Planned Parenthood

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
You guys are throwing out in my mind hypotheticals that make no sense to the topic. Reason being is the main flux of this whole argument is when people believe life begins. [/quote]

Again, link one single authoritative paper that disagrees with the following:

A unique human life begins at conception.

Until you can prove that wrong, you are wrong and I am right. It isn’t a matter of opinion, but rather cold, hard scientific fact. [/quote]

Ectopic pregnancy refutes your argument in most cases. [/quote]

How on earth does the location of implantation make the organism a) not a unique human or b) not alive?

The location of implantation has jack and shit to do with WHAT is implanting. Just because it unfortunately doesn’t implant in an area conducive to survival (or safety for the mother) doesn’t make it not a unique human being.

I mean, does that mean people who live in Alaska aren’t humans? Or people who live in the Amazon? It’s odd to live there… So they aren’t people anymore because of where they are?

Did Armstrong stop becoming a person when he landed on the Moon?

This is absurd.

Based on what criteria? Your feels? Because it certainly isn’t based on science. What is it then? A dog? A tree? Acorn? Oh I know, it’s a fish?

Whether conception happens in the body or a test tube, or a tea cup, it is still a unique human being at conception. Which you can’t prove otherwise.

Fucks I give about what a religion thinks is a person: zero.

I don’t care what religion thinks what. I care about the fact science dictates it is a unique human being from conception. This is irrefutable fact.

Personhood is made up nonsense used to justify slavery, holocaust and now abortion.

The only debate is whether all people should be treated equal or not. Democrats say no, they shouldn’t. I disagree. This is the only time opinion matters. Because if someone is of the opinion that life doesn’t begin until some other point than conception they are dead wrong. And if someone is of the opinion that a person isn’t a person based on how old they are, or what they look like, they are no better than a slave owner, segregationist or a Nazi…

[/quote]

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine represents fertility specialists in the United States and more than 100 other countries. The group’s spokesman, Sean Tipton, tells CNN that his organization opposes the Mississippi initiative “because it interferes with the physicians’ ability to provide needed care for their patients, whether that’s helping someone have a child or keeping them from having children.”

Tipton says while a fertilized egg is necessary to make a person, fertilization alone is not enough to create a new human being. “A fertilized egg has to continue to grow, attach itself to a woman’s uterine wall and gestate for nine months before it is born, and there are many potential missteps (that can happen) along the way.”

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s Tipton points out that sometimes fertilized eggs split and create two babies. “Unfortunately nature and science are messy and defy attempts to create human categories.”

He adds that while saying personhood begins at conception is a nice ideological statement, it can create some real life problems. For example, unless an egg is fertilized in an IVF petri dish, it can be difficult to determine when exactly a baby was conceived because sperm can survive inside a woman’s body for days and it can take several more days for a fertilized egg to implant in the uterus, thus leading to a pregnancy and the potential birth of a baby.

“There are lots of fertilized eggs that never become human beings,” Tipton says. “Humans are notoriously inefficient producers, and we believe most (fertilized eggs) actually go out with a woman’s menstrual flow.”

From a pro-life Dr.about a law in Miss.-In vitro fertilization treatments could become more difficult because of the legal question of what to do with the unused eggs.

An unused fertilized egg is a human life, said DeCook, because â??it has the momâ??s DNA and the fatherâ??s DNA,â?? The unused fertilized eggs should be adopted through an embryo adoption program, he suggested.

â??We determine a human being by chromosome, so although they (abortion rights supporters) have all sorts of word games. Theyâ??re only word games,â?? he said.

Counting do you also determine human life after conception as 46 chromosomes? Are humans without 46 chromosomes not human?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
You guys are throwing out in my mind hypotheticals that make no sense to the topic. Reason being is the main flux of this whole argument is when people believe life begins. [/quote]

Again, link one single authoritative paper that disagrees with the following:

A unique human life begins at conception.

