Can people who disagree on abortion stop attacking each other?

[Kylie]

What I quoted was relevant to prove your own contradictory statements.

No, you took my quote out of context and did not even bother to quote it in full.

 

[Kylie]

At the moment of conception you have a single new human being called at that stage a zygote. It doesn't split and become twins until day 2-6

A question.

Let's say that a zygote is fertilized and it will split a few days later to become twins named Alfred and Bob. But the mother has an abortion before that happens. From your point of view, did she kill two people or just one?

 

[coffee4u]

Are you claiming such people are without sin? (Y/N)

A baby is born is born with a sinful nature but has not done practiced sin or accidental sin since as yet it is incapable of the mental capacity to do such things. As soon as they are capable of sin they will sin.
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
They have also not rejected Christ and his blood covers them should they die.

Luke 18:16

But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

 

[YahuahSaves]

No, you took my quote out of context and did not even bother to quote it in full.

How was it out of context? Because I didn't quote the part about humans being defined by the ability to breathe oxygen and have a personality? It was relevant to your quote of the sperm and ova being "alive". The unborn are not inanimate objects you know. Anyway, I quoted you in full in post #785 which you avoided, go figure.

 

[coffee4u]

A question.

Let's say that a zygote is fertilized and it will split a few days later to become twins named Alfred and Bob. But the mother has an abortion before that happens. From your point of view, did she kill two people or just one?

I am unsure what you are getting at, if it has not split its one and if it has split its two. They can split as soon as day 2.

 

[Kylie]

How was it out of context? Because I didn't quote the part about humans being defined by the ability to breathe oxygen and have a personality? It was relevant to your quote of the sperm and ova being "alive". The unborn are not inanimate objects you know. Anyway, I quoted you in full in post #785 which you avoided, go figure.

It was out of context like this...

I said that a person who is a chimera has the DNA of TWO people in their cells. If we are to consider "unique DNA" as being sufficient for personhood, then a chimera is two people.

I presented a hypothetical situation where I would rewrite one set of DNA to match the other set. In essence, I would be removing one unique set of DNA. If "unique DNA" is sufficient for personhood, then by removing such a set, I have committed a murder.

However, I pointed out that the chimera themselves remains alive. Their memories are intact, and their consciousness is intact.

I said, "If you believe that a unique set of DNA is sufficient to grant personhood, then yes, I must have committed a murder. Yet there is no body, no life has been lost, no experiences lost."

You deliberately quote mined me by posting my words as "Yet there is no body, no life", thus changing the meaning of what I had said, and you did it deliberately to misrepresent my position.

That is dishonest, and if you do it again I will report you.

 

[Kylie]

I am unsure what you are getting at, if it has not split its one and if it has split its two. They can split as soon as day 2.

Ah, but if it is aborted before it splits, there are still two (count them - TWO) people who will not be born.

 

[YahuahSaves]

That is dishonest, and if you do it again I will report you.

Yeah you do that when you've run out of hot-air I've noticed.

Your argument is invalid because the discussion is what defines a human being and at what point can someone be defined as such. This is the whole abortion debate, and is why pro-choicers argue that abortion is not murder, because the unborn aren't considered human beings. That may be in a legal sense, but not in a scientific sense.

 

[Kylie]

Yeah you do that when you've run out of hot-air I've noticed.

Your argument is invalid because the discussion is what defines a human being and at what point can someone be defined as such. This is the whole abortion debate, and is why pro-choicers argue that abortion is not murder, because the unborn aren't considered human beings. That may be in a legal sense, but not in a scientific sense.

Then again, I ask you, is unique DNA sufficient to grant personhood? Yes or no?

 

[NxNW]

You didn't though. This is the definition of a human being:
View attachment 325766

No, it's not.

A zygote is an individual, unique and whole organism of the species H. sapiens

No, it's not.

You did make the claim that "being born" is the requirement for being a human being.

No, I didn't. Birth is confirmation that one necessary requirement has been met, but birth itself is neither necessary nor sufficient.

