Horrible killing

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by Bluesguy, Nov 4, 2022.

  1. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,215
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no absolute right to bodily autonomy. Your right to swing your fist as you please ends at my nose. You also have mandatory registration for selective service, vaccine mandates, and laws against engaging in prostitution. There are limits and restrictions placed on bodily autonomy.

    Yes, we do. We don't allow arsonists or arson or murderers to murder simply because they want to and say its their choice and not society's business.

    It means is the being in the womb one of us, deserving of the same protections and the same compassion we would extend to each other.

    I disagree. A fetus is far more similar to a baby than to a heart. Some would even say that is IS a baby. Do you really begin to care for this being only after it is born and not up until that point? It is based on location for you? How about a baby born premature? If I kill that, is it no different than killing a heart? Not homocide? I say it is.

    That would make me lucky? Why? Are you implying I would want that? I've given no such indication if you are.

    More like hold people accountable who kill other people, and make them justify why they do it. Nobody, not me, and not even Bluesguy here, wants to punish women for having sex. It isn't about sex. It is about killing somebody.

    It has somethig to do with both women's rights and the rights of the victims of abortion, who these women want to kill. We need to weigh those rights. You clearly completely disregard one of them and pretend I disregard the other (when I do not).

    There you go again trying to put words into the mouths of others. I've said no such thing. You are clearly not here in good faith. So why are you here? You aren't going to convince anybody with your bad faith.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2023
  2. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,215
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A zygote IS a fertilzed egg. So its both those words.

    And who cares? It is still a single cell. It still isn't anything remotely resembling a thinking, breathing, sentient being who can feel pain or anything else. Why should anybody care about it? Do you have any argument for that?

    Or is it just all word games? Do you want to call it a "human being" and then pivot to demaning that it now be included with beings we actually do have reason to care about? Just by labelling it in the same category? If so, I can't take that seriously. That is fallacy.

    Please do try again, yes.

    Again, not if you demand that a single cell is a "human being". I have more compassion for a mouse than a freshly fertilized egg . You've given no argument why that shouldn't be so.
     
  3. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Clearly you do not understand bodily autonomy. One cannot force another to give them say, their heart or a kidney or even blood, to sustain their life.
    You think a woman should be forced to do this indicating you think a fetus has more rights than anyone else.



    Arson and murder are crimes because they cause chaos in society if left unchecked....abortion does not cause chaos in society. NO one but the woman who chooses abortion is affected by it.


    Morals should not enter into the equation since "morals" are ethereal things that vary from person to person and time to time.


    As usual you didn't understand the point and went off into an irrelevant rant about killing born babies....how silly of you.
    A fetus IS part of the woman it's in and she has every right to have it removed...it is NOT a person until birth.

    Because you blame women for getting pregnant and then killing a "person" when they get an abortion and YOU call it homicide so women should be , according to your theory, executed or jailed for life for murder.





    I believe you made an exception to abortion if the woman was raped....WHY would you do that?




    The unborn have no rights. If you think they do then how do their rights affect the rights of the woman?? There will be a conflict.
    WHO CAUSED the pregnancy has nothing to do with rights... NO connection...pregnant is pregnant doesn't matter how or who ..


    IF you think abortion is murder then you want women punished for having one.
     
  4. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Once again once a ovum is fetilized it is no long an ovum it is a ZYGOTE, a new an unique HUMAN BEING........Biology 101.

    Who cares that it is just a single cell for 30 hours. How many single cell human beings are aborted by their mother? NONE. So your point is specious at best.

    It's not word games it is science. Why do you deny the science?


    Please do try again

    Do you subscribe to the belief that equality, freedom, and justice apply universally to all human beings?

    In the meantime perhaps a little study might be called for

    "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).
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2023
  5. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Even gave you the message number when you falsely stated I had not provided you with a cite. For lurkers I will post again

    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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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
    3. 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.
    4. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
    5. 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
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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
    9. 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.
    10. 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
      1. C. Everett Koop, M.D., and Francis A. Schaeffer, Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (Fleming H. Revell Company, 1979), 40.
      2. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000), 57.
      3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5
      4. “State Laws on Fetal Homicide and Penalty,” National Conference of State Legislatures (May 1, 2018) http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx.
      5. 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/


    Ball is in YOUR court to prove YOUR claim that the baby is a physical part of the mother until it is born.

