holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
So you believe the mother has a god given/ constitutional right to end someone else's life?
Report: Fox News Banning Trump From Network
- Thread starter Dr. Evil
- Start date
So you believe the mother has a god given/ constitutional right to end someone else's life?
spat
.950 JDJ
So a cancerous tumor is a separate human life ?
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
If your calling a human life a tumor , I guess.
spat
.950 JDJ
Well, the baby is completely dependent on someone for survival for at least a year or two after it's born too.
In some cases that lasts well into middle age.
Not that 103rd trimester abortion might not be warranted in many cases, but still, seems a bit extreme to me.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
You kidding me? My mother is still trying to get an abortion
Last edited:
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
The scientific basis for distinguishing one cell type from another rests on two criteria: differences in what something is made of (its molecular composition) and differences in how the cell behaves. These two criteria are universally agreed upon and employed throughout the scientific enterprise. They are not “religious” beliefs or matters of personal opinion. They are objective, verifiable scientific criteria that determine precisely when a new cell type is formed.
Based on these criteria, the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg clearly produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. Cell fusion is a well studied and very rapid event, occurring in less than a second. Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type: its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it.
Subsequent to sperm-egg fusion, events rapidly occur in the zygote that do not normally occur in either sperm or egg. Within minutes, the zygote initiates a change in its internal state that will, over the next 30 minutes, block additional sperm from binding to the cell surface. Thus, the zygote acts immediately to oppose the function of the gametes from which it is derived; while the “goal” of both sperm and egg is to find each other and to fuse, the first act of the zygote is to prevent any further binding of sperm to the cell surface. Clearly, the zygote has entered into a new pattern of behavior, and therefore meets the second scientific criterion for being a new cell type.
What is the nature of the new cell that comes into existence upon sperm-egg fusion? Most importantly, is the zygote merely another human cell (like a liver cell or a skin cell) or is it something else? Just as science distinguishes between different types of cells, it also makes clear distinctions between cells and organisms. Both cells and organisms are alive, yet organisms exhibit unique characteristics that can reliably distinguish them from mere cells.[2]
An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” (Merriam-Webster) This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism. Organisms are “living beings.” Therefore, another name for a human organism is a “human being”; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human.
Human beings can be distinguished from human cells using the same kind of criteria scientists use to distinguish different cell types. A human being (i.e., a human organism) is composed of human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic molecular composition and behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to “carry on the activities of life.”
Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.
In contrast to human embryos, human cells are alive and, under some circumstances, they can assemble into primitive tissues and structures. Yet under no circumstances do mere human cells produce the kind of coordinated interactions necessary for building a fully integrated human body. They do not produce tissues in a coherent manner and do not organize them so as to sustain the life of the entity as a whole. They produce tumors; i.e., parts of the human body in a chaotic, disorganized manner. They behave like cells, not like organisms.
The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.
lozierinstitute.org
It is the central question in the abortion debate: when does life begin?
Science teaches without reservation that life begins at fertilization (conception). It is a scientific fact that an organism exists after fertilization that did not exist before. This new organism has its own DNA distinct from the mother and father, meaning that it is a unique person. As the embryo grows, it develops a heartbeat (22 days after fertilization), its own circulatory system, and its own organs. From fertilization, it is a new organism that is alive and will continue to grow and develop as long as nutrition is provided and its life is not ended through violence or illness.
Artistic metal representation of DNA double-helix structure.
It is indisputably human, as it has human DNA.
Scientific textbooks proclaim this fact. Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003) states the following:
From Human Embryology & Teratology (Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller [New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996], 5-55):
From T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Medical Embryology (10th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006, p. 11):
Based on these criteria, the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg clearly produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. Cell fusion is a well studied and very rapid event, occurring in less than a second. Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type: its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it.
Subsequent to sperm-egg fusion, events rapidly occur in the zygote that do not normally occur in either sperm or egg. Within minutes, the zygote initiates a change in its internal state that will, over the next 30 minutes, block additional sperm from binding to the cell surface. Thus, the zygote acts immediately to oppose the function of the gametes from which it is derived; while the “goal” of both sperm and egg is to find each other and to fuse, the first act of the zygote is to prevent any further binding of sperm to the cell surface. Clearly, the zygote has entered into a new pattern of behavior, and therefore meets the second scientific criterion for being a new cell type.
