90% of Children with Down Syndrome are Aborted

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
621

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
A zygote is already an individual life. Being that a human zygote, and embryo, are already moving through an individual human life cycle (fact) it is an individual human life. It is innocent, endowed with the capability to develop it’s features and faculties, barring disease or premeditated murder, and in the vast majority of time, naturally present in the womb due to the actions of others.

Abortion = Takes an innocent, properly existing in place, individual human life. Knock off the cowardice, own it, and argue it for what it is.[/quote]

Depending on your definition practically all the cells in my body are alive.

What if we find totipotent cells in the adult human body?

Some cells seem to come awfully close.[/quote]

I’m sorry Orion, but the science is settled. Has been settled. The zygote is an INDIVIDUAL ORGANISM already in it’s OWN life cycle. With humans, it’s a human life cycle. It’s not your somatic cell, like a hepatocyte or an erythrocyte. It’s an individual organism. The same organism, start to finish.
[/quote]

And yet, it does not fit the most basic requirements of a living human being.

Human live yes, human being, no.

[/quote]

Really, and what are the natural requirements of a human being?[/quote]

Its on the last page somewhere.

We may not know when someone is alive, but we do know when a human being is dead:

Either when the circulatory and respiratory system or the brain, including the brain-stem is gone beyond repair.

Then you are dead, dead, dead, as long as they are working you are a living and , um, breathing, human being.

A zygote has neither one of those, let alone in working condition.[/quote]

A zygote has it’s capacities intact.
[/quote]

But those are not the capacities of a human being.

622

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Science proves life starts at the moment of conception.

There is no little boxes, in that regard.

[quote]orion wrote:
I dont know.

Gradual processes are notoriously difficult to put into neat little boxes, the best you can do is be aware that your definitions are more of an heuristic nature. [/quote]
[/quote]

As I said, sperm are alive.

Blood cells are too, they have a metabolism, they react to outside stimuli, they obviously must be maintaining some sort of homeostasis…[/quote]

Sperm is a gamete, a haploid cell. Blood cells are somatic cells of an individual human organism. Neither are individual human organisms on their own life cycles. You are not a different stage of an individual blood cell’s life cycle. You are that organism in the womb, at a different stage on the same life cycle.
[/quote]

Drones are haploid- are they not alive?

Well you can define blood cells as part of an organism, I say they are very specialized creatures living in a very unique environment and they do have a complex symbiotic relationships with other cells in my body.

Also, neither you, or me are the same organism that lived in that womb, every last one of those cells is long dead.
[/quote]

Go hang out with the young earthers. Pro-choice ‘science’ is just as wanting. You are the same organism. The human life cycle isn’t a story of different organisms replacing each other at stages. So, take your medieval-like mysticism down the road. Drones are alive, that wasn’t the point. The point was that sperm, haploid gametes, are immediately recognizable as not being individual human organisms. They, along with your somatic cells, are not individual human lives. The zygote is already an individual human moving through it’s life cycle. This is settled.
[/quote]

Good, than define me life in a way that makes sperm not alive.

Also, what seems to be “immediately recognizable” to you baffles the people who make a living studying those things.

Your definition is political, because you want the definition fit a certain outcome.

When will you stage a vigil, remembering the death of billions of zygotes that were aborted by nature?

623

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Stop being a coward.[/quote]

Stop rationalizing your unfounded gut instincts.[/quote]

I’ve not a said single thing that isn’t in the Bio and A&P textbooks sitting next to me.
[/quote]

That just goes to show that it is wanting.

What is “life” is one of those questions religions, philosophy and science have debated for centuries and it is not settled because it cannot be.

624

This might be interesting for some:

Seen that way, life is something that wrestles order from entropy.

625

Also, sperm can even reproduce.

There is no necessity to see sperm as a way for humans to reproduce, what if humans are the way sperm reproduces?

626

And the Muslim take on this, which neatly sidesteps quite a lot of things Christians have to deal with:

If the soul is breathed into the embryo after four months, are we to understand that the sperm which joins with the woman?s egg, from which the embryo is formed, has no soul, or what?

Praise be to Allaah.

Both the sperm and the ovum are alive in a sense which, if they are free from defects, prepares each of them to join with the other, if Allaah wills and decrees it to happen. When that happens, if Allaah wills it, the embryo is formed and is also alive in a manner that suits it and prepares it to grow and develop, moving through the known stages. When the soul is breathed into it, it becomes alive in another sense, by the permission of Allaah, the Subtle One, the Aware. No matter how a man tries, even if he is a highly-skilled doctor, he can never comprehend all the secrets and stages of development of pregnancy. Allaah says (interpretation of the meanings):

?Allaah knows what every female bears, and by how much the wombs fall short (of their time or number) or exceed. Everything with Him is in (due) proportion. All-Knower of the unseen and the seen, the Most Great, the Most High.? [al-Ra?d 13:8-9]

?Verily, Allaah! With Him (Alone) is the knowledge of the Hour, He sends down the rain, and knows that which is in the wombs?? [Luqmaan 31:34]

(Fataawa Islamiyyah li?l-Lajnah al-Daa?imah, 488).

