The Proudest Hour of the Prolife Movement.

[L Gilbert]

Tonignton, an embryo is not human; it has potential to become a human being. And society recognizes that. Thus when a woman has a miscarriage, the state does not record the miscarriage as the death of a person. A woman is not required to hold a funeral for the embryo. Death of an embryo (miscarriage) is treated in a totally different manner than death of a person. A woman on welfare cannot start drawing welfare for two the moment she becomes pregnant. When government carries out census, it does not count the fetuses among its population. There are many ways in which the state acknowledges that an embryo is not a person, a human being.

All that means (chromosome number etc.) is that by a lot of care, attention, nurture and plenty of luck (there is always miscarriage, accidents etc.) the embryo may turn into a human being (i.e. a baby).

But the fact that it has the full chromosome number doesn’t make it any more human than it makes an acorn same as an oak tree. An acorn has the same chromosome count as a fully mature oak tree. But it would be absurd to claim that an acorn is the same as an oak tree. It is the same with embryo and a baby.

*guffaws* Here we have some putz from Staples telling a scientist what's what in biology. Freakin hilarious.
The more I read from this twit, the more I come to the conclusion that he's an aborted abortion.

 

[L Gilbert]

Is that better? I might need a lesson in block quoting multiple quotes myself! :lol:

Much better thank you. I thought you were doing fine, BTW.

 

[TenPenny]

Response to #289.

TenPenney, I may be totally wrong on this, but my understanding is that miscarriage occurs when a womans body, for whatever reason, by its own natural urges resists to support and then rejects an entity that may have become a human baby.

Again I may be wrong, but my impression and my admittedly limited knowledge is that abortion is forced activity, a total antithesis of nature and the contradiction of natural human reproduction. Let abortion rule and see humans go on the way of dinosaurs.

So, miscarriage is the same as abortion about as much walking is to riding in a car.

You are grossly ill (or un-) informed. To the point of being dangerous.

A miscarriage occurs when a woman 'loses' the pregnancy. That is, her body rejects the pregnancy and ends it. It can be spontaneous, due to illness, due to stress, due to many things. Many abortions are performed by inducing a miscarriage. It's a medical procedure. How do you think abortions are actually performed?

I'm always amazed at the number of people stating 'facts' about abortions who don't actually know what they are talking about, apart from the video they've been shown at some meeting, or some signs held up by nuts on the side of the road.

 

[Cannuck]

Why should they, Yukon? It is none of the sperm donor’s business; he doesn’t have to carry the pregnancy for nine months. He doesn’t have to suffer as a result of complications arising out of pregnancy. It is between a woman and her doctor.

This is, hands down, the silliest argument the pro-choice camps use. Pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception. Therefore, they believe an innocent child is being killed. To suggest that an innocent child dying is none of their business is so incredibly moronic it defies description. The ONLY real issue in the abortion debate is when life begins. All other arguments are nothing more than smoke screens.

 

[JLM]

"The ONLY real issue in the abortion debate is when life begins."- For starters, anything that is alive has always been alive since it was first an entity.

 

[Tonington]

I think when one cell starts dividing, that's a pretty good starting point. One parent cell, two daughter cells, 4 daughter cells, and onwards.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Response to #289.

TenPenney, I may be totally wrong on this, but my understanding is that miscarriage occurs when a womans body, for whatever reason, by its own natural urges resists to support and then rejects an entity that may have become a human baby.

Again I may be wrong, but my impression and my admittedly limited knowledge is that abortion is forced activity, a total antithesis of nature and the contradiction of natural human reproduction. Let abortion rule and see humans go on the way of dinosaurs.

So, miscarriage is the same as abortion about as much walking is to riding in a car.

If abortion is man killing a baby, then miscarriage is God (or mother nature) killing a baby. I don’t see any difference between the two.

 

[L Gilbert]

^Him doesn't see much of anything past his beak.

This is, hands down, the silliest argument the pro-choice camps use. Pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception. Therefore, they believe an innocent child is being killed. The suggest that an innocent child dying is none of their business is so incredibly moronic it defies description. The ONLY real issue in the abortion debate is when life begins. All other arguments are nothing more than smoke screens.

Pretty much. Yup

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I think when one cell starts dividing, that's a pretty good starting point. One parent cell, two daughter cells, 4 daughter cells, and onwards.

That is an arbitrary point, Tonington; there is no logical reason for that. Just because it has chromosomes, DNA etc that does not make it a baby, it is still a fetus, an embryo. At most one could say that it is a potential baby, but then the same could be said about the sperm.

 

[L Gilbert]

I think when one cell starts dividing, that's a pretty good starting point. One parent cell, two daughter cells, 4 daughter cells, and onwards.

Sounds reasonable.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"The ONLY real issue in the abortion debate is when life begins."- For starters, anything that is alive has always been alive since it was first an entity.

And from that how does it follow that life begins at conception? That is a circular definition.

 

[lone wolf]

Sounds reasonable.

