Canada Stands Alone On Anti-abortion
- Thread starter Liberalman
- Start date
According to the nucleic acid it carries it is human. As to the fact that it's alive, see below.
It's definitely biologic material, with metabolic activity. It grows. It develops tissues. It develops organs. It's not inert. It has bio-energetic demands. It carries genetic information from a maternal and paternal progenitor. More importantly the maternal body is tuned to provide the basics that all life require, to the developing embryo. Biochemical pathways have evolved different forms of haemoglobin so that oxygen will be carried across the maternal/natal barrier.
See how the oxygen dissociates from maternal haemoglobin compared to the fetus? The mother's haemoglobin has a lower affinity for oxygen. If this wasn't so, the maternal haemoglobin would not give up the oxygen which passes over to the developing fetus.
That is clearly biochemistry. Obviously a living thing.
Take your pick. None of those characteristics are found amongst something that is not living.
And? How does this relate to the living human in the womb?
As you can see by the list I gave above, it's not at all an arbitrary definition. It's religious to claim that there is no good reason in the face of ample evidence provided by science to the contrary.
Straw man. Nobody contends that it is the same as an adult. Just as nobody contends that an infant is.
According to the nucleic acid it carries it is human. As to the fact that it's alive, see below.
It's definitely biologic material, with metabolic activity. It grows. It develops tissues. It develops organs. It's not inert. It has bio-energetic demands. It carries genetic information from a maternal and paternal progenitor. More importantly the maternal body is tuned to provide the basics that all life require, to the developing embryo. Biochemical pathways have evolved different forms of haemoglobin so that oxygen will be carried across the maternal/natal barrier.
See how the oxygen dissociates from maternal haemoglobin compared to the fetus? The mother's haemoglobin has a lower affinity for oxygen. If this wasn't so, the maternal haemoglobin would not give up the oxygen which passes over to the developing fetus.
That is clearly biochemistry. Obviously a living thing.
Take your pick. None of those characteristics are found amongst something that is not living.
And? How does this relate to the living human in the womb?
As you can see by the list I gave above, it's not at all an arbitrary definition. It's religious to claim that there is no good reason in the face of ample evidence provided by science to the contrary.
A cancer tumour displays all these properties. How is a cancer tumour different from a fetus in the early stages? Just because something has human DNA, human nucleic acids does not make it human.
If you want to show reverence to the fetus from the moment of conception, want to treat the fetus as something holy, something sacred, should we then not show the same regard for the cancer tumour?
Of course an embryo is the beginning of a human life.
An egg and sperm are the two halves of the beginning of
human life, and almost everyone with exception of the
catholic church and a few others think birth control is OK
I am not religious but I respect the
catholic church for realizing that ending the effort of
sperm and egg to be able to form an embryo isn't any
different than ending an embryo after those cells have
joined, it is 'all' the beginning of life.
I am OK with a woman making a decision to have an abortion
'very early on', it is her decision, it is her body, and
no one else has the right to interfere with that process.
I also do not think that women use abortion as a means of
birth control, an abortion is a big decision for any woman,
and doing that is 'her' decision alone. A woman will have
a child when she decides she is ready to do that, or not.
Too many babies come into the world for the wrong reasons,
do not have a good and proper beginning to their lives, and
many suffer badly along the way.
Adoption is also not a choice in my opinion, as, when a
woman takes a pregnancy to full term, she is not about to
just give her baby away, that is not an easy thing to do,
as the baby then is a viable human being, ready to live it's
life, not the same in any way to the new embryo during the
first trimester.
I have entered this discussion many times, that is my view
on this situation, and I won't be back to argue with anyone,
we all have our viewpoint on this subject, if any of my
daughters had decided to have an abortion, 'very early on',
I would have supported her all the way, because I know she
would have had a very good reason to do so.
I do not support 'late' abortions, unless it is going to
be a life and death decision either for the mother, the baby or both.
An egg and sperm are the two halves of the beginning of
human life, and almost everyone with exception of the
catholic church and a few others think birth control is OK
I am not religious but I respect the
catholic church for realizing that ending the effort of
sperm and egg to be able to form an embryo isn't any
different than ending an embryo after those cells have
joined, it is 'all' the beginning of life.
I am OK with a woman making a decision to have an abortion
'very early on', it is her decision, it is her body, and
no one else has the right to interfere with that process.
I also do not think that women use abortion as a means of
birth control, an abortion is a big decision for any woman,
and doing that is 'her' decision alone. A woman will have
a child when she decides she is ready to do that, or not.
Too many babies come into the world for the wrong reasons,
do not have a good and proper beginning to their lives, and
many suffer badly along the way.