Life is of varying kinds, and each being is alive in a manner that suits it by the power of Allaah. So plants are alive in a manner that suits them, sperm is alive in a manner that suits it, and man is alive in a manner that suits him, and so on. Allaah is the Creator of all this, and He has made water the basis of every living thing, as He says in the Qur?aan (interpretation of the meaning):

?Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?? [al-Anbiya? 21:30]

And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

627

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Science proves life starts at the moment of conception.

There is no little boxes, in that regard.

[quote]orion wrote:
I dont know.

Gradual processes are notoriously difficult to put into neat little boxes, the best you can do is be aware that your definitions are more of an heuristic nature. [/quote]
[/quote]

As I said, sperm are alive.

Blood cells are too, they have a metabolism, they react to outside stimuli, they obviously must be maintaining some sort of homeostasis…[/quote]

Sperm is a gamete, a haploid cell. Blood cells are somatic cells of an individual human organism. Neither are individual human organisms on their own life cycles. You are not a different stage of an individual blood cell’s life cycle. You are that organism in the womb, at a different stage on the same life cycle.
[/quote]

Drones are haploid- are they not alive?

Well you can define blood cells as part of an organism, I say they are very specialized creatures living in a very unique environment and they do have a complex symbiotic relationships with other cells in my body.

Also, neither you, or me are the same organism that lived in that womb, every last one of those cells is long dead.
[/quote]

Go hang out with the young earthers. Pro-choice ‘science’ is just as wanting. You are the same organism. The human life cycle isn’t a story of different organisms replacing each other at stages. So, take your medieval-like mysticism down the road. Drones are alive, that wasn’t the point. The point was that sperm, haploid gametes, are immediately recognizable as not being individual human organisms. They, along with your somatic cells, are not individual human lives. The zygote is already an individual human moving through it’s life cycle. This is settled.
[/quote]

What I just though of is this.

Not a single sell of the zygote you once were is still alive and yet you insist that you are the same organism.

That in and of itself is not very entertaining, that you accuse me of medieval mysticism in the same breath kind of is.

628

[quote]orion wrote:

Not a single sell of the zygote you once were is still alive and yet you insist that you are the same organism.

That in and of itself is not very entertaining, that you accuse me of medieval mysticism in the same breath kind of is. [/quote]

Crack open a biology book. It’s the same organism, on the same individual life cycle. Will we be debating a flat earth, next?

629

[quote]orion wrote:
Also, sperm can even reproduce.

There is no necessity to see sperm as a way for humans to reproduce, what if humans are the way sperm reproduces?[/quote]

Stop playing at stupid. Science already tells us that an individual human life is taken during an abortion. The individual organism begins it’s life cycle at the zygote. At that point, you’re only looking at developmental stages of that already existing life, period. And being that we’re talking about the occupant of a human womb, we’re talking about a human life. Go stand in the corner with the young earthers. From now on, if I see a pro-choicer in an evolution thread going after young earth creationists, I’m going to slam them with their pro-choice mysticism. Over and over.

630

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Also, sperm can even reproduce.

There is no necessity to see sperm as a way for humans to reproduce, what if humans are the way sperm reproduces?[/quote]

Stop playing at stupid. Science already tells us that an individual human life is taken during an abortion. The individual organism begins it’s life cycle at the zygote. At that point, you’re only looking at developmental stages of that already existing life, period. And being that we’re talking about the occupant of a human womb, we’re talking about a human life. Go stand in the corner with the young earthers. From now on, if I see a pro-choicer in an evolution thread going after young earth creationists, I’m going to slam them with their pro-choice mysticism. Over and over. [/quote]

You are still equating a “human life” with a “human being”.

Science does not and to imply that it even could is highly disingenuous.

Science is and necessarily must be, silent on this matter.

All it can tell you that at the moment of the fertilization of a human egg a process is started that MIGHT lead to a human being, though it most likely wont.

631

These are claims you are just making. Prove to me that sperm or blood cells have the same characteristics as a human embryo.

[quote]orion wrote:
As I said, sperm are alive.

Blood cells are too, they have a metabolism, they react to outside stimuli, they obviously must be maintaining some sort of homeostasis…[/quote]

632

[quote]orion wrote:

Science is and necessarily must be, silent on this matter. [/quote]

So the pro-choicer relies on the unknown ‘when’ of an unfalsifiable ‘human being soul’ being imparted to a human life in order to continue support for the premeditated taking of innocent individual human lives. Mysticism.