Until you can prove that wrong, you are wrong and I am right. It isn’t a matter of opinion, but rather cold, hard scientific fact. [/quote]

Ectopic pregnancy refutes your argument in most cases. [/quote]

How on earth does the location of implantation make the organism a) not a unique human or b) not alive?

The location of implantation has jack and shit to do with WHAT is implanting. Just because it unfortunately doesn’t implant in an area conducive to survival (or safety for the mother) doesn’t make it not a unique human being.

I mean, does that mean people who live in Alaska aren’t humans? Or people who live in the Amazon? It’s odd to live there… So they aren’t people anymore because of where they are?

Did Armstrong stop becoming a person when he landed on the Moon?

This is absurd.

Based on what criteria? Your feels? Because it certainly isn’t based on science. What is it then? A dog? A tree? Acorn? Oh I know, it’s a fish?

Whether conception happens in the body or a test tube, or a tea cup, it is still a unique human being at conception. Which you can’t prove otherwise.

Fucks I give about what a religion thinks is a person: zero.

I don’t care what religion thinks what. I care about the fact science dictates it is a unique human being from conception. This is irrefutable fact.

Personhood is made up nonsense used to justify slavery, holocaust and now abortion.

The only debate is whether all people should be treated equal or not. Democrats say no, they shouldn’t. I disagree. This is the only time opinion matters. Because if someone is of the opinion that life doesn’t begin until some other point than conception they are dead wrong. And if someone is of the opinion that a person isn’t a person based on how old they are, or what they look like, they are no better than a slave owner, segregationist or a Nazi…

[/quote]

Unfortunately there’s no agreement in medicine, philosophy or theology as to what stage of foetal development should be associated with the right to life.

That isn’t surprising, because the idea that there is a precise moment when a foetus gets the right to live, which it didn’t have a few moments earlier, feels very strange.

And when you look closely at each of the suggested dates, they do seem either arbitrary or not precise enough to decide whether the unborn should have the right to live.

Nonetheless, as a matter of practicality many abortion laws lay down a stage of pregnancy after which abortion is unlawful (because the foetus has a right to life), and the dates chosen are usually based on viability.

As we’ve seen, there are difficulties with choosing a precise point when the unborn gets the right to live.

Although it’s uncomfortable to be so imprecise, the right answer may lie in accepting that there are degrees of right to life, and the foetus gets a stronger right to life as it develops.

This answer has the value of reflecting the way many people feel about things when they consider abortion: the more developed the foetus, the more unhappy they are about aborting it, and the more weight they give the rights of the foetus in comparison with the rights of the mother.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Baby born without brain brain turns 2 - YouTube [/quote]

Is this a person? [/quote]

So, is this a person?

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
Unfortunately there’s no agreement in medicine, philosophy or theology as to what stage of foetal development should be associated with the right to life.[/quote]

So shouldn’t we use the earliest stage then just to be on the safe side?

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
It is ok because by definition the fetus is not a “human life” at that point. [/quote]

Using your own argument, I have already shown you were this is incorrect. Try again.[/quote]

Where did you prove my argument to be incorrect? You haven’t posted a single link to EEGs on fetuses being largely incorrect. You say they are incorrect, but thats just stating your opinion. There is a lot know about fetal development its been studied a lot. Most experts as far as I have read know the timeline of fetal development (when things happen, when brainwave occur, when organs are formed, etc.) I would like to read any links you have. I am not trying to start fights attacking character or person attacks like other people, just trying to have a healthy debate.[/quote]

The part where I used your own argument was in fetal reaction to external stimuli. Has nothing to do with EEG as an EEG in and of itself cannot be used as the sole determinant of brain death. By reacting to stimulation (a needle prick) it is shown to have enough higher function to wait and see if current condition improves and in this case, we all know it will. So by your own argument, 8 weeks is the latest you could perform an abortion although there is at best a 1 week margin for error in determining fetal age so you would have to call it 7 just to be absolutely safe. One more caveat to using the rules for determining death to determine life, there has to be reasonable belief that the situation is irreversible. When discussing a fetus, is there a reasonable belief that there current state of being at any point will not improve?

