DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Ohio Senate passes ‘heartbeat’ abortion ban

Poor baby. Let’s all mourn.

But what we just saw is that your definition of a baby isn't born of science or anatomy or common sense - it is born of religion, simple as that. a cluster of cells not sticking to the uterine wall doesn't constitute "a baby" in most with the exception of the devoutly religious. So writing something like "what's silly is calling a baby anything but a baby" is really not straightforward and simple at all.

Is there any other legislation that is either inspired by or dictated by religion instead of science or common sense?

Commom sense, and egg gets fertilized and a baby starts growing. Now if he/she doesn't implant then he/she dies. If he/she implants in the tubes he/she is not going to live, if he/she is killed in uto by any other means it's just as sad.

That sir has zero to do with religion

calling a cluster of cells a baby is all about religion. Period.

It's like calling a collection of auto-parts needed to make a car - a car.... that's just not accurate. it can become a car - but it ain't a car.

A collection of cells at the stage when it does or doesn't stick to the wall and calling them a baby is not right imo.

Your wrong

No. You’re wrong. Twice in this case.

I agree. You are crazy.
You’re also wrong twice. Once in your wrong use of ‘your’ instead of ‘you're’.
The other in calling a zygote a baby. It’s a zygote. Did you not take high school biology?

Ah, spelling police.


I find it damn odd how .........lets say a person of 1 party points out a spelling issue, they get trashed as being the spelling police.

Yet, I've seen it time and again where, the 'other' side, can do that, and it's fine, and considered a valid point.

I’d rather be policed by the spelling police than to have some knuckle dragger make laws that police my body.
I think GM will live.

j/c

"As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions - Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother - the same position taken by Ronald Reagan."

President of the United States of America
Donald Trump

Hmmm, seems reasonable and I would think most of America agrees with that.

Unfortunately it won't get the issue before the Supreme Court so onward and upward for the extreme positions on both sides.

It's hardly even about religion.
Exodus 21:22 King James Version (KJV)
22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Even God understand that a fetus isn't a person.

I don't believe it's quite as simple as that. But, opinions are just that. Yours won't ever change.

The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31).

Yup.
Reasonable.
I differ, but I have no problem with this line of thinking. Lots believe like this.

I formed my opinion BEFORE I was a Christian. My opinion had nothing to do with Religion, yet you guys want to tell me it is. Your wrong it's plain and simple so stick with "your" spelling and grammar smack. I suck at both of those, and I don't care about them either.

I will be just fine as long as these cuts on my knuckles don't get infected

Okay. So now I know what night classes you should take. Remedial English and Biology 101. Maybe after some night classes your understanding of the difference between a baby and a zygote, and the difference between your and you’re will become clear.
Knowledge is power.

Sorry everybody who was going to teach those classes was killed off in the womb

No, we actually still have science even if our laws are stuck in the the 1950's...

Sadly they’re probably still using the same text books from the 50’s in many schools. Hence the ongoing confusion on the difference between a zygote, a fetus, and a baby.

I think the remaining 7 BILLION people already overpopulating this rock can probably muster another teacher or two from its ranks.

Honestly, being wrong as all hell and blaming your ignorance on an aborted fetus is such a boss move. Of course these people still don't see aborted fetuses as human beings, but just social tools exists solely for their self improvement, but it is a funny/boss move.

"Hitler would've known Jews are not the reason the Weimar Republic was failing, if only an aborted fetus grew up to tell him."

"Donald Trump would've had the capacity for love if only one of his mistress's aborted fetuses could look him in the eye and call him 'daddy'".

Like look at this completely unironic twitter post that someone made this weekend.



They're trying to cure their loneliness by idealizing aborted fetuses. Even aborted girlfriends

A Scientific View of When Life Begins
Maureen Condic, Ph.D. | June 11, 2014.

Click here for full PDF version of this report: On Point – Scientific View of When Life Begins



Questions about the very beginning of human life continue to surface in the media, usually in the context of a public policy issue like contraceptives vs. abortifacients, conscience policy, or cloning and related techniques. Recently, in an interview on Fox News, the issue was brought up by a public figure, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who, in response to a question about climate change, cited it as an example of political liberals refusing to recognize long-established science about human biology. “Facts are stubborn things,” the adage goes, but, unfortunately, so are politically or morally useful attempts to tailor the facts. CLI is pleased to publish this slightly updated version of Dr. Maureen Condic’s fine essay on the science of new life. The original version was published by Human Life International (HLI) and we offer it here with thanks to Dr. Condic and HLI for their permission to do so. For more information about HLI publications, please visit www.hli.org/resources.



A Scientific View of When Life Begins



The question of when human life begins has been answered in a variety of ways by different religious and philosophical traditions throughout the ages, leading many to conclude the question cannot be definitively answered. Yet what does science tell us about when life begins?[1] One of the basic insights of modern biology is that life is continuous, with living cells giving rise to new types of cells and, ultimately, to new individuals. Therefore, in considering the question of when a new human life begins, we must first address the more fundamental question of when a new cell, distinct from sperm and egg, comes into existence.



The scientific basis for distinguishing one cell type from another rests on two criteria: differences in what something is made of (its molecular composition) and differences in how the cell behaves. These two criteria are universally agreed upon and employed throughout the scientific enterprise. They are not “religious” beliefs or matters of personal opinion. They are objective, verifiable scientific criteria that determine precisely when a new cell type is formed.



Based on these criteria, the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg clearly produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. Cell fusion is a well studied and very rapid event, occurring in less than a second. Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type: its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it.