Yet here you are denying that you think birth is the deciding factor. Make up your mind.

I'm denying it because I made no such claim.

If you don't think that birth is the deciding factor, then what is?

Prior to birth, possessing higher level brain function and the ability to process sensory input, along with the potential to survive outside the womb. Once born alive, clearly society recognizes that you have a human being regardless of cognitive capability.

 

[NxNW]

Science disagrees with you

With which fact does science disagree?

 

[NxNW]

At the moment of conception you have a single new human being called at that stage a zygote. It doesn't split and become twins until day 2-6

So that's a no? In which case life does not begin at conception.

 

[NxNW]

A baby is born is born with a sinful nature but has not done practiced sin or accidental sin since as yet it is incapable of the mental capacity to do such things. As soon as they are capable of sin they will sin.

How many years, months, days, hours, and minutes until this moment? Is it the same moment for identical twins?

 

[Lost Witness]

How many years, months, days, hours, and minutes until this moment? Is it the same moment for identical twins?

when did you learn right from wrong?

 

[YahuahSaves]

For the pro-choicers on this thread, anyone I've missed, count yourself included in this post.

@ChristianForCats
@NxNW
@Kylie
@jayem
@Belk

This answers every argument you have regarding abortion of a human being. The detailed scientific facts can be found in the link provided, they're too in-depth to add in this post, but they demolish the myths.

"The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists, not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists."

"Scientific" myths and scientific fact:

"Given these basic facts of human embryology, it is easier to recognize the many scientifically inaccurate claims that have been advanced in the discussions about abortion, human embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, and the use of abortifacients and why these discussions obfuscate the objective scientific facts. The following is just a sampling of these current "scientific" myths."

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions and that is ridiculous!"

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a blob, a bunch of cells, a piece of the mothers tissues."

Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a potential or a possible human being not a real existing human being."

Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."

Myth 5: "The immediate product of fertilization is just an "it" it is neither a girl nor a boy."

Myth 6: "The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation." (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)

Myth 7: "The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a pre-embryo and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated."

Myth 8: "Pregnancy begins with the implantation of the blastocyst (i.e., about 5-7 days)."

Myth 9: "The morning-after pill, RU486, and the IUD are not abortifacient; they are only methods of contraception."

Myth 10: "Human embryo research, human cloning, stem cell research, and the formation of chimeras are acceptable kinds of research because until implantation or 14 days there is only a pre-embryo, a potential human embryo or human being present. A real human embryo and a human being (child) do not actually begin unless and until the pre-embryo is implanted into the mothers uterus."

Myth 11: "Certain early stages of the developing human embryo and fetus, e.g., during the formation of ancestral fish gills or tails, demonstrates that it is not yet a human being, but is only in the process of becoming one. It is simply recapitulating the historical evolution of all of the species."

Myth 12: "Maybe a human being begins at fertilization, but a human person does not begin until after 14-days, when twinning cannot take place."

Myth 13: "A human person begins with brain birth, the formation of the primitive nerve net, or the formation of the cortex all physiological structures necessary to support thinking and feeling."

Myth 14: "A person is defined in terms of the active exercising of rational attributes (e.g., thinking, willing, choosing, self-consciousness, relating to the world around one, etc.), and/or the active exercising of sentience (e.g., the feeling of pain and pleasure)."

Conclusions

"Ideas do have concrete consequences not only in ones personal life, but also in the formulation of public policies. And once a definition is accepted in one public policy, the logical extensions of it can then be applied, invalidly, in many other policies, even if they are not dealing with the same exact issue as happens frequently in bioethics. Thus, the definitions of "human being" and of "person" that have been concretized in the abortion debates have been transferred to several other areas, e.g., human embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, the use of abortifacients even to the issues of brain death, brain birth, organ transplantation, the removal of food and hydration, and research with the mentally ill or the disabled. But both private choices and public policies should incorporate sound and accurate science whenever possible. What I have tried to indicate is that in these current discussions, individual choices and public policies have been based on "scientific" myth, rather than on objective scientific facts."

