Instead of asking such a retarded question, why not try it the intelligent way? Define what a human being is, then show what characteristics a zygote or a fetus has in common with the defined human being and then if there there are more than one you can honestly declare that it is.
The term "human being" is two separate words that form one idea. Defining its meaning is not so simple as looking up both words in a dictionary and splicing them together. The word "being" means "something that exists." If you splice that with "human," you get "something that exists that is human." That could be a human hair, a skin cell, or any number of things. If determining the meaning were so simple as looking in a dictionary, there would not be an ongoing and age-old debate about it. Not true, there is no consensus.
hey, talk to Cady, it's HER information...she said the rates are the same regardless..why you hatin' on me?
You are the one that called PP a failure and no doubt you pulled that self serving tripe right out of your rectum. Had it been real information, not yet another dishonest attempt by you, you could back it up and not need to deflect or blame someone else.
You've distorted the information as usual. Illegal or legal, the rates of abortion are about the same. But countries that have government funded contraception and comprehensive sex education for everyone have lower abortion rates. Planned Parenthood provides a valuable service, but if it recieved more government funding, it could serve more people, and more effectively reduce the number of abortions.
.....which is still an entirely arbitrary point for determining when life begins. As has been addressed over and over again on this forum. In addition to that, I've got news for you. Most pro-lifers support the right of a woman to choose whether or not to be pregnant too. It's called prudence. Also known as discretion, circumspection, responsibility, and common sense. Also known as taking the pill or wearing a rubber. Or not getting wasted and worrying about it in the morning. I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get the point. However, since you want to get technical here, I'll go ahead and replace the word "child" with the words "human life" since evidently dictionary.com (which you didn't cite, by the way) would rather play it safe and remain politically correct. But my initial point still stands. Whether they want to acknowledge it or not, the stance of the pro-abortion crowd still technically supports the termination of a human life. Dress it up any way that makes you feel comfortable, but that is still what you are doing. Oh, come on now. You act like your side doesn't do the same exact thing. Did you miss my first post in this thread? I called out the pro-aborts for calling pro-lifers "anti-choice." If you have no problem with your own side stacking the deck in their favor, you can't get mad when the opposition returns the gesture. Unless you're willing to admit that you can dish it out, but you can't take it. Which makes you a hypocrite.
If we were pro death, we would advocate, and push for, abortion in every pregnancy. We don't, so therefore we cannot be pro choice. Lifers, however, advocate, and push for, forced gestation when the woman falls pregnant unexpectedly. It is more logical to refer to lifers as being anti choice than it is to call pro choicers 'pro death'.
I didn't intend to determine when life begins. And yes, it has been addressed in this forum and outside of it by scientists, theologists and philosophers for all time, yet no consensus has been reached. I've got news for you. In spite of prudence, discretion, circumspection, responsibility and common sense, taking the pill, or wearing a rubber, and not getting wasted, women still have unwanted pregnancies. Contraception can fail, and yes, during their childbearing span of 30 years, women can make mistakes. That doesn't mean women shouldn't have the right to plan the number and spacing of their children. You are still playing word games. By "a human life," why don't you just say what you meant? Didn't you mean "human being"? But that won't work because you know there is no consensus that an embryo or fetus is a human being. We kill human life routinely. If you support war, killing in self defense, or the death penalty, you support the termination of human life. Not only that, but if you are (ironically) "pro-life" you support the termination of human life, since empirical evidence shows that illegal abortion results in more deaths. Why do you continue to ignore that fact?
If it makes you feel better by all means use the term "pro-death". It doesn't change the slightest thing in the actual debates on the issue or the lives of all the people they affect of course, but that's not who this is really about is it.
Now that we have looked at the formation of the mature haploid sex gametes, the next important process to consider is fertilization. O'Rahilly defines fertilization as: " the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments, and ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote. The zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular embryo."9 (Emphasis added.) The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes--the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. Quoting Moore: "Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.) This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being--the single-cell human zygote--is biologically an individual, a living organism--an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen: " [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."13 (Emphasis added.) In sum, a mature human sperm and a mature human oocyte are products of gametogenesis--each has only 23 chromosomes. They each have only half of the required number of chromosomes for a human being. They cannot singly develop further into human beings. They produce only "gamete" proteins and enzymes. They do not direct their own growth and development. And they are not individuals, i.e., members of the human species. They are only parts--each one a part of a human being. On the other hand, a human being is the immediate product of fertilization. As such he/she is a single-cell embryonic zygote, an organism with 46 chromosomes, the number required of a member of the human species. This human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes, directs his/her own further growth and development as human, and is a new, genetically unique, newly existing, live human individual. After fertilization the single-cell human embryo doesn't become another kind of thing. It simply divides and grows bigger and bigger, developing through several stages as an embryo over an 8-week period. Several of these developmental stages of the growing embryo are given special names, e.g., a morula (about 4 days), a blastocyst (5-7 days), a bilaminar (two layer) embryo (during the second week), and a trilaminar (3-layer) embryo (during the third week).14 http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_01lifebegin1.htmlSorry, but it's a biological, established fact: the zygote is a human being. This in itself is not an argument to outlaw abortion (although it could certainly be applied to such an argument) -- pro-choiers certainly shouldn't deny this fact as it damages their credibility and shows that they are not very educated in the subject matter.
LMAO! I can see it now, " Now how in the he'll did I fall into a pregnant state?" Like it just (*)(*)(*)(*)in happens by chance....lmao!
Sorry, it is not an established biological fact. In the first place, it is more than simply a biological question; it is also philosophical. Why is it that you KNOW the zygote is a human being, but Carl Sagan, one of the most brilliant scientists ever, speculated about it in his book, Billions and Billions, and stated his theory of when a fetus becomes a human being, " when the beginning of characteristically human thinking becomes barely possible"? There is no consensus.
All we need to know is that each and every one of us posting in this thread was once a zygote. It's simply a stage that human beings pass through. A human being (life) is created at the moment the sperm enters the egg and the process begins.
It means the way you go about getting fewer abortions doesn't justify less abortions per say. The methods by which you reduce abortions must be moral and ethical. I don't know where revenge came intO it.
Really? You must have seen something of the Discovery Channel and now you think it applies to everything. What about those who were brought by the stork? You mean it has a hole in it? How big? Now being and life are the same thing? How about a dead guy? Are the sperm and egg DEAD?
Why is the beginning relevant? Why does it have to be determined WHEN it starts? Really? I thought that was the name of a character in an old James Garner western. How about if the slut is just unlucky, not knowledgeable or or prudence just fails? OK then, why is that human life significant? But you can not show any reason why that is wrong. You are right, does that make it OK? Then go right ahead if you think that that is the way to convince anyone.
Whether you believe that or not is no reason to force your morals on another woman and demand she carry to term - like some lifers are currently advocating.
Perhaps if you read my quote... Actually, Carl Sagan admitted that the zygote is a human being -- but he argued against it being a person, other selective wording, etc. "A sperm and an unfertilized egg jointly comprise the full genetic blueprint for a human being." http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
