Can people who disagree on abortion stop attacking each other?

[YahuahSaves]

I am stil waiting for people to prove biology and mathematics are wrong.

We linked the biological facts of embryology. Did you? No.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Begins, is not completed. When I plant a tomato seed, the life of a new tomato begins but the life is not completely formed until I am eating a BLT

actually...

The new tomato plant is formed when the pollen fertilizes the ovum. The seed contains a plant embryo whose growth has been arrested until it germinates in soil. Remember every seed you eat (every grain, every nut, every seed in a fruit) you kill an ungerminated plant before it can have the chance to live.

 

[GodLovesCats]

We linked the biological facts of embryology. Did you? No.

There is no proof that 1 ovum + 1 sperm = 2 zygotes. If this miracle does not happe, life cannot begin at conception for monozygotic twins.

 

[YahuahSaves]

There is no proof that 1 ovum + 1 sperm = 2 zygotes. If this miracle does not happe, life cannot begin at conception for monozygotic twins.

An individual human being begins at conception. How a single zygote that gives rise to twins can be found in the links below. Interesting read, (if you're not close-minded). This will be my last response to you, because this circular conversation is getting old....
Cya!


"Genetically Unique Zygote – The Reason For Variety In The Human Race!!

Have you ever wondered why you have brown hair, but your sibling’s hair is black? Or perhaps why you have hazel-colored eyes, but your mom’s eyes are blue? Why is your dad balding, but your uncle isn’t? Physical traits like hair color and the color of your eyes are all determined by the genes that we inherit from our parents. These genes exist on strands of chromosomes; we all have 23 pairs or 46 chromosomes as a part of our normal genetic makeup. Once fertilization takes place and a zygote is formed, it inherits half of its chromosomes from the mother and half from the father, but these chromosomes come together in a new pattern that isn’t present in the mother or father, which makes it entirely unique. Crossing over of parental chromosomes in the zygote results in the “shuffling” of genes, thereby producing an individual that is unlike any other person. This mechanism forms the basis of biparental (from 2 parents) inheritance and brings about such miraculous variation in the human species. This shuffling of genes in the zygote makes you unique and truly one of a kind!"

From: What Is A Zygote? How Is It Different From An Embryo? - Published On: 11 Feb 2019 By Dr Maneka Vig

Further reading: Twinning: it's all in the DNA

 

[GodLovesCats]

An individual human being begins at conception. How a single zygote that gives rise to twins can be found in the links below.

Until the single zygote becomes two zygotes, there cannot be twins, so life for monozygotic twins cannot happen at the moment of conception. This is all middle school level stuff, so I am sure you know it. I am open-minded to all biological facts. The biological fact about when life starts in monozygotic twins is that always happens after conception because 1 ovum + 1 sperm = 1 offspring. You obviously are not open-minded because you refuse to accept that extremely obvious, repeatedly proven, totally unbiased fact.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Until the single zygote becomes two zygotes, there cannot be twins, so life for monozygotic twins cannot happen at the moment of conception. This is all middle school level stuff, so I am sure you know it. I am open-minded to all biological facts. The biological fact about when life starts in monozygotic twins is that always happens after conception because 1 ovum + 1 sperm = 1 offspring. You obviously are not open-minded because you refuse to accept that extremely obvious, repeatedly proven, totally unbiased fact.

When a zygote splits into 2, is the "original zygote" gone? Obviously not. We can discuss whether it is
(A+B) → A + B or
A → A + B
but neither of these changes the fact that A and (A+B) is a human life. A zygote is a human life.

Even if you want to deny that the original zygote is in any way still present after splitting you can't get around the fact that a zygote is a human life. Therefore, if killing a human without their consent is immoral, killing a zygote is wrong.

Do you believe it to be wrong to kill a human life who doesn't deserve the death sentence for a crime?

 

[YahuahSaves]

This is all middle school level stuff, so I am sure you know it

Yes, I do know it, and is why I linked evidence.

I am open-minded to all biological facts.

If that were so, and you'd read all the evidence I linked, you would have admitted your error and changed your mind by now.

The biological fact about when life starts in monozygotic twins is that always happens after conception because 1 ovum + 1 sperm = 1 offspring. You obviously are not open-minded because you refuse to accept that extremely obvious, repeatedly proven, totally unbiased fact.

Link your scientific evidence of "biological fact" and we can settle it once and for all.

 

[coffee4u]

This does not address your claim that permission was granted to the unborn before the unborn was conceived.


Cause and effect are not the issue. Permission is the issue, which can't be granted to "someone" who does not exist.


I'm not dodging the question: forum rules prohibit my answering it.

