Public Funding for Abortion

None of what you have posted above explains "why" - a zygote is a living human.

For example:

First off - no claim is made that a human exists.
Second - no explanation is given for why the claim "a zygote is a human" is true.

Third - I already gave you a chapter from a developmental biology textbook (a domain science unlike embryology) explaining the 5 different scientific perspectives on "when human life begins". Four (4) of those perspectives contradict the "human life begins at conception" claim.

In order to prove your " human life begins at conception" claim true - all the other 4 contradictory claims must be refuted. None of your sources has even attempted this.

In fact most of your sources do not even support your claim. You just have reading comprehension issues.

 

I cant put it any more clearly than I already have.

I dont understand the difference between killing innocents for oil or regime change, and killing them for sexual or financial liberty, and I never will. You may consider me 'impassive' in this.

(Should we prevent abortion from being subsidized?)

So while you support subsidizing it, you ALSO chastize me for drawing attention to the possibility that it might one day be subsidized... in the 'Public Funding for Abortion' thread... lol.
Maybe you thought this was the 'Supporters of Public Funding for Abortion, ONLY' thread?

Probably not. But this is the 'Public Funding for Abortion' thread. The benefits/drawbacks of abortion, pregnancy adoption seem pertinant to the topic, thats why I adressed them but not ALL the other subjects in life...

.................

No argument here. The problem is that you seemed to be insinuating that my opinion based on my anecdotal evidence was somehow less valid than your opinion based on your anecdotal evidence. Perhaps I was mistaken.

Fair enough. Would you agree that we should take steps to better educate women (or just everyone) on the potential side effects of abortion IF I would agree that we should take steps to better educate everyone on the potential side effects of pregnancy? Cuz I totally agree with both.

I always recomend adoption, both to people considering abortion AND to people considering pregnancy. Done and done!

Women are not (always) the only people involved in the decision to abort. Husbands, boyfriends, (potential)grandparents, doctors and abortion clinic workers all may push a women to abort against her instincts, or deceive her of the ramifactions and alternatives (just as they might to with pregnancy). Its not my place to judge the individuals decision. I am judging the institution of abortion as reprehensible and abominable, not the individual women who make use of it.

As a similar example: I judge the institution of drone strikes on civilian targets as reprehensible and abominable. The guy pushing the button is just following orders and likely thinks hes killing terrorists. The politicians issuing the orders, the military contractors lobbying to expand the program and the general indifference of The People who barely pay any attention to it are 'the institution' to which I object.

That is a very good (and complicated!) question!

I feel an obligation to try and understand the circumstances that brought the murderer to murder, the rapist to rape, the terrorist to terrorize. I dont always succeed. Nobody is perfect.

When I was in high school, I went to Arizona for a couple weeks to build Habitat for Humanity homes at a Christian Mission School on a (Cherokee?) reservation. There were a lot of 'misfortuned' children there. One of them was a 6 year old boy who had already raped multiple girls (probably infants). He was taken from a 'home' where rape was just a matter of daily life, like saturday morning cartoons and playing in the creek. I hate rape, and I do typically hate rapists. But I dont hate that little boy. He is probably a man now, and probably a rapist. If he is, I really dont know if I would hate him or not. He should certainly be locked up, and I wouldn't blame any of his victims for killing him. But I dont think I hate him, just like I try not to hate women who abort their babies, even though I hate abortion.

I dunno whether that makes my position any more clear, but thats the best I can tell you.

And yet despite those meddling Republicans, we DO have social services that aid CHILDREN, like Welfare, WIC, SNAP, healthier meals in school, education, etc.

Just cuz 'the other team' has the upper hand for a while is no reason to give up.

 

I know you will never acknowledge the difference between BORN and UNborn but there is a big difference.

No, no more, and no less, than any other medical procedure.

I have no idea what that was all about....funny you feel "chastised"

Just curious if to abortion is your only "war" against people living life...

.................

.

My evidence isn't anecdotal...I've read about women who have had abortions....most feel relief(which is intended)....and sure, some feel bad but that hasn't got anything to do with it being legal or subsidized or funded or anything else...

Nope, no forced education is necessary....if women have a question they can ask their doctor.

How about to those women you said you knew had abortions and were feeling really bad.....did you suggest maybe they'd feel better if they adopted ??

Totally beside the point. IF abortion were made illegal it will be the woman who had the abortion who is charged and tried.

Sorry, it won't work that way....you're taking a personal act by one person and spreading the responsibility to make it look like women are just helpless victims(just following orders)....they won't be if abortion is ever made illegal

Reminds me of the trouble Trump got in when he said, and rightly so, if abortion was illegal of course women would be prosecuted.
Anti-Choicers do NOT want that pointed out, it makes them look like they want women punished(which is exactly what they want).