    And now you have this one waiting

    Do you subscribe to the belief that equality, freedom, and justice apply universally to all human beings?
     
  6. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,215
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Really? So if a woman has nobody who would miss her, nobody depending on her, and you murdered her in secret, that would be ok to you?

    The fetus is affected by it. So is anybody who has an emotional attachment to that fetus, such as the father, brothers and sisters, etc.

    How do you propose to make laws without any moral foundation? You just said murder and arson are crimes because it would cause chaos in society. On what amoral basis do you judge chaos in society as bad?

    The killing of a human being is homocide. Not all homocide is murder, as I stated upthread. Some homocide is excusable, and some is even laudable (ie, taking out a mass shooter).

    Again, you are trying to put words into the mouths of others. I said no such thing.

    Now you've actually caught up to my very first post in this thread. Yes, there will be a conflict when somebody has rights and somebody else wants to kill them. They should have a good argument why they should be allowed to do so. Bodily autonomy is the best candidate argument I've come across so far, but it won't convince everyone, and those who it doesn't convince aren't necessarily mysogynist monsters who want to punish women for casual sex.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2023
  7. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,215
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It matters because its the position you took. You said AT CONCEPTION; when sperm joins with egg. Do you now want to adjust that and set a different point in development?

    I am undecided where exactly I join you on this, but its well after your mere zygote, and well before FoxHastings' position at birth itself. I need a reason to care. I dont' care at all about a mere egg. I don't care at all about a mere egg that was just fertilized and is now a zygote. I do care about it experiencing pain, becoming self aware, and other things I would be exploring with people who came to this discussion who aren't radically on one side or the other like yourself and FoxHastings here. I find both of your positions equally radical and nonsensical.

    I do not deny the science. I reject your attempts at garnering more sympathy through wording.

    No I do not, if you include a merely fertilized egg (or zygote if you prefer) as a "human being". Nor do most people. Nor have you given any argument why they should.
     
  8. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Have you thought of trying facts rather than FEEEEELLLINGS ???

    NO, being sent to war has an out. Murdering someone in capital punishment is NOT forcing a person to use their body to sustain the life of another.
    Again , you have no idea what bodily autonomy means but keep talking anyway...

    If you want abortion banned then you are "forcing women".

    And YES, some ARE claiming MORE rights for fetuses...they want to give the fetus the right to use another's body to sustain their lives !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    NO one else has that right.

    AWWW, right back to FEEEEEELLLLINGS...that does help you avoid facts , doesn't it ;)

    LOL, devolved into weird dream scenarios....too pathetic.

    Sorry you don't know the difference between born and unborn....maybe less emotion would help?


    HOW? It feels nothing, knows nothing....

    Too bad but they aren't they PREGNANT ones.....

    Here's a shocker for you...WOMEN DO NOT OWE ANYONE A KID.... fact.

    Oh for pete's sake, you REALLY can't figure out how chaos in society is bad for society....??!!! You ARE floundering horribly :)


    A fetus IS part of the woman it's in...you think that's a radical view? Looks like science denial to me...

    IF it isn't then answer the question all Anti-Choicers avoid:

    If it is not part of the woman it's in WHY does it need to be there??

    Why can't it be put on a shelf to grow on it's own?


    OK, so you believe there's nothing wrong with abortion....you sure flip flop a lot


    If it's killing another "human being" then WHY TF shuldn't women gpo to jail or beexecuted for an abortion?????


    .

    Pregnancy only creates dangers to the pregnant woman..she is the ONLY person involved.

    And as I told you before if they are responsible then you and the government should butt out...




    YES, if they want to make exceptions for abortions due to rape they ARE directing punishment at women who had consensual sex.

    A fetus due to rape is EXACTLY the same as a fetus due to consensual sex....but they want the "rights" they claim fetuses have taken away IF they were the product of rape.. TOTALLY illogical.



