 

Are you denying I posted from the medical textbooks? And not a single person has presented anything to refute them.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Pregnancy means there is a ZEF....science isn't voodoo.
Pregnancy means there is a ZEF....science isn't voodoo.... a zygote isn't a baby, an embryo isn't a baby, a fetus isn't a baby....science isn't voodoo.....try it !!!


I don't need anything to make me feel better about killing it....I don't need an emotional sop....I prefer science and facts...some others fear them..


LOL, another Anti-Choicers who had to enter the world of "Make Up Stuff When They Have No Argument".


Maybe someday you won't be so obsessed with ME that you can comment on the topic.....but I doubt it

Doesn't make what true ???

"Babies " are not the size of a zYgote.

So what? It still isn't a person with rights... and can be killed....

 

The only "medical book" quote I remember is on post 1663. In that post you make a big point of wanting to prove that a fertilized egg is a human being. I never said it wasn't. What I have said is that that fact doesn't really mean much in this discussion. Sure, it's human, but like it was said later a fertilized egg is also a chicken, but not a viable chicken. From there you went on a kick about the term "viable" which was disproven multiple times with your best counter argument being "no". Again a statement that means nothing in a debate. You have multiple claims of making references to books and texts but show no proof of such (1691,1695). Put that all together and you also have this post with your "not a single person has presented anything to refute them" means you are not paying attention at all.

 

I cited severatl medical textbooks that that human life begins at conception as I will remind you.

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M?ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/ar...yoquotes2.html

"Recently, Dr. Robert George wrote an article outlining this whole topic in more detail. And if you want to really learn your stuff, pick up his excellent book entitled Embryo (I’m in the middle of reading it right now).

In his words:
“That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.” – Dr. Robert George

“Human embryos, whether they are formed by fertilization (natural or in vitro) or by successful somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT — i.e., cloning), do have the internal resources and active disposition to develop themselves to the mature stage of a human organism, requiring only a suitable environment and nutrition. In fact, scientists distinguish embryos from other cells or clusters of cells precisely by their self-directed, integral functioning — their organismal behavior. Thus, human embryos are what the embryology textbooks say they are, namely, human organisms — living individuals of the human species — at the earliest developmental stage.” – Dr. Robert George
- See more at: http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/....n2q46hNU.dpuf

A New, Distinct Human Organism Comes into Being at Fertilization

It is undisputed that a new, distinct human organism comes into existence during the process of fertilization.[1] Scientific literature states the following:

• “The fusion of sperm and egg membranes initiates the life of a sexually reproducing organism.”[2]

• “The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.”[3]

• “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”[4]

• “The oviduct or Fallopian tube is the anatomical region where every new life begins in mammalian species. After a long journey, the spermatozoa meet the oocyte in the specific site of the oviduct named ampulla, and fertilization takes place.”[5]

• “Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.”[6]

The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.”[7] Thus, in the context of human life, a new individual human organism is initiated at the union of ovum and sperm. One textbook similarly explains: Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell – a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[8]

Thus, a new human organism is created before the developing embryo implants in the uterus – i.e., before that time at which some people consider a woman “pregnant.”

[1] See, e.g., Condic, When Does Human Life Begin? A Scientific Perspective (The Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person Oct. 200, http://bdfund.org/wordpress/wpconten...ife_print.pdf; George & Tollefsen, EMBRYO 39 (200.

[2] Marsden et al., Model systems for membrane fusion, CHEM. SOC. REV. 40(3):1572 (Mar. 2011) (emphasis added).

[3] Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010) (emphasis added).

[4] Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012) (emphasis added).

[5] Coy et al., Roles of the oviduct in mammalian fertilization, REPRODUCTION 144(6):649 (Oct. 1, 2012) (emphasis added).

[6] Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013) (emphasis added).

[7] National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/medlineplus/fertilization (emphasis added).


It is a human being at conception not some other point in life, that has not been refuted. And what you refer to as the egg of the the chicken is actually in comparison to the womb of the mother not the life inside of it and the commercial eggs you eat are infertile eggs anyway, it's a specious comparison.

Yes I said stick with the science/biology/medical not made up non-standard terms. You know follow the science the left claims we should do. The human life is not defined by undefined terms that have nothing to do with whether the living organism is a human being. Your contention about some viability relies on the human being, that human life starting some time after conception. As I showed by the science it doesn't, it starts at conception. A baby is viable in the womb, a baby is viable outside the womb what is the distinction you are trying to make. As I asked if a baby is born and placed in the middle of the woods and everyone walks away leaving the baby there how viable is the life of that baby? Will it survive on it's own? Does that mean if the mother doesn't want the baby a week later she can say "it's not viable yet so I would like it killed now"?

 

They are when they are at that stage of their lives as I have repeatedly showed you from medical and even our own government websites for women's health during their pregnancy and caring for their unborn baby.

 

Ahhh unborn ARE living else they would not be unborn life.

I am constantly amazed at this constant effort to deny and marginalize the humanity of the unborn human being. Tell me what magical thing occurs in the birth canal that suddenly changes the life in the womb into a human. What makes the crying baby different physically or psychically from one minute ago when it was still in the womb.

 

Why would you take i upon yourself to JUDGE other people and their ideas,?? everyone is different and entitled t their own ideas. Many prefer science and fact based ideas .......particularly in hot button issues like this one.

It is far to emotional for many.......and we have seen folks act out their anger ........wehn rational logical behavior is called for.

Maybe if we spent more time trying to understand each other a s opposed t judgement .....or shaming another............we all might get along better.......as whole.

But sadly......this country does not want to get along. It is fractured into fanatical beliefs and groups now .......and it takes a non decision like in texas to expose how irrational things have become. and how underneath the surface the emotional rawness exists. Science should be the founding information. .....but unfortunately "religion" seems to oppose scene..........making the "religious : beliefs nonsensical at times. ( to many belis are actually myths)

Since When should politicians / lawyers etc have that much control over a female reproductive system?? Particularly.....when most of them are MEN... It is a personal and medical situation. No one elses business .......apart from the party involved. Controlling this situation this way is one giant power trip.

 

Why would they? The question is why does the word baby?

 

so the unborn with heartbeat isn't alive?
like how you twist and deny scientific fact undisputable facts to fit you false narrative

but i guess i shouldn't blame you pro abortionist you have so much vested in believing that the unborn aren't human or they are second class humans or not alive so you can keep murdering the unborn without a conscience so you can sleep at night

I'm sure the Nazis in those death camps had to do the same with the Jews considered them not humans or second class humans so they also could sleep at night for the thousands they mass murdered that day

 

Indeed !!!.......

 

Should we end all laws that protect innocent life? What is the most important right a human being inherently gains upon their creation?

 

why would they? they are just words used to describe phases of devolvement of humans
no different then the words baby, toddler, preteen, teen, adult

you think some how those words you use dehumanize the unborn because it is a hell of a lot easier to mass murder humans in the hundred of thousands if you don't believe they are human

but what ever helps you sleep at night

 

Should the people, the citizens decide the issue of abortion or unelected appointed for life judges?

 

Exactly, I don't recall complaints that "You can't call people gay they are homosexual"

 

Not in Texas