Note: I don’t personally subscribe to your way of thinking, however, I am just pointing out the flaws in your line of thinking that the rules used to determine death when applied in reverse would lead to a fetal age of 20+ weeks. The problem was, you fell for the misdirection of EEGs.

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
That isn’t surprising, because the idea that there is a precise moment when a foetus gets the right to live, which it didn’t have a few moments earlier, feels very strange.

And when you look closely at each of the suggested dates, they do seem either arbitrary or not precise enough to decide whether the unborn should have the right to live.[/quote]

So we should err on the side of caution then and use the earliest stages of development, right?

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
As we’ve seen, there are difficulties with choosing a precise point when the unborn gets the right to live.[/quote]

So we should be super careful and use the moment of conception, right?

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
Although it’s uncomfortable to be so imprecise[/quote]
I bet it’s really uncomfortable to the fetus while it’s being crushed to death.

[quote]
the right answer may lie in accepting that there are degrees of right to life, [/quote]

Degrees of a right to life, you can’t be serious?

[quote]
and the foetus gets a stronger right to life as it develops.[/quote]

This is some next level shit here. I don’t even know what to say.

The problem has arisen because you think that the EEG is the be all end all of determining death. It most certainly is not. It probably is the most accurate but again, having an isoelectric EEG is merely the biggest clue to determining death, and the problematic caveat for you is the current condition has to be reasonably assumed to be irreversible, which in a fetus it is not.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
old styl , you will see it their way or you will be marginalized , they control the board . You will find a couple that will disagree on minor points , This thread will show you the method of operation of the CJS[/quote]

I don’t mind him. He is making an effort to be intelligently disagreeable. You’re an idiot.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

…There are people on there experts on the show that agree with you and experts that agree with me.

[/quote]

So one way or the other we as a society are going to err, right? Right?

Right?

On which side should we err? Life? Death? It’s a choice. Which one should we choose?

Tell me.

So in that statement you just directly admitted the fetus is a living human. And you advocate for the wholesale execution of millions of living humans (just like Margaret Sanger did) because an indistinct, theoretical, questionable threshold has not been crossed. With that in mind what is the distinction between folks like you and slavers? And Nazis?

Remember, the “IT’S LEGAL” leg of your stool has been taken away from you because:

  1. Slavery was also legal
    2} Nazi genocide was also legal

Now, again, answer the question: with that in mind what is the distinction between folks like you and slavers and Nazis?[/quote]

I didn’t say that it was a “human life”. I said the cells in the fetus are obviously living and the fetus is not an oak tree, or an elephant, or a tiger. Like I said before science is still up in the air on when it is a “human life” or another way to put it unlawful to terminate the pregnancy. Like I have said previously I don’t agree with slavery or genocide because I have my own arbitrary time of when it is unlawful to end a pregnancy just like you guys have yours. Because once again it is not as cut and dry as you guys make it seem in the scientific community.

Was going to write more, but getting out of work.

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
old styl , you will see it their way or you will be marginalized , they control the board . You will find a couple that will disagree on minor points , This thread will show you the method of operation of the CJS[/quote]

I don’t mind him. He is making an effort to be intelligently disagreeable. You’re an idiot.[/quote]

no you don’t mind him because the CJS is beating up pretty good , another unsuspecting victim , how long you think he will last ? Either becomes one of you or you never hear from him again

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Right from WebMD:

Ectopic pregnancies can be scary and sad. The baby probably can’t survive –

So… Yeah, that doesn’t refute shit. [/quote]

what does it refute ?

[quote]Blowharder wrote:
Living human = human life

in anyone’s English speaking world.[/quote]

Living Human Sperm is Human Life in any one’s English Speaking World