"This does not address your claim that permission was granted to the unborn before the unborn was conceived."
Cause and effect deals exactly with the issue at hand. If you know what causes something and do it anyway you are either:
1. A fool 2. Insane 3. An addict or 4. And most commonly, completely selfish.

People of childbearing age grant permission to conceive every time they have sex. The same way a speeder running red lights is playing Russian Roulette with other cars and people lives.
What you want is fun without responsibility. To satisfy self and deal with the consequences later. Unwanted baby? Just kill it. Cause a crash? Nah I can run red lights and miss everyone. Pure selfishness.

"I'm not dodging the question: forum rules prohibit my answering it."
Then I can only assume.

 

[coffee4u]

Identical twins. At conception, you have one single cell.

For the first 12 hours after conception, the fertilized egg remains a single cell.

So a single cell is not by your definition life?
Completely secular resources say that single cell life forms are just that 'life forms'

List of Single-Cell Organisms

Two types of single celled organisms exist: prokaryotes and eukaryotes contained within the taxonomy of three major life domains. Scientists further classify single celled organisms within six kingdoms, subcategories beneath the domains: archaea, bacteria, protists, fungi, plants and animals.

sciencing.com

Again the human zygote meets all 7 scientific criteria for life. It is life. You simply wish to ignore the facts for your ideology.

 

[Belk]

"This does not address your claim that permission was granted to the unborn before the unborn was conceived."
Cause and effect deals exactly with the issue at hand. If you know what causes something and do it anyway you are either:
1. A fool 2. Insane 3. An addict or 4. And most commonly, completely selfish.

People of childbearing age grant permission to conceive every time they have sex. The same way a speeder running red lights is playing Russian Roulette with other cars and people lives.
What you want is fun without responsibility. To satisfy self and deal with the consequences later. Unwanted baby? Just kill it. Cause a crash? Nah I can run red lights and miss everyone. Pure selfishness.

"I'm not dodging the question: forum rules prohibit my answering it."
Then I can only assume.

Let's try that logic in other scenarios

Because people drive there are car crashes. If you are driving a car you are giving permission to be maimed in a wreck. Hmmm... No, that does not work.

How about;

If you were a Christian you knew the Romans would feed you to the lions. Therefore if you worshiped Christ you gave the lions permission to eat you.

Does not really work either.

Consequence and consent are two completely separate things. For one consent can be revoked at any time.

 

[Kylie]

Neither a sperm nor an ovum are an organism, so they are not a life. It's astonishing how few people here know basic biology.

They are indeed living cells.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Because people drive there are car crashes. If you are driving a car you are giving permission to be maimed in a wreck. Hmmm... No, that does not work.

Because you get into a car and drive on the road, knowing full-well that car crashes happen, you are then making a choice based on risk-assessment. Unfortunately, many people don't think a bad car accident will happen to them (or many don't think about it atleast in the day-to-day), they get in the car expecting to get from A to B, but the act of driving is where our ability to judge the risks really counts. Being aware of and following the guidelines for road safety is paramount, we cannot always determine what other road users will do - but we can take precautions to make sure we are protecting ourselves as best we can (safe driving/seatbelts etc). That's called personal accountability. in the event that we have a crash that is someone else's fault, then that is something outside of our control, but the analogy can hardly be used in parallel to abortion, because the innocent party had no say in whether it lives or dies.

If you were a Christian you knew the Romans would feed you to the lions. Therefore if you worshiped Christ you gave the lions permission to eat you.

The Christians (and the lions) are still the innocent party in that scenario^ but the choice to believe in something and the choice to act on those beliefs (especially if it's violent) are 2 completely separate things. So again, not in any way parallel to abortion.

Consequence and consent are two completely separate things. For one consent can be revoked at any time.

We "consent" in many ways all the time (consciously or subconsciously). Take the driving a car analogy at the beginning as an example. By getting in the car, you've subconsciously consented to getting in a (potential) car-crash.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

They are indeed living cells.

Please read again what I wrote. I said "what makes you alive". You are not a cell. You are an organism, a life. You once were a zygote yourself. You have never been a sperm or an ovum.

 

[coffee4u]

Let's try that logic in other scenarios

Because people drive there are car crashes. If you are driving a car you are giving permission to be maimed in a wreck. Hmmm... No, that does not work.

How about;

If you were a Christian you knew the Romans would feed you to the lions. Therefore if you worshiped Christ you gave the lions permission to eat you.

Does not really work either.

Consequence and consent are two completely separate things. For one consent can be revoked at any time.

Not the same. I was showing risky behavior.
Casual sex = risky behavior = consequence pregnancy.
Speeding and running red lights = risky behavior =consequence a car crash.