Subsequent to sperm-egg fusion, events rapidly occur in the zygote that do not normally occur in either sperm or egg. Within minutes, the zygote initiates a change in its internal state that will, over the next 30 minutes, block additional sperm from binding to the cell surface. Thus, the zygote acts immediately to oppose the function of the gametes from which it is derived; while the “goal” of both sperm and egg is to find each other and to fuse, the first act of the zygote is to prevent any further binding of sperm to the cell surface. Clearly, the zygote has entered into a new pattern of behavior, and therefore meets the second scientific criterion for being a new cell type.



What is the nature of the new cell that comes into existence upon sperm-egg fusion? Most importantly, is the zygote merely another human cell (like a liver cell or a skin cell) or is it something else? Just as science distinguishes between different types of cells, it also makes clear distinctions between cells and organisms. Both cells and organisms are alive, yet organisms exhibit unique characteristics that can reliably distinguish them from mere cells.[2]



An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” (Merriam-Webster) This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism. Organisms are “living beings.” Therefore, another name for a human organism is a “human being”; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human.



Human beings can be distinguished from human cells using the same kind of criteria scientists use to distinguish different cell types. A human being (i.e., a human organism) is composed of human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic molecular composition and behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to “carry on the activities of life.”



Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.



In contrast to human embryos, human cells are alive and, under some circumstances, they can assemble into primitive tissues and structures. Yet under no circumstances do mere human cells produce the kind of coordinated interactions necessary for building a fully integrated human body. They do not produce tissues in a coherent manner and do not organize them so as to sustain the life of the entity as a whole. They produce tumors; i.e., parts of the human body in a chaotic, disorganized manner. They behave like cells, not like organisms.



The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.



*Dr. Condic is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She is also Director of Human Embryology instruction for the Medical School and of Human Neuroanatomy for the Dental School.



[1] Condic, M.L. (2008). “When does human life begin? A scientific perspective.” Westchester Institute White Paper. 1(1): 1-18. Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person, Thornwood, NY. (available at: http://www.bdfund.org/whitepaperst/). [Reprinted in: Natl Cathol Bioeth Quart. 9(1):127-208.]

[2] Condic, M.L. (2014). Totipotency; What it is and what it is not. Stem Cells and Development, 23(8): 796-812 (available at: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/scd.2013.0364).

Sorry, all my science is done by aborted fetuses. So this is wrong.

So CHS have a seat on my couch. Now just how long have you been talking to aborted babies? It's OK your in a safe place now you can talk about it.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-m...rtion-1.3506968

Interesting read.

Thanks for proving my point. Others seem to want to say Science doesn't recognize human life begins at conception. My link for a Scientist says it does. Your link says it doesn't. Round and round we go and right back to square one like people have been for years. It still always comes down to opinions. I think my opinion is right, and you and the others who disagree with me think their opinion is right. As far as this board goes I know my opinion is not going to change theirs, and they know their opinion will not change mine. I post on here hoping my opinion will maybe change the opinion of folks who read this board who are not members.

But even for those folks who disagree with me I love ya brothers and sisters. Never stop posting your opinions

Well 5% of scientists don't believe global warming is man made either. So there's that. I'm sure with the internet that if we look hard enough we can find someone, somewhere that will agree with us.

Yeah it's almost like bioethics isn't science but ethics...

I think it is wonderful when people like you stand up to give a voice to those who can not speak for life by themselves yet.

I am encouraged to see the same happening around the Country now, as adults are being held accountable for the decisions they make when it comes to the child's life.

So many options are available to adults to not become pregnant yet the child has but one option, relying on mom to not kill him or her.

It saddens me to see so many people who think they can not be successful in life without killing.

Can you please tell me where 95 percent of scientists disagree with her???

and where your common sense is not common or sense

Well I'm not the one who claims scientists agree with me. Maybe you could give us an idea of how wide spread this belief is among scientists.

WHY

Because people think if the majority of scientist are right then it's 100 percent true???

Scientists thought the world was flat...... wrong

Scientists use to say we couldn't go to the moon. Scientists have claimed things for facts and were proven wrong time, and time again. Yet some folks around here want to spout what they say as gospel and 110 percent correct even when it isn't.

I am sorry bro but I refuse to waster any more time chasing after answers when others refuse to do the same. Life is way to short to waste my time looking it up just so others around here can just say Nut Huh prove it, when they can't and don't do the same.

So by your own logic there's every reason to believe the sources you presented above are totally wrong. That's what i thought.

So if, to you, life begins when sperm hits egg, are fertility clinics that hold frozen zygotes prisons? Why is holding this ‘person’ frozen in development not some sort of torture? If the power goes out and the zygotes thaw, should the clinic be charged with mass homicide? If a clinic ‘wastes’ them for any reason should that be considered murder?
This is an honest question... What are your ethical thoughts around these fertilized egg ‘lives’?

There sure is a chance it is all wrong. Now please let me know ehen the other side admits that truth. Don';t hold your breath you and your kids, and grandkids could die first as many around here can't admit truths. They just want to stand on top of a soapbox and scream see I'm right, even when they are not.

Honest answers (which has always been what I have given you for almost 20 years.)

Frozen zygotes /babies I believe are held in frozan anamation are babies. If they get implanted and lead to a birth then I have no problem with that. If they are thrown away then I do have a problem with that and consider it murder.

If the power goes out I consider that an sorry accident. So no there should be no charges.



That depends on the reason. If they dumped then to save a few bucks then YES. If there were other reasons I would have to hear them before I formed my opinion.