Saved a Life!

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

There’s no such thing. A sperm is not an autonomous living human being. It carries information, that’s all.[/quote]

A sperm is an autonomous living sperm
[/quote]

Correct, not a human…

This might clear up some of your misconceptions from a source I know you cannot argue against. He’s a bioethicist

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4857703[/quote]

It does not rule out that the egg and the sperm are Human Organisms as well
[/quote]

Seriously? You need your very basic biology broken down for you at a cellular level? On their own neither cell is it’s own autonomous human specie.

http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/aobjetEmbr/objectembryo.html

Here. I am not an embryologist, so you can read the work of people who are.
So from the link:
"After the spermatozoon has docked onto the oolemma, a coalescence of the two membranes takes place. This makes it possible for the structures lying inside the spermatozoon to enter the cytoplasma of the oocyte. One calls this process the impregnation of the oocyte. Among other things the nucleus with the highly concentrated DNA, the centrosome that lies across the nucleus in the neck region and the mid piece with the mitochondria and the kinocilium (tail) are transferred.

The genetic material, lying in the nucleus and coming from the father, is unpacked and is used for building the paternal pronucleus. In what follows, the centrosome plays an important role in the convergence of the two pronuclei. Later - after the subsequent division - it will also be responsible for building the first division spindle of the new creature. All centrosomes in the bodily cells of a human originate from that of the father.
Other sperm components transferred to the oocyte cytoplasm, like the kinocilium, are dissolved. Effective processes also exist for eliminating sperm mitochondria from the cytoplasm of the oocyte.
Thus, all mitochondria in the bodily cells of an individual normally derive from the mother alone"

So what that means is that a sperm cell is a cell that originates from the father, but is not itself a human person. Much like you eyeball has eyeball cells, but are not a separate and distinct human aside from the person it belongs to. It’s an eyeball cell. Now your eyeball has your DNA and nobody else’s. Your sperm has your DNA and nobody elses. When the abovementioned process finishes, the result is a being with different DNA than either the sperm or the egg originally had. The cells with it’s own unique and separate DNA are a different being than the host, not the same. Hence a separate human being, not a part of an existing human being.

Now quiz time, do you believe that two distinct separate persons can run into each other and become one? Because that is what you are talking about by saying a sperm or egg is the same as a person in the zygote stage.[/quote]

You have posted 2 articles the 1rst says

“The adult that is you is the same human being who, at an earlier stage of your life, was an adolescent, and before that a child, an infant, a fetus and an embryo. Even in the embryonic stage, you were a whole, living member of the species Homo sapiens. You were then, as you are now, a distinct and complete â?? though, of course, immature â?? human organism.”

He calls the adult a human being he calls the immature a human organism .

If you want to cut and paste the specific aspect of your second article I will discuss it

Am I the only one who thinks it doesn’t matter what the “definition of human life” is? Why bother approaching abortion from that standpoint anyway?

IMO the rule should just be no abortion unless there is a medical need for the mother to have one. That medical need would certainly include potential psychological damage to the mother if she had a baby that was the product of rape.

Inconvenience as a result of your stupid decisions does not qualify as a medical need. That’s not a good enough reason to kill your potential baby imo.

[quote]csulli wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks it doesn’t matter what the “definition of human life” is? Why bother approaching abortion from that standpoint anyway?

IMO the rule should just be no abortion unless there is a medical need for the mother to have one. That medical need would certainly include potential psychological damage to the mother if she had a baby that was the product of rape.

Inconvenience as a result of your stupid decisions does not qualify as a medical need. That’s not a good enough reason to kill your potential baby imo.[/quote]

IMO I think that until that until the point of viability the life at at the discretion of the mother

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks it doesn’t matter what the “definition of human life” is? Why bother approaching abortion from that standpoint anyway?

IMO the rule should just be no abortion unless there is a medical need for the mother to have one. That medical need would certainly include potential psychological damage to the mother if she had a baby that was the product of rape.

Inconvenience as a result of your stupid decisions does not qualify as a medical need. That’s not a good enough reason to kill your potential baby imo.[/quote]

IMO I think that until that until the point of viability the life at at the discretion of the mother
[/quote]

So if a mother shakes her 3 week old infant to death, no criminal charges should be brought then?

Good to know where you stand.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks it doesn’t matter what the “definition of human life” is? Why bother approaching abortion from that standpoint anyway?

IMO the rule should just be no abortion unless there is a medical need for the mother to have one. That medical need would certainly include potential psychological damage to the mother if she had a baby that was the product of rape.

Inconvenience as a result of your stupid decisions does not qualify as a medical need. That’s not a good enough reason to kill your potential baby imo.[/quote]

IMO I think that until that until the point of viability the life at at the discretion of the mother
[/quote]

So if a mother shakes her 3 week old infant to death, no criminal charges should be brought then?