You're doing a very similar thing, trying not to make it look like that abomination is really the woman's fault ...

Ohplease! As if there's six year old rapists all over the place....good squirm and dodge though...

YES, that the REPUBLICANS are attempting to cut funding to them........watch the news,read a newspaper....sweet jaysus!

I never mentioned giving up but trying to get Republicans to spend more on those "precious lives" outside of the womb is an uphill battle...especially when they ARE trying to CUT funding...

 

You keep going back to this. I have not advocated anywhere that abortion should be made illegal.

How is it a refutation against anything Ive said?

 

Then you have nothing to say because it already is illegal for federal funds to be used for abortion.

 

I missed those links do supply them again, what I gave you is textbook, it is what is taught in universities and medical schools, it is not "perspective". I have proved it to you and no the textbooks are not refuted. There statements are clear and unequivocal.

 

And of course your claims are utter nonsense, refute the textbooks.

 

What are you talking about. I gave you a chapter from a developmental biology textbook (subject matter domain as opposed to embryology). It does not teach what you claim (that the science is settled)

What it teaches is that there are five different scientific "Perspectives" on when life begins: Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Neurological, Ecological.

http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pd

In this textbook each perspective is explained and "the why" is given - strengths and weaknesses of each perspective.

The perspective that agrees with your "human life begins at conception claim" is the Genetic perspective.

The article then goes no to explain what these "discoveries" are.

You posted a bunch of short quotes from a pro life website. Most of which do not even support your claim. Nothing in any of your quotes explained "why" that claim is true. As such, your post was a big "appeal to authority" fallacy.

If you can explain why the claim "human life begins at conception" is true - then do so.

 

Already done but I will happily do so again. Give the textbook that you think is the best proof for your claim and I will refute.

 

File 404

And it appears those are "ethical perspectives"

Here is the science

1. “The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.”

Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

2. “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”

Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

3. “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.”

Coy et al., Roles of the oviduct in mammalian fertilization, REPRODUCTION 144(6):649 (Oct. 1, 2012) (emphasis added).

4. “Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.”

Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013). National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013).

5. “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.'”

Steven Ertelt”Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” LifeNews.com11/18/13

6. “Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

7. “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”

Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974.

8. An embryology textbook describes how birth is just an event in the development of a baby, not the beginning of his/her life:

“It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.”

F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi

9. “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

10. “Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.”

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1
11. “Your baby starts out as a fertilized egg… For the first six weeks, the baby is called an embryo.”

Prenatal Care, US Department Of Health And Human Services, Maternal and Child Health Division, 1990

12. “Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. was first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization: ‘The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.’

“Zygote is a term for a newly conceived life after the sperm and the egg cell meet but before the embryo begins to divide.”

From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40

13. The medical textbook, Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects, states:

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.”

Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

14. “Thus a new cell is formed from the union of a male and a female gamete. [sperm and egg cells] The cell, referred to as the zygote, contains a new combination of genetic material, resulting in an individual different from either parent and from anyone else in the world.”

Sally B Olds, et al., Obstetric Nursing (Menlo Park, California: Addison – Wesley publishing, 1980) P 136

15. “The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation, and fertilization … The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.”

J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. 1974 Pages 17 and 23.

16. “Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote.”

T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.

17. “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

18. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”

Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

19. “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”

Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co
20. “The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body.

“Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”

James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
https://www.liveaction.org/news/40-...s-that-prove-human-life-begins-at-conception/

I got twenty more.......the science is settled and as taught in the sciences.

And Embryology is the branch of Biology which studies that of which we speak.

 

Embryology is not the domain science for determining what a human is and you clearly can not follow directions well.

Naked claims are not an argument for much - regardless of how pre-eminent the source.

I asked you to provide something that states "why" the claim " human life begins at conception" is true.

You have not done so.

Posting a bunch of quotes thinking that volume somehow makes up for your lack of explanation ... is not an argument for much... and especially not when the quotes are such laughable nonsense.

For example:

The first thing to note is that "obstetric Nursing" has zero to do with defining what a human is or when human life begins. It is simply not in that domain.

The second thing to note is that the quote does prove your claim true. All it does is state that a new "individual" has been created. This term is "NOT" a technically specific scientific term. "individual what ?" individual human cell ?

The third issue is that if this term means "individual human" then this is logical fallacy - assumed premise. No explanation of why this new individual cell (a technically correct term) is a human.

Fourth - the question is "when does human life begin". Just because we say "human life begins here" does not mean a human exists. This quote does not even address the question "when does human life begin" never mind give an explanation of why that claim is true.

Posting volumes of nonsense does not make it any less nonsense.

Do you have anything that explains why your claim is true ?