Originally posted by Serizawa
reply to post by byteshertz

---

We as in those who can follow a structured argument - established through fact's i presented that abortion is not wrong - by definition, because nobody can prove where life started and wrong means factually incorrect. You can say it is morally wrong - but that is your view. If you have some facts you would like to add so WE CAN ESTABLISH abortion is wrong then we may get somewhere.

Don't make me laugh, Your opinions are not facts.

"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]

Source

We as in those who can follow a structured argument - established through fact's i presented that abortion is not wrong - by definition, because nobody can prove where life started and wrong means factually incorrect.

Do you feel stupid now?..........

edit on 24-2-2011 by Serizawa because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Serizawa
reply to post by captaintyinknots

---

In biology, the science of living organisms, life is the condition which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter.[4] Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to GROW, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations.

Source

Not the best of sources I know, Now please tell me where life begins or rather the OP. Does it begin when the baby is born in your opinion?

Biology Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive, where life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena:[14][16]
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

Originally posted by MMPI2
reply to post by captaintyinknots

---

yeah...ok.

done.

which came first: the poverty levels or the genocidal plans/efforts?

Did you know that L.Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, considered children to be 'old souls' and *just as capable* of "evil" as anyone else?

When you actually look at the data, then we can talk. My only point is that these things follow poverty, every time.

Originally posted by MMPI2
reply to post by captaintyinknots

---

When you actually look at the data, then we can talk. My only point is that these things follow poverty, every time.

when you are able to develop and present a coherent argument that does not include pointless and childish non sequiturs, then we can talk.

Originally posted by Serizawa
reply to post by byteshertz

---

I thought you told me not to post up my OPINIONS and start posting FACTS! What better to quote then biology books? I'm no expert in the matter, I do not try to act like one.........But I do know for a fact that the authors of the book have greater knowledge on the subject then you or I.

Originally posted by MMPI2
reply to post by captaintyinknots

---

no. im not kidding.

and thank you for the complement.

validation when you are right is a good thing.

Originally posted by jennybee35
I would like an answer to this question, also.

How can someone be charged with murder of an unborn child? If under our current laws a "fetus' is not a human being with rights, how is this justified:

charged with murder of unborn baby

man charged with baby murder

I only provided two links, the last one states how many states have a stute or law against murder of unborn humans. The google search returned 35, 000 results for "man charged with murder of unborn baby."

How do you justify the law deciding that these were humans with their own rights and still claim that an unborn child can be ripped to pieces and vaccumed out of the womb?

On Election Day 2008, Colorado voters were asked to decide a question that theologians, ethicists, philosophers and parents from time immemorial have struggled with: when does life begin? A ballot initiative asked voters to expand the definition of “personhood” in the Colorado constitution to include any fertilized egg, zygote, embryo or fetus. If they decided that a fertilized egg is a person, then every fertilized egg would have inalienable rights, just like you—the reader.

But deciding “when life begins” is so much more complicated than a re-definition. In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court refused to rule on the matter, saying that it was in no position to decide a question about which there was such great division: “When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the court again rejected arguments that a fetus was a person, with Justice Blackmun writing: an abortion is not “the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection. Accordingly, a State’s interest in protecting fetal life is not grounded in the Constitution. Nor, consistent with our Establishment Clause, can it be a theological or sectarian interest.”

...


Science and Our Interpretations


Scientific and medical opinion regarding the status of embryonic life has not shifted in the last three decades, according to Christian ethicist Paul D. Simmons. New technologies enable viewing the fetus during various stages of development but there are no instruments to measure the presence of personhood. While there is agreement about the gestational facts (that there are four stages of gestational development: zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus) and that each person began with conception and implantation, that does not mean that every step along the continuum has the same value. Science provides the data of biological development; religion and personal values provide our sense of morality and the worth we attach to various entities. Functional physiological and neurological developments are required for one to become a person, but there are stages during gestation in which there is inadequate development to constitute an entity that should be accorded full legal or even religious status as a person. A person is a complex creature that has moved from genetic individuality (DNA) through functional, behavioral, physical and social dimensions. A genetic formula is not the equivalent of a person, nor is it “a person with potential.”

Originally posted by jennybee35
I would like an answer to this question, also.

How can someone be charged with murder of an unborn child? If under our current laws a "fetus' is not a human being with rights, how is this justified:

charged with murder of unborn baby

man charged with baby murder

I only provided two links, the last one states how many states have a stute or law against murder of unborn humans. The google search returned 35, 000 results for "man charged with murder of unborn baby."

How do you justify the law deciding that these were humans with their own rights and still claim that an unborn child can be ripped to pieces and vaccumed out of the womb?

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by byteshertz

---

When ever you terminate a living being whether in the womb or alive it is murder.

They are a person even at conception, no ifs ands or buts.

But hay all the people for abortion are alive.

A beached whale has a greater chance of survival than an unborn child.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by MMPI2
reply to post by captaintyinknots

---

no. im not kidding.

and thank you for the complement.

validation when you are right is a good thing.

ok kiddo....as I said before, research the subject, then we will talk. you obviously caught wind of this story as it has been good media fodder lately and havent bothered to look any further.