96% of biologists...life begins at fertilization

Gonzomin said:
Clumps of non-sentient cells is different. They are far, far removed from resembling a person. They are not entitled to rights that overpower a woman's.
Any rightys who want to force a girl to have a baby she cannot support and does not want should be willing to take it and raise it.
Abortion is a woman's decision. It is her body and I have no right to force my beliefs on her. Neither do you.
Click to expand...

Try reading the OP closely. What did I state? I said the discussion should be based on legality, not genetics. Which is why I asked... WHEN should basic human rights protections begin? I gave some options... conception, fetal heart rate, birth. Sentience is another, but perhaps a bit harder to define.

I am not suggesting forcing beliefs on to anyone. We all know how pregnancy occurs. We all know ways to prevent pregnancy. Asking people to be responsible for their actions is not 'forcing' them to do anything. Rape is the only instance where pregnancy can occur where choice of the woman isn't present. All other times, the man and woman choose what actions to take and not take.
 
Gonzomin said:
Clumps of non-sentient cells is different. They are far, far removed from resembling a person. They are not entitled to rights that overpower a woman's.
Any rightys who want to force a girl to have a baby she cannot support and does not want should be willing to take it and raise it.
Abortion is a woman's decision. It is her body and I have no right to force my beliefs on her. Neither do you.
Click to expand...

Those sentient cells? DNA transfer has already taken place, as soon as it comes out as anything but human, we could discuss that issue, until then not so much!
No one forced her to have sex it was a choice and ending that human life inside her now is murder, say what ever you will it will not change the fact that is is murder. That child is just as much the fathers child, as hers, the person carrying the child is receiving unequal protection under this law! If under age kids have children, the children's parents should be responsible for raising it, and providing for it, until such time the two individuals can. Also the father of that child should have rights!
 
CFM said:
Since when is biology not a science?
Click to expand...
You are not discussing biology. You are discussing a definition of 'life'. Just because biologists have an opinion does not make it biology.
CFM said:
The problem comes in when politicians and those that support killing babies, you know the type that constantly claims we should follow science, ignore science when it pushes their agenda.
Click to expand...
That they do, but science isn't involved in deciding the definition of 'life', oddly enough.
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
I am so sick of those crazy thoughtless talking points- TELL THEM TO SOMEONE ELSE!

Those talking points are old and tired- WHICH TELLS ME YOU'RE OLD AND TIRED!
Click to expand...

No, it simply means you have been obstinate on these same talking points for a very long time now. Age does not reduce the argument of stone fallacy that you are making.
 
Into the Night said:
You are not discussing biology. You are discussing a definition of 'life'. Just because biologists have an opinion does not make it biology.

That they do, but science isn't involved in deciding the definition of 'life', oddly enough.
Click to expand...

Reproduction is part of the science of biology. You don't have to believe me. You can either accept science or reject it.
 
Gonzomin said:
So women are merely compliant breeders? Their lives do not figure in the equation?
Click to expand...
The fetus is a group of cells growing into a human baby. It's life does not figure in the equation?
Gonzomin said:
The fetus is a group of cells with no senses, no ability to exist on its own.
Click to expand...
Just like a baby. Babies die if left abandoned.
Gonzomin said:
That collection of cells does not have rights over those of an adult or young woman.
Click to expand...
The reverse is also true.
Gonzomin said:
If you could remove a beginning fetus and insert it in a Christian's body, then you could argue it.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.
 
Into the Night said:
You are not discussing biology. You are discussing a definition of 'life'. Just because biologists have an opinion does not make it biology.

That they do, but science isn't involved in deciding the definition of 'life', oddly enough.
Click to expand...

Oh please, do tell us who it is that defines life.
 
zymurgy said:
the left? wrong

the topic is stupid. we end life all the time. You think hunting is wrong?

Oh - you mean Human life begins at fertilization? so why not make it say so in the thread title?

but hey - carry on partisan douche (ps the egg is alive. so is the sperm. )
Click to expand...

But neither will grow into a child without the other. Because these cells don't have a full DNA, they die rather quickly, and are then reabsorbed by the body.
 
Superfreak said:
Oh please, do tell us who it is that defines life.
Click to expand...

'Life' has been defined in many different ways by many different people.

It this definition that is at the heart of the entire abortion debate.

In my opinion (and it is just my opinion, nothing else), is that life begins the moment the egg is fertilized. It is at that point that a cell, containing a full complement of DNA, unique to itself, can grow into something that can be born, live out a life, and die of old age; and into something that in turn can produce more eggs or sperm.

No one defines what 'life' actually is without turning to philosophy.
 
Into the Night said:
'Life' has been defined in many different ways by many different people.

It this definition that is at the heart of the entire abortion debate.

In my opinion (and it is just my opinion, nothing else), is that life begins the moment the egg is fertilized. It is at that point that a cell, containing a full complement of DNA, unique to itself, can grow into something that can be born, live out a life, and die of old age; and into something that in turn can produce more eggs or sperm.

No one defines what 'life' actually is without turning to philosophy.
Click to expand...

Life is not philosophical you idiot. It is biological.
 
Into the Night said:
But neither will grow into a child without the other. Because these cells don't have a full DNA, they die rather quickly, and are then reabsorbed by the body.
Click to expand...

you just wrecked your argument as a fertilized egg also isn't guaranteed to grow into a child.

You acknowledged that this life isn't a child. It is something lesser. How much lesser is the question?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top