The Reality Of Abortion Clinics Without Buffer Zones

Your view is just as arbitrary. A sperm is alive, an egg is alive, and according to you, a person exists the second the sperm penetrates a cell wall? 60-80% of fertilized eggs never implant. And up to 14 days later, an embryo can divide forming twins.

And you want a law based on "you can't prove it isn't murder"?

 

How do firebombs distinguish between patients and staff?

 

So do the vast majority of people .. though if you really want to be precise life started around 2.8 billion years ago, or 6,000 years ago depending on what your beliefs are.

So is yours, it takes anything up to 24 hours for the joining of genetic material once the sperm has penetrated the ovum, at which point in that cycle do you want to pick as the time a human being comes into existence?

1 Hour after penetration
2 hours maybe
or 20 hours . .why don't you tell me.

It doesn't really exist until differentiation has occurred.

There already is a compromise

Yes

no it is a matter of differing subject specialists and as far as I am aware no laws are made on "we don't know"

 

Life begins well before conception. Uniqueness is completely irrelevant. We don't have rules that say because something is not unique it therefor has no rights.

Something does not become a living human because it happens to be unique. The reason I use the term "living human" is because this avoids obfuscation. It is a "technically correct" term.

The term "human life" human is not even a noun. Just because something is both human and alive does not make it a living human. Every human cell is both human and alive as are both egg and sperm.

The question at hand is "Is it a living human"

Animate does not come from inanimate. The egg is "human life" and on some level it could even be classified as unique. Life is a continuum.

There are 4 or 5 major perspectives on "when life begins" and only one of them "The genetic perspective" puts conception as the start and this perspective is rapidly falling out of favor due to intrinsic problems with the idea.

You can find a summary of the perspectives here: https://www.franklincollege.edu/science_courses/bioethics/When does human life begin.pdf
Skip to page 10, current scientific views of when human life begins.

Now it quickly becomes clear that "experts disagree" on the topic of when human life begins. That said, even if we claim "human life begins here" this does not mean that a living human exists. It just means that something we can identify as human both exists and is alive. Like a human cell for example. Note the term human is used as a descriptive adjective.

The question we are after is " When does a living human exist" Not the term human is used as a noun. (Person Place or Thing, in this case Person)

Yes. How can a Human exist when not a single cell in the structure of that human exists ? Can building made of bricks exists without one brick in its structure present ?

The zygote contains the blueprint for a potential human. That blueprint is not a human any more than the blueprint of a building is a building.

The zygote nor any of the 200 clones of the zygote that come after will never be part of the structure that this zygote is intent on creating. The cells that form the structure of a human .. heart, brain, bone and so on do not get created until quite some time after the zygote. This structure that will be built up (of all goes well) into a human is what is known as the embryoblast. There is no "embryoblast" at conception and the zygote will never be part of the embryoblast.

The zygote, and about 200 cells are working to create the human. One of the reasons the genetic perspective is falling out of favor is due to the fact that any one of these first 200 cells can individually create a human. Each is "totipotent', capable of creating all the possible cell types in a human.

If this is possible then which one is the child. Who gets the soul or can souls split in the initial stage as well. Each one of these cells is a "potential child" having the capacity to create a child individually.

I have obliged in answering your question but at the end of the day it is not up to me to show that a child does not exist. "prove the moon is not made of green cheese" You cant prove a negative and so making laws on this basis would be ridiculous.

Prove that having Big Bob the Sodomizer come over to your house will not do you some good. Oh .. you cant ... good then lets make a law that he visits you once a week.

If folks want to make a law on the basis that a living human exists at conception then the onus is on that group to prove that this claim is true.

It is interesting that I address this question above. Can you prove the moon is not made of Green cheese or that Bob wont do you some good ?

The fact of the matter however is that there is massive amounts of evidence that a single human cell is not a child.

Define Child ? and show me how the characteristics are similar. Clearly they are not.

Without getting into the most obvious differences ( Billions of cells vs One, Brain/No brain, Heart/no heart living human/not a living human (no such thing as a living human without significant brain function at least according to a coroner) at minimum a human child is a Homo Sapiens.

Can a zygote be taxonomically classified as Homo sapiens ? Not even close. In order get into the club Homo Sapiens you need memberships into a bunch of other clubs which requires having the characteristics necessary for entrance into that club.

The zygote does not even make it into the animal kingdom Kingdom Animalia - never mind making into the Homo sapiens classification.

It is a singled celled eukaryote.

If you want a really simple proof. Give a child 3 pictures Man, Ape and Zygote and ask that child to play the game - which one is not like the others.

Again, the onus is not on me to prove the zygote is not a living human. The onus is on those that wish to make a law to prove that indeed the zygote is a living human.

All this aside. I find the point at which the Germans use very interesting. I believe that at some point (well after conception mind you) good arguments can be made for the existence of a living human.

The German cut off is interesting. In my mind if a woman is not intelligent enough to have aborted by the 12th week she should have her head examined.

 

How is the statement "Sadly they have killed before" promoting a lie? I would not really consider the two receptionist killed in mass in 94 "providers". I do bet however the providers are well armed. I doubt they trust a magical 35ft buffer to protect them. I was offering that same advise to females that worry for their safety. Do you support the females right to self defense just in case? Which is basically all my post was encouraging.

 

Second only to 9/11 and Oklahoma City in the US.....is "pro-life" terrorism-

Murder/Terrorism-

Eric Rudolph

Scott Roeder

John Salvi

Michael F. Griffin

Paul Jennings Hill

James Charles Kopp

Michael Bray

Shelley Shannon

Francis Gerald Grady


Arson/Terrorism-

Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, and Kaye Wiggins, as well as David McMenemy, Chad Altman and Sergio Baca.

 

There doesn't tend to be many things I would disagree with you on, however this is one of them. The Median charge for an abortion up to 10 weeks is $470, for most that sum is not beyond the realms of feasibility to find .. however, for others that $470 would take far longer than 12 weeks to procure.

The earliest a pregnancy can be detected by a standard pregnancy test is 3-4 days after implantation which is around 9 days after fertilization (between 6-12 days) so even if we take the earliest possible time frame it would be 9 days (6+3) before a woman would have the ability to know she was pregnant, that takes the time to get the money down to 10 weeks & 5 Days or around $47 per week - this does not include the cost of traveling to and from the clinic twice - once for the diagnosis and then again for the procedure after the 24 hour waiting period.

Now if the laws surrounding funding and waiting periods were to be removed then a 12 week limit could be more acceptable, until then it is not.

Also, let us be honest here, would pro-lifers really accept a 12 week limit. Personally I think not, they would continue to fight for the removal of any legal justification for abortion.

Personally I feel that the current time frame restrictions are more than adequate .. however as long as pro-lifers fight for an almost complete ban on abortion I will fight for abortion at anytime for any reason. If they want to come to a compromise then I am willing to as well.

 

I agree with your points. In Germany abortion is presumably covered under universal healthcare which makes a difference.

 

It's a little more complicated than blanket coverage, it really depends on your income and private insurance coverage - http://www.profamilia.de/fileadmin/...aet/Schwangerschaftsabbruch_englisch_2010.pdf

 

Stop killing your kids. Problem solved. It's not rocket science.

 

Stop using slander. Problem solved. It's not rocket science.