What is the nature of the new cell that comes into existence upon sperm-egg fusion? Most importantly, is the zygote merely another human cell (like a liver cell or a skin cell) or is it something else? Just as science distinguishes between different types of cells, it also makes clear distinctions between cells and organisms. Both cells and organisms are alive, yet organisms exhibit unique characteristics that can reliably distinguish them from mere cells.[2]
An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” (Merriam-Webster) This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism. Organisms are “living beings.” Therefore, another name for a human organism is a “human being”; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human.
Human beings can be distinguished from human cells using the same kind of criteria scientists use to distinguish different cell types. A human being (i.e., a human organism) is composed of human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic molecular composition and behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to “carry on the activities of life.”
Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.
In contrast to human embryos, human cells are alive and, under some circumstances, they can assemble into primitive tissues and structures. Yet under no circumstances do mere human cells produce the kind of coordinated interactions necessary for building a fully integrated human body. They do not produce tissues in a coherent manner and do not organize them so as to sustain the life of the entity as a whole. They produce tumors; i.e., parts of the human body in a chaotic, disorganized manner. They behave like cells, not like organisms.
The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.
A Scientific View of When Life Begins - Lozier Institute
In this paper, Dr. Maureen Condic examines scientific evidence for the point at which it is evident that human life begins.
lozierinstitute.org
It is the central question in the abortion debate: when does life begin?
Science teaches without reservation that life begins at fertilization (conception). It is a scientific fact that an organism exists after fertilization that did not exist before. This new organism has its own DNA distinct from the mother and father, meaning that it is a unique person. As the embryo grows, it develops a heartbeat (22 days after fertilization), its own circulatory system, and its own organs. From fertilization, it is a new organism that is alive and will continue to grow and develop as long as nutrition is provided and its life is not ended through violence or illness.
Artistic metal representation of DNA double-helix structure.
It is indisputably human, as it has human DNA.
Scientific textbooks proclaim this fact. Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003) states the following:
ere is an example from another scientific work.
From Human Embryology & Teratology (Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller [New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996], 5-55):
This third embryology textbook is as clear as the first two – fertilization is the beginning of new life and the start of a new, distinct human organism.
From T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Medical Embryology (10th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006, p. 11):
And in another source (Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology [3rd edition, New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001, p. 8]):
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
Actually, no different then Cuomo enacting the pathetic UnSafe Act that made me lose interest in shooting at the time, the newbie on here has made me not want to follow this thread anymore. Even though I can't see his diarrhea of the keyboard it still has taken away my desire to follow the garbage I can't see him spewing.
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
No worries.I thought the same thing. I just jumped back in to see if it got back on track. Too bad, I wanted to quote some examples of Fox parroting democrat talking points in their articles. Like this one:
"Speaking in Rome last week in his first public appearance since the controversial ruling, Alito addressed the backlash he has received following his support to reverse the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to an abortion."
Supreme Court Justice Alito hits back at foreign critics of abortion decision
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito mocked foreign critics who denounced his decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in first public speech since ruling.www.foxnews.com
And this troll has the gall to whine about people derailing his intro thread....ha.@ronstar
Just remember people - when you feed a troll you may just be hurting the ones you love. Sorry Doc
Lefty's somehow seem to think everyone on the right loves fox like it's the sole authority on all things conservative.
Its not.
It hasn't been in a long time,maybe 10 years ago it was but over time it evolved to being middle of the road. You just didn't realize it because CNN and MSNBC jumped the shark and became propaganda outlets Baghdad bob would be proud of.
Fox hasn't been what the left claims it to be. That's why in the past 5 years so many alternative networks started to come out, newsmax, one news etc... Its also why alternative media has been booming.
No one really cares, no one thinks fox is some authority or mouth piece for conservatives
Its not.
It hasn't been in a long time,maybe 10 years ago it was but over time it evolved to being middle of the road. You just didn't realize it because CNN and MSNBC jumped the shark and became propaganda outlets Baghdad bob would be proud of.
Fox hasn't been what the left claims it to be. That's why in the past 5 years so many alternative networks started to come out, newsmax, one news etc... Its also why alternative media has been booming.
No one really cares, no one thinks fox is some authority or mouth piece for conservatives
I disagree. I think the left still considers fox news as the official news station for conservatives. In fact one of the biggest put downs anyone on the left has is to say "you got that opinion from fox news." They think they can automatically dismiss any information that doesn't agree with their mindset with that one statement.
I don't watch fox news. I will occassionally listen to tucker carlson who I think is right on a lot of things (but I don't agree with him on everything). I like how that seems to make liberals heads explode because they think the only source of news for conservatives is fox news.
No, I agree with what you said.
In my first sentence I even said those on the left think fox is the conservative outlet
But the reality is no one in the conservative movement thinks fox speaks for them.