Good to know where you stand. [/quote]

A 3 week old can live without it’s mother . In this discussion that is viable . Remember we
are not talking about buffalo hunting with primitive weapons

[quote]csulli wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks it doesn’t matter what the “definition of human life” is? Why bother approaching abortion from that standpoint anyway?

IMO the rule should just be no abortion unless there is a medical need for the mother to have one. That medical need would certainly include potential psychological damage to the mother if she had a baby that was the product of rape.

Inconvenience as a result of your stupid decisions does not qualify as a medical need. That’s not a good enough reason to kill your potential baby imo.[/quote]

Would be 100% on board with this.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^ The point, though, that the U.S. is in some questionable company, is a good one. But then that argument has to stand for capital punishment, too.[/quote]

GREAT POINT.

We’ve been over this, Abortion & Capital Punishment are not the same thing.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

A 3 week old can live without it’s mother .
[/quote]

A 3 week old infant cannot survive on its own. It cannot shelter itself, it cannot feed itself, shit it can barely use its 5 senses.

Whether it is the mother, father or a robot from the Jetsons, that infant needs someone else t take care of it in order to survive. The infant out of the womb doesn’t pass your viability test in any way that it would have 5 or more weeks earlier.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
We’ve been over this, Abortion & Capital Punishment are not the same thing.[/quote]

Agreed, although I’m not a strong supporter of capital punishment either. In fact I don’t support it really. I’m not about to tell Texans how to run their state, but at the same time, I don’t know that it is the correct way to do things.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

A 3 week old can live without it’s mother .
[/quote]

A 3 week old infant cannot survive on its own. It cannot shelter itself, it cannot feed itself, shit it can barely use its 5 senses.
[/quote]

A 3 week old infant can live with Dad or Aunt Susie or worst case the State

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

A 3 week old can live without it’s mother .
[/quote]

A 3 week old infant cannot survive on its own. It cannot shelter itself, it cannot feed itself, shit it can barely use its 5 senses.
[/quote]

A 3 week old infant can live with Dad or Aunt Susie or worst case the State
[/quote]

As could have the aborted fetuses you champion.

EDIT: you cut off the part of the post where I addressed that irrelevant factoid.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

A 3 week old can live without it’s mother .
[/quote]

A 3 week old infant cannot survive on its own. It cannot shelter itself, it cannot feed itself, shit it can barely use its 5 senses.
[/quote]

A 3 week old infant can live with Dad or Aunt Susie or worst case the State
[/quote]

As could have the aborted fetuses you champion.

EDIT: you cut off the part of the post where I addressed that irrelevant factoid. [/quote]

It has been several Abortion threads ago , but I brought up in vitro adoptions and you would have thought I proposed something unthinkable . What would be wrong with that . I could see it as cutting down the numbers of abortion and could see very little down side ?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

As could have the aborted fetuses you champion.

EDIT: you cut off the part of the post where I addressed that irrelevant factoid. [/quote]

I do not champion abortion , I champion the mother’s right to decide what is best for her and her unborn child

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

As could have the aborted fetuses you champion.

EDIT: you cut off the part of the post where I addressed that irrelevant factoid. [/quote]

I do not champion abortion , I champion the mother’s right to decide what is best for her and her unborn child

[/quote]

In what scenario is abortion what’s best for the unborn baby?

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
We’ve been over this, Abortion & Capital Punishment are not the same thing.[/quote]

No doubt about that. One of those is the unquestionably non-defensive taking of an unquestionably self-sustaining life. For what it’s worth, I’m 110% opposed to abortion. I’m not going to argue with someone whose stances on most issues I agree with, and who seems like a good guy; I just wanted to point out that smh made a great point.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

As could have the aborted fetuses you champion.

EDIT: you cut off the part of the post where I addressed that irrelevant factoid. [/quote]

I do not champion abortion , I champion the mother’s right to decide what is best for her and her unborn child

[/quote]

In what scenario is abortion what’s best for the unborn baby?[/quote]

Rape

so am I but I am not a mother

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

As could have the aborted fetuses you champion.

EDIT: you cut off the part of the post where I addressed that irrelevant factoid. [/quote]

I do not champion abortion , I champion the mother’s right to decide what is best for her and her unborn child

[/quote]

In what scenario is abortion what’s best for the unborn baby?[/quote]

Rape [/quote]

So woman get’s pregnant via rape and killing the baby is what’s best for the baby?

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
We’ve been over this, Abortion & Capital Punishment are not the same thing.[/quote]

No doubt about that. One of those is the unquestionably non-defensive taking of an unquestionably self-sustaining life. For what it’s worth, I’m 110% opposed to abortion. I’m not going to argue with someone whose stances on most issues I agree with, and who seems like a good guy; I just wanted to point out that smh made a great point.[/quote]

Ya, I know. I just couldn’t stop myself :wink: