Let's put this myth to rest once and for all: The Republican Party is NOT the "pro-life" party.

Then they should not use the descriptor "Pro life".
They actually mean "Pro birth" Since life doesn't end at birth.
If they want to be known as "Pro life" they should be anti gun ownership and anti capital punishment.
"Pro life" is an emotional hook that implies that if you are "anti Pro life" you are "Pro death" which loads the argument.
As usual it is a marketing term. "Pro birth" doesn't pose a moral question.

 

Awww, feel better now ? LOL....

 

How about just Anti-Baby Killing versus Pro-Baby Killing? That is what happens in an abortion so let's just cut to the chase.

 

That's like saying you shouldn't say "pro-choice" if you support regulations.

True. But so is "pro-choice". It gets the pro-choice folks framing the other side as anti-choice and only interested in repressing women, when thats not usually their main motivation (saving the unborn "babies" as they see it is).

Both sides frame the debate differently and rarely do either of them engage with the other's point of view.

 

Until I see any medical proof that a fetus is "alive" before 24 weeks, por life makes no sense.
Instead it is some emotional hook with which some like to hang women , while they blame those women and seek to punish them.

And how many of those have had sex outside marriage? It is about time men took responsibility for what they leave behind.

 

No.
Because pré 24 weeks, the legal limit for an abortion, the fetus is no more alive than a cancer.
If yoouu define alive as "growing", then crystals are alive. According to you you should not cut down trees, pull up weeds or
hunt animals. They are alive too. In fact more alive since they are independent life and don't depend on something else to grow.

 

Has nothing to do with it being legal or not and if you believe that the human life in the womb is analogous with a cancer your are GROSSELY misinformed.

I define alive as is from the moment of conception, YOU didn't become alive at some further point in time, you life began at conception.

I define life as according to the science as I studied when I majored in it. And I will again request that you STOP trying to put words in my mouth. I do not grant you such privilege and I will speak for myself.

 

You may have been TAUGHT something. Which does not necessarily make it true.
I went on to suggest that other forms of life exist and you and others don't think twice about killing those.
BTW this conversation is not about you I never mentioned you and I speak purely for myself.
Now back off.

 

Since you have decided to take aim what do you think of hunting or fishing...all taking of life.
Life does not only mean human life , mate. If you want a definition of life you have to include ALL life. So I have to assume you are at least a vegetarian if not a vegan.

 

Don't forget "you loot we shoot"

 

You're more than entitled to your belief, but most folks, and most of recorded human history, define life from the moment of birth.

 

Is a sprouting acorn "life"?
How about bacteria and viruses? Is the development of covid in the body "life"?
After all life is only the ability of cells to subdivide autonomously. So any virus can be termed "life". According to pro lifers, they should be allowed to develop to fruition.

 

Do you have nothing else but the "kill babies" mantra?.you have been asked many times to justify that and you never do. You just keep repeating it hoping the emotional impact will be enough.
You have to define "life".
And you have to use the word as a general reference to all life. The entire life on earth.
Life is the division of cells. Without that, nothing would develop. It would be a dead world. Life is NOT just human.
So by your standpoint, you would lean towards Buddhism and never kill anything which develops by spontaneous cell division.
OK. I even have some sympathy with that.
But at least be consistent.

 

No, the term "Pro-Choice " is not an emotional hook, it is a statement of fact, Pro-Choicers believe in women being able to CHOOSE.....

Anti-Choicers are exactly that, against women having the right to choose.

"Pro-Life" is an emotional term since they aren't....


Taking away women's human rights IS REPRESSING WOMEN.

 

Things don't have to be sensible for people to believe them. Most people believe Gods exist. Others believe in ghosts and even the loch Ness Monster.

When you purport to mind read and tell others what they "really think" you are likely to be wrong.

 

Again, it only makes as much sense to expect generalization of "pro life" as it does "pro choice". Are you no longer pro choice if you support any regulations on human behaviour?

 

U am very much of the mind that other than the most important aspects of preventing anarchy, the state should stay right out of human behaviour.

 

Jumps right out and atcha huh! Seems ridiculous walks hand in hand with abortionists

 

Ahhhh there is ONE cell life on this planet. When you started you were ONE cell. The human being, the human life, begins at conception, BIOLOGY 101. I am the one who is consistent with the science.

And since it is a baby killed in an abortion why should I stop saying so?

 

What about it, I do not advocate hunting and shooting human life. It this discussion it is about HUMAN life. Do you equate human life with that of a banana or something?

 

It is a dodge/deflection so the pro-abortion side does not have to admit it supports killing unborn babies.

If you are pro-choice then that would mean everyone gets to choose everything and anything with no restrictions on any choice no matter what it is.

Killing unborn babies IS REPRESSING BOTH BOYS AND GIRLS.

 

What an inane post.

 

When human history was back in the days of witch doctors and before we developed proper medical kownledge. Amazing you are still stuck back there.

The SCIENCE clearly and unequivially states the human life begins at conception as I have cited from the medical textbooks over and over and over. It is not a belief it is a demonstable fact.

"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).

 

So you equate a human life with that of a tomato? Really? Because you get to kill tomatos it's OK to kill another human being?

 

Life is by definition the ability for cells to divide autonomously.
It is the same process for a tomato as for a fetus.
If you are OK with killing a tomato PLANT, since a tomato is the fruit of the life in the plant, you are OK with "killing" a fetus, simply another life form.
If you are NOT OK with "killing" a fetus, then you cannot be OK with killing any other life form. That is hypocrisy.
In fact it is hubris to think only humans are life forms. We are one of more than a billion life forms.
Pro life means pro life. All life.
Otherwise it is not what you mean.
Your definition is ONLY relevant to humans.
Whereas the definition of LIFE is the ability of a cell to divide and become autonomous. It is what distinguishes animate from inanimate.
If a fetus is life, animate, so are all other non-inorganic things.

So I have to assume you don't eat meat or swat a fly. Or believe in capital punishment or intending to kill someone with a gun if they get in your way.

Because when it comes to being responsive as a life form, live animals and insects etc are far more "alive" than a cluster of cells , UP TO 24 weeks, the legal term or pregnancy in which an abortion can take place.