If you are driving your car responsibly you are at much lower risk but still at risk, this is why seat belts and air bags were invented. You are acknowledging that risk every time clip your seat belt.
This could be likened to birth control. The risk of pregnancy is much lower, but risk is still there.

Being thrown to the lions was an act carried out by another person towards you, doing so against your will. People engaging in causal sex are doing so voluntarily.
If you are celibate what is the risk of pregnancy? Extraordinarily low. If you don't 'consent' to becoming pregnant then don't engaged in behavior that will get you pregnant, it is that simple.
Also you don't fix one sin by adding another sin on top of it. Immorality is bad enough but adding murder to it is much worse.

 

[Belk]

Because you get into a car and drive on the road, knowing full-well that car crashes happen, you are then making a choice based on risk-assessment. Unfortunately, many people don't think a bad car accident will happen to them (or many don't think about it atleast in the day-to-day), they get in the car expecting to get from A to B, but the act of driving is where our ability to judge the risks really counts. Being aware of and following the guidelines for road safety is paramount, we cannot always determine what other road users will do - but we can take precautions to make sure we are protecting ourselves as best we can (safe driving/seatbelts etc). That's called personal accountability. in the event that we have a crash that is someone else's fault, then that is something outside of our control, but the analogy can hardly be used in parallel to abortion, because the innocent party had no say in whether it lives or dies.


The Christians (and the lions) are still the innocent party in that scenario^ but the choice to believe in something and the choice to act on those beliefs (especially if it's violent) are 2 completely separate things. So again, not in any way parallel to abortion.

The analogy is not to abortion but to consent and it demonstrates that it is not given simply by acknowledging possible consequences. Consent and knowing something is possible are two distinct concepts.

We "consent" in many ways all the time (consciously or subconsciously). Take the driving a car analogy at the beginning as an example. By getting in the car, you've subconsciously consented to getting in a (potential) car-crash.

If this were the case insurance claims would be easy to dispute since the other party consented to be in an accident. The idea that every time I drive I am giving people permission to crash into me is not correct.

 

[Belk]

Not the same. I was showing risky behavior.
Casual sex = risky behavior = consequence pregnancy.
Speeding and running red lights = risky behavior =consequence a car crash.

If you are driving your car responsibly you are at much lower risk but still at risk, this is why seat belts and air bags were invented. You are acknowledging that risk every time clip your seat belt.
This could be likened to birth control. The risk of pregnancy is much lower, but risk is still there.

Acknowledging risk is not the same as granting permission. Your claim was that every time someone has sex they "grant permission" to possibly conceive. As pointed out, knowing possible consequences and granting permission are not synonymous and you can't make claims of consent simply based on behavior.

Being thrown to the lions was an act carried out by another person towards you, doing so against your will. People engaging in causal sex are doing so voluntarily.
If you are celibate what is the risk of pregnancy? Extraordinarily low. If you don't 'consent' to becoming pregnant then don't engaged in behavior that will get you pregnant, it is that simple.

If you don't 'consent' to getting into a car crash don't drive. No, the logic does not work.

Also you don't fix one sin by adding another sin on top of it. Immorality is bad enough but adding murder to it is much worse.

Morality is internal, not something you enforce on others. That is the function of the law.

 

[Kylie]

Please read again what I wrote. I said "what makes you alive". You are not a cell. You are an organism, a life. You once were a zygote yourself. You have never been a sperm or an ovum.

What was I before I was a zygote?

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

What was I before I was a zygote?

Human life begins at conception. You didn't exist prior to being a zygote.

 

[YahuahSaves]

The analogy is not to abortion but to consent and it demonstrates that it is not given simply by acknowledging possible consequences. Consent and knowing something is possible are two distinct concepts.

You consent to taking a risk when driving, understanding there's a chance you can have an accident. You consent when you have unprotected sex, knowing there's a chance you (/the woman) can get pregnant. This is basic stuff.

If this were the case insurance claims would be easy to dispute since the other party consented to be in an accident. The idea that every time I drive I am giving people permission to crash into me is not correct.

This is where the analogy cannot be compared. If a drunk driver runs a red light and hits your car, injuring you - then you have every right to claim insurance and (in some cases) even sue. A person who chooses to have unprotected sex is aware of the risks and the innocent party is the one being aborted. Actions have consequences, whether good or bad. As consenting adults we're to use our reasoning skills to determine the risks and possible outcome/s before making a choice. In the scenario we are using, to not do so is just plain carelessness and a denial of personal accountability.

 

[Kylie]

Human life begins at conception. You didn't exist prior to being a zygote.

So why am I human and yet the sperm and ovum that combined were not?