Not to Ya but....

 

[DaSleeper]

*guffaws* Here we have some putz from Staples telling a scientist what's what in biology. Freakin hilarious.
The more I read from this twit, the more I come to the conclusion that he's an aborted abortion.

Naah.....Don't need to work ......only Doctor G needs to work....
Someone has to do the housework;-)

 

[Tonington]

That is an arbitrary point, Tonington; there is no logical reason for that. Just because it has chromosomes, DNA etc that does not make it a baby, it is still a fetus, an embryo. At most one could say that it is a potential baby, but then the same could be said about the sperm.

And a baby is a potential teenager. A potential breeder. A potential adult. A potential funeral.

Pretty arbitrary, to begin the classification of a human at some later point in development, ehh?

It is living. It is some species, no? It is a human. Tell me how it is not, without rhetoric please.

 

[L Gilbert]

That is an arbitrary point, Tonington; there is no logical reason for that. Just because it has chromosomes, DNA etc that does not make it a baby, it is still a fetus, an embryo. At most one could say that it is a potential baby, but then the same could be said about the sperm.

You wouldn't know logic if it bit your nose off and made you eat it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

And a baby is a potential teenager. A potential breeder. A potential adult. A potential funeral.

Pretty arbitrary, to begin the classification of a human at some later point in development, ehh?

Tonington, everybody agrees that at birth, it is a baby. Nobody is arguing otherwise. The question is what the situation in the womb is. And here there are disagreements.

So baby to teenager to adult etc. is a sequence consisting of human beings, everybody is in agreement about that. As I said before, life is difficult to define, scientists do not agree on one particular definition.

However, there are instances when we know life when we see it. Baby comes into that category, nobody disagrees that it is a baby. So this classification is anything but arbitrary.

 

[lone wolf]

Tonington, everybody agrees that at birth, it is a baby. Nobody is arguing otherwise. The question is what the situation in the womb is. And here there are disagreements.

So baby to teenager to adult etc. is a sequence consisting of human beings, everybody is in agreement about that. As I said before, life is difficult to define, scientists do not agree on one particular definition.

However, there are instances when we know life when we see it. Baby comes into that category, nobody disagrees that it is a baby. So this classification is anything but arbitrary.

If you've had to guess what the bump was beforehand, perhaps you should ask about the birds and the bees. Storks really don't bring 'em....

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It is living. It is some species, no? It is a human. Tell me how it is not, without rhetoric please.

Is it living? We don’t know. It is living in the sense that life has no beginning nor end. That way even when a person dies, that does not end the life. The cells in human body can remain alive indefinitely in a Petri dish.

So is the embryo alive in the sense that dead body is alive, or in the sense that a human being is alive? We don’t know. Embryo is alive in the sense that the cells that comprise embryo are alive. But the cells that comprise a dead body are also alive. So that really doesn’t tell us if it is a human being or not.

 

[lone wolf]

Is it living? We don’t know. It is living in the sense that life has no beginning nor end. That way even when a person dies, that does not end the life. The cells in human body can remain alive indefinitely in a Petri dish.

So is the embryo alive in the sense that dead body is alive, or in the sense that a human being is alive? We don’t know. Embryo is alive in the sense that the cells that comprise embryo are alive. But the cells that comprise a dead body are also alive. So that really doesn’t tell us if it is a human begin or not.

This is the about most idiotic non-answer that has ever graced these forums.

 

[Tonington]

Tonington, everybody agrees that at birth, it is a baby. Nobody is arguing otherwise. The question is what the situation in the womb is. And here there are disagreements.

I explained to you a while back that the embryo has it's own biochemistry, different from it's mother's. Without that difference, the embryo would die. Nobody disagrees on this. At least nobody who knows a little bit of biochemistry.

So baby to teenager to adult etc. is a sequence consisting of human beings, everybody is in agreement about that. As I said before, life is difficult to define, scientists do not agree on one particular definition.

Would you agree that an entity with energetic needs, which needs biological systems to utilize energy, deal with waste products, maintain homeostasis, is a living thing?

However, there are instances when we know life when we see it. Baby comes into that category, nobody disagrees that it is a baby. So this classification is anything but arbitrary.

That's not the classification that is arbitrary. It was your definition of a human that is arbitrary.

Is it living? We don’t know. It is living in the sense that life has no beginning nor end.

It is living in the sense that it has a definite biochemistry system to deal with the issues of being a living thing...

The cells in human body can remain alive indefinitely in a Petri dish.

But the whole body, ie the human being, cannot.

So is the embryo alive in the sense that dead body is alive, or in the sense that a human being is alive? We don’t know.

I know. You don't know.

I am quite certain that your denial of modern biology and chemistry, and the complex interplay between the two is driven purely by your politics.

Embryo is alive in the sense that the cells that comprise embryo are alive. But the cells that comprise a dead body are also alive. So that really doesn’t tell us if it is a human begin or not.

Right, the DNA is what tells us it was a human. Please stop being so obtuse.