    AGAIN:
    Too bad but they aren't they PREGNANT ones.....

    Here's a shocker for you...WOMEN DO NOT OWE ANYONE A KID.... fact.

    Yet you want fetuses to have rights like born persons......then if they are killed it is murder...can't get around that but I'm sure you'll try ;)
     
  9. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What position? My position is quite clear FROM CONCEPTION. You are the one claiming that since there is just one cell it is not a human being. I pointed out to you that is merely 30 hours and again ask how many abortions happen in the first thirty hours?

    It's not joining me it is about following the science, the biology and embryology, or some arbitary self-serving point in time. The biological fact is from conception there is a new human being. Our country is founded on the principle that there is a self evident truth to our inherent right to our life which we are created with. There is nothing radical about that, the radical is on the side that says a mother has a right to kill her unborn baby simply because she doesn't want it to live.

    I don't need your sympathy I have the facts of life backed by the science. Unless you agree to stipulate that a human being is created and begins it's life at conception as I have shown you with the medicial and scienitific text then you are denying the science. Now if one were to say that yes it is a human life that is killed in an abortion but that you believe a mother has a right to kill her unborn baby which overrides the right to life then that would not be denying the science.


    Me>> Do you subscribe to the belief that equality, freedom, and justice apply universally to all human beings?
    I have shown you the facts and again you deny the science in order to hold your position.
     
  10. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,215
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Naturally or by human intervention? Not many for the latter, but that's the period from which you are arguing for, so that's what i address. If you were arguing for a later stage, then we would be talking about then, and i may or may not agree with you at that point.

    That is pure equivocation. Your country is NOT founded on zygotes having equal rights to 12 year olds.

    Also, even if your country was founded on zygote rights, why would that matter to this discussion? Your country isn't the world. And your country was founded on many moral standards that have since changed (ie, slavery).

    Sorry. Looking at a single simple cell and deeming it your equal deserving the same human rights you have just because it contains some nucleic acid similar to yours is indeed radical.

    Science tells us what is. It does not tell us what we should do with what is. Science alone can't be a basis for an argument for or against killing any particular being. You need moral judgment for that.

    I can work with that definition right up until you try to equivocate or spin it with questions like:

    Or

    Now you want to consider a zygote on par with an infant in a crib?

    How many times must i answer that before you stop repeating it? The answer is NO. Not if you define "human beings" as including a zygote.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2023
  11. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Did you actually think we were talking other than induced abortion by the mother.



    It's the clear language of our founding document. ALL human beings, and we know that a human being is created at conception, have an self evidence right to their life that was inherent by their creation. It doesn't say when born, it doesn't say when they have brain waves, it does say when they are deem a person by some arbitrary measure.

    Were we founded on human rights? And no the United States was not "founded on slavery" slavery was a European concept and was established in this hemisphere by Europeans. It was left to the United States to rid itself of it which we did.


    ROFL a zygote is NOT a simple single cell and is ONLY single for the first thirty hours. You keep presenting this canard. It's DNA is unique to itself and only to itself. I posted to you the medical textbooks which are NOT radical the radical belief is anything otherwise.

    And in order to make a moral judgment you must deal with the scientific fact not just make up ones to suit a certain moral belief you are trying to sustain. Again I go back to our self evident truth that we are CREATED with our right to our life.

    Like: Do you subscribe to the belief that equality, freedom, and justice apply universally to all human beings?

    Why is that spin it is a fundamental question.

    By what measure. Are they the same size? No? Are both human beings? Yes. And why do you limit it only to the zygote stage of life instead of the fetus stage of life?


    You keep with the "if" monkey. I have told you and demonstrated to you the meaning of human beings. Why should I ignore the science and exclude ANY human being?
     
  12. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL, you always know when you've stumped someone when they put you on ignore :)
     
  13. Ritter

    Ritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,944
    Likes Received:
    3,018
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, because context matters. If the woman in question is willingly pregnant, you can call it a "baby" because it is her life and her desires that take precedence over the fetus', always.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2023

Share This Page