From: WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN? "SCIENTIFIC" MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS

 

[YahuahSaves]

Then again, I ask you, is unique DNA sufficient to grant personhood? Yes or no?

Post #802

 

[YahuahSaves]

With which fact does science disagree?

Post #802

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Prior to birth, possessing higher level brain function and the ability to process sensory input, along with the potential to survive outside the womb. Once born alive, clearly society recognizes that you have a human being regardless of cognitive capability.

So you don't think that every human's life is valuable. That's where we disagree.

 

[Belk]

For the pro-choicers on this thread, anyone I've missed, count yourself included in this post.

@ChristianForCats
@NxNW
@Kylie
@jayem
@Belk

This answers every argument you have regarding abortion of a human being. The detailed scientific facts can be found in the link provided, they're too in-depth to add in this post, but they demolish the myths.

"The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists, not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists."

"Scientific" myths and scientific fact:

"Given these basic facts of human embryology, it is easier to recognize the many scientifically inaccurate claims that have been advanced in the discussions about abortion, human embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, and the use of abortifacients and why these discussions obfuscate the objective scientific facts. The following is just a sampling of these current "scientific" myths."

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions and that is ridiculous!"

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a blob, a bunch of cells, a piece of the mothers tissues."

Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a potential or a possible human being not a real existing human being."

Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."

Myth 5: "The immediate product of fertilization is just an "it" it is neither a girl nor a boy."

Myth 6: "The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation." (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)

Myth 7: "The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a pre-embryo and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated."

Myth 8: "Pregnancy begins with the implantation of the blastocyst (i.e., about 5-7 days)."

Myth 9: "The morning-after pill, RU486, and the IUD are not abortifacient; they are only methods of contraception."

Myth 10: "Human embryo research, human cloning, stem cell research, and the formation of chimeras are acceptable kinds of research because until implantation or 14 days there is only a pre-embryo, a potential human embryo or human being present. A real human embryo and a human being (child) do not actually begin unless and until the pre-embryo is implanted into the mothers uterus."

Myth 11: "Certain early stages of the developing human embryo and fetus, e.g., during the formation of ancestral fish gills or tails, demonstrates that it is not yet a human being, but is only in the process of becoming one. It is simply recapitulating the historical evolution of all of the species."

Myth 12: "Maybe a human being begins at fertilization, but a human person does not begin until after 14-days, when twinning cannot take place."

Myth 13: "A human person begins with brain birth, the formation of the primitive nerve net, or the formation of the cortex all physiological structures necessary to support thinking and feeling."

Myth 14: "A person is defined in terms of the active exercising of rational attributes (e.g., thinking, willing, choosing, self-consciousness, relating to the world around one, etc.), and/or the active exercising of sentience (e.g., the feeling of pain and pleasure)."

Conclusions

"Ideas do have concrete consequences not only in ones personal life, but also in the formulation of public policies. And once a definition is accepted in one public policy, the logical extensions of it can then be applied, invalidly, in many other policies, even if they are not dealing with the same exact issue as happens frequently in bioethics. Thus, the definitions of "human being" and of "person" that have been concretized in the abortion debates have been transferred to several other areas, e.g., human embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, the use of abortifacients even to the issues of brain death, brain birth, organ transplantation, the removal of food and hydration, and research with the mentally ill or the disabled. But both private choices and public policies should incorporate sound and accurate science whenever possible. What I have tried to indicate is that in these current discussions, individual choices and public policies have been based on "scientific" myth, rather than on objective scientific facts."

From: WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN? "SCIENTIFIC" MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS

Why do you keep trying to talk science? Science does not deal in morality and this is the ethics and morality section.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Why do you keep trying to talk science? Science does not deal in morality and this is the ethics and morality section.

Because we need something foundational to determine morality, it has to be objective, not subjective. If religion is not the foundation for lawmakers then science should be.