633

The argument is basically, “unless you can demonstrate that there is a ‘soul’ of a human being assigned to the individual human life already present, it’s fair game.” Of course, science can’t falsify souls at any stage of development, either.

634

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The argument is basically, “unless you can demonstrate that there is a ‘soul’ of a human being assigned to the individual human life already present, it’s fair game.” Of course, science can’t falsify souls at any stage of development, either.[/quote]

I’m still undecided but science doesn’t have to falsify souls. The burden of proof for the existence of a soul is on those making the claim it exists.

635

Again I must address your post in multiple points.

[quote]orion wrote:
And again, human life=human being. [/quote] We are in agreement here. [quote] Since scientific definitions seem to matter to you, there are two scientific standards. [/quote] You are never telling me how these two scientific standards are against each other. Science proves the case of life, nothing else. [quote] Zygotes live up to (hah!) some of the ones defining the first one, they do not meet the requirement for the latter. [/quote] What “requirement for the latter” does a human zygote fail to meet? [quote] Obviously not all human live is a human being. [/quote] This sentence makes zero sense.

[quote] Then, most pregnancies fail. That is a well documented and dare I say it, scientific, fact. [/quote] Again, we have a claim with nothing to back the sentence you type. Provide proof to your claim please.

[quote] Either the zygote does not implant or is rejected and yet even the most staunch pro lifers do not mourn the senseless deaths of hundreds of millions of “babies” each year. [/quote] I believe I might follow the point you are trying to make. Through the normal cycles of nature, a couple can have sex and create life. Not every single embryo implants in the uterine wall. However there is a huge difference between and embryo which doesn’t implant naturally and a couple/woman who decides to eradicate and destroy the embryo when IT IS IN FACT IMPLANTED in the uterine wall.

636

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
These are claims you are just making. Prove to me that sperm or blood cells have the same characteristics as a human embryo.

[quote]orion wrote:
As I said, sperm are alive.

Blood cells are too, they have a metabolism, they react to outside stimuli, they obviously must be maintaining some sort of homeostasis…[/quote]
[/quote]

Well, being alive and having the same characteristics as a human embryo is not quite the same, dont you think?

637

Which point do you need evidence for? I have told anyone, including you, to ask for evidence when my point is failed to be expressed in a manner you understand.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Again, you are making claims with nothing to back the statements.
[/quote]

More than half your “arguments” are made with no foundation. Most of the rest are either copy pasted from biased websites or made appealing to the authority of your previous statements (which have no foundation).[/quote]

638

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Science is and necessarily must be, silent on this matter. [/quote]

So the pro-choicer relies on the unknown ‘when’ of an unfalsifiable ‘human being soul’ being imparted to a human life in order to continue support for the premeditated taking of innocent individual human lives. Mysticism. [/quote]

No, he relies on not knowing when a human being is actually present.

And of course on the a priori assumption that while the lines are fuzzy, a fertilized egg is not even comparable to a fully developed human being.

I do not know when a human being becomes a human being, but the moment of conception is not it.

At this point it is little more than an ambitious amoeba.

639

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Again I must address your post in multiple points.

[quote]orion wrote:
And again, human life=human being. [/quote] We are in agreement here. [quote] Since scientific definitions seem to matter to you, there are two scientific standards. [/quote] You are never telling me how these two scientific standards are against each other. Science proves the case of life, nothing else. [quote] Zygotes live up to (hah!) some of the ones defining the first one, they do not meet the requirement for the latter. [/quote] What “requirement for the latter” does a human zygote fail to meet? [quote] Obviously not all human live is a human being. [/quote] This sentence makes zero sense.

[quote] Then, most pregnancies fail. That is a well documented and dare I say it, scientific, fact. [/quote] Again, we have a claim with nothing to back the sentence you type. Provide proof to your claim please.

  • Yet again, a functioning respiratory and circulatory system and/or a functioning brain, including the brain stem. A zygote does not even have them, let alone functioning ones.

  • I do not wish to dig up information on how many zygotes fail to become a human being. If you think that this matter is so deeply important than it is really up to you to look up information that disagrees with you, just on the off chance that what you take for granted might be wrong.

Which, in this case, it apparently is.

640

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The argument is basically, “unless you can demonstrate that there is a ‘soul’ of a human being assigned to the individual human life already present, it’s fair game.” Of course, science can’t falsify souls at any stage of development, either.[/quote]

I’m still undecided but science doesn’t have to falsify souls. The burden of proof for the existence of a soul is on those making the claim it exists.

[/quote]

The ones bringing in the descent of some kind of human being ‘soul’ are the pro-choicers. So the burden is on them.