Adoption is also not a choice in my opinion, as, when a
woman takes a pregnancy to full term, she is not about to
just give her baby away, that is not an easy thing to do,
as the baby then is a viable human being, ready to live it's
life, not the same in any way to the new embryo during the
first trimester.
I have entered this discussion many times, that is my view
on this situation, and I won't be back to argue with anyone,
we all have our viewpoint on this subject, if any of my
daughters had decided to have an abortion, 'very early on',
I would have supported her all the way, because I know she
would have had a very good reason to do so.
I do not support 'late' abortions, unless it is going to
be a life and death decision either for the mother, the baby or both.
That is just what many prolifers contend. They claim that there is no difference between the product of conception and a new born baby, and that the fetus deserves the same rights as a new born baby from the moment of conception. That is what the argument is about.
Nope. Doesn't form organs or tissues. Is not a distinct new assortment of nucleic acid.
The growth of a fetus has limits. The growth of a cancerous tumor does not. Cancer cells are abnormal, they have normal pathways turned off, or attenuated. A fetus doesn't grow because a suppression gene is turned off by a mutation.
What does it make it?
I'm not showing reverence. I'm just poking holes in your one-sided portrayal of what we understand about biology and human life.
And one last note on that regard, please refrain from attributing motivation to my words, unless you want me to start doing likewise to you.
Citation please. I'm not going to take your word that anyone believes that a fetus is exactly the same as an adult. If they do, then they are as wrong about the biology as you are.
And how does that make the fetus human at conception?
You are simply giving differences between a fetus and a tumour. But why should that make a fetus human at conception?
I don't know. That is my whole point. But we don't know that it is human, unless we accept somebody's arbitrary definition of what a human is.
What we understand about biology is that we don't know when life begins, and to claim that life begins at conception s purely an arbitrary statement. To claim that a fetus is a human being is even more arbitrary.
I did not say an adult. If you read my post fully you will find that what I am saying is that prolifers regard a fetus same as a new born baby. Hence their epithet of baby killers to doctors who perform abortions. Also that is why they accuse anybody who is pro choice of supporting the killing of babies.
Are you kidding me? If it doesn't satisfy you that it's a human, then what do I call you? You have all of these characteristics. The only difference is that you've already gone through that stage of your life, and the fetus is in the process of completing it.
You're getting into a farcical area of nonsense here if you can't agree to those terms.
Why wouldn't it? It has the full chromosome number, and it is doing the same as every human before it, developing. Can you cite any evidence which would disqualify it as a living thing? As a member of Homo sapiens?
Please define your use of the word arbitrary. A human has fairly distinct characteristics. A living thing has fairly distinct characteristics. Put them together and you get a live human. Of course there are disagreements, but we can evaluate the validity of these arguments.
It's not rocket science Joseph.
Well, you said fully developed. I didn't actually think that to you a fully developed human can be a new born and an adult...
"Also that is why they accuse anybody who is pro choice of supporting the killing of babies."
That is exactly what they are doing, they just do it a few months ahead of time.
That is exactly what they are doing, they just do it a few months ahead of time.
Actually, No. I'm not having fun. You've swallowed hook, line, & sinker. This Thread
is 9 pages long (at about maybe 25 posts per page?) & your post is currently
#174.
If I have to keep coming back to this Thread, over & over for reported posts, I'll
have to shut it down so that I can keep up...and it might take me a few days to
get around to going through this Thread...at least until after Easter anyway.
Nobody is getting into farcical nonsense, Tonington. You are making up the rules as you go along. You unilaterally decided that if something has human DNA, it must be a human being. Why?
Has that definition been accepted by science? By the courts? By the Parliament? Who has accepted that definition, except you and the prolifers?
I have already said that it is a living thing. As to me citing anything, I believe the responsibility is upon you to prove that it is a human being.
Arbitrary is something that someone decides on his own, with no backing from science, judiciary, legislature etc. Your definition of what constitutes a human being (that it has human DNA) is not accepted by anybody except the prolifers.
No doubt the fetus shows some human characteristics. It even has a potential to develop into a human being. But that no way implies that it is a human being.
It is the same as say an acorn and an oak sapling. Is the acorn same as oak sapling? It most certainly isn’t. It has the same DNA as an oak sapling, and it has potential to develop into an oak sapling. Fetus and a newborn babe are similar.
Then I will shut up..... because no one likes being told they are supporting murder, or that they are supporting continued irresponsibility by allowing lazy, self centered, narcissistic women to use abortion as birth control because they don't want to be inconvenienced by the pregnancy or they can't keep their knees together.
In that same post I also said that prolifers regard the fetus at conception to be the same as newborn baby. I was quite clear, explicit about that.
Possibly it's accepted science ... from scientific research - you know - the stuff you claim to be absolutes. What is it you REALLY need?