H.R.3 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion ActFollow

Irrelevant. I'm not trying to define "life". I'm explaining that when a pro-lifer uses the phrase "life begins at conception", they are talking about a very specific thing. It's a placeholder, not a definition. But anyone who doesn't have his head firmly parked in his own rear knows what they mean.



Huh? In humans, the difference between a gamete and a zygote is that a gamete does not have a complete set of DNA sufficient to grow into another human while a zygotes does. A zygote is the combination of a male gamete and a female gamete (sperm and ovum). Until those two gametes combine, they cannot themselves grow into another human. It is precisely when they do combine that we call the merged cell a zygote. That's a pretty clear cutoff point, don't you agree?



Complex question though. You added in the "human worthy of legal protection" bit. I actually agree with you about the "worthy of legal protection" part. But what I don't do is try to argue that the formation of a zygote isn't a clear cut point at which a new and individual "human life" has begun. To me, that's dishonest. How valuable is your position if you have to lie about the facts to make it appear stronger than it is?

If you're not willing to acknowledge that a unique human life begins when a zygote forms, but that said life isn't yet significant enough to outweigh the rights of a grown person with regard to her own body yet, then you should really re-consider your position on this issue. You're chasing after a false argument and I think you're doomed to failure. If you argue as you are, then you give ground on the "worthy of legal protection" and allow the entire issue to be decided based on when "life begins". And that's frankly an argument the pro-choice side will lose.




Yes. Absolutely. But we don't claim that they aren't human life at any point there, do we? Clearly, the gestation process should be considered when examining where to place restrictions on something like abortion. As you say, there's a process and it's a matter of degree. However, I just think it's stupid to pin that argument on an assumption that a zygote isn't yet really human life. It very clearly is. It possesses very distinct properties which differentiate it from other cells in the womans body, and from things like bacteria, cancers, etc. I'm sorry, but I just think that making those comparisons just makes the person doing so look foolish.

Knows that they are intentionally using a specific argument not because it is accurate but because they like the connotation? Yes I do. Intellectual honesty matters very little to the bulk of the abortion argument on either side really.


Correct. A gamete requires very specialized set of conditions to grow into a fully adult human, just like a zygote. When a natural environment is provided to either, they will develop into a fully adult human.

And until that zygote becomes a bastocyst and attaches to the uterus, it cannot grow into another human. And until that blastocyst is fed continuously by the uterus membrane, it cannot become an embryo. And so on, and so on.

There is no reason to make the distinction other than it being exceptionally convenient for the pro-life movement. It's also convenient for them to ignore this when they want, because more than 50% of these precious human zygotes fail to live beyond a few weeks and miscarry before the mother is even aware she is pregnant. Half of all of God's precious children died before anyone even knew they were there.

Using a zygote as the basis for human life bring a whole host of other problems. But these are questions the pro-life movement doesn't want to think about because it's inconvenient for them.

Then you should have paid attention in biology class, because you might be honest about what you believe, but it is factually wrong.

Edited, Feb 3rd 2011 8:19pm by Allegory

Hah. I'll agree with you there. But that doesn't mean I'll engage in it as well. I'll restate my position that we do all understand what is really meant by the word "life" in the phrase "life begins at conception" in the context of an abortion debate. Do you, or anyone else, really think that the person saying that is talking about e.coli, or cancer, or all of the other things that also are "life"? Accept it as a shortened way of saying something and move on. I do.



Except that a zygote is the result when the gametes conditions have been met. Gametes do not grow into fully adult humans, or children, or fetuses, or embryos, or blastocysts. They do not posses a unique set of DNA representing a "new" human. Gametes merge with a gametes of the opposite sex and the combination forms a zygote. The zygote, unlike the gametes which formed it, does by itself contain a complete unique set of DNA, and all of the internal components necessary to grow into a blastocyst, which itself completely contains the materials and instructions for growing an embryo, which will develop into a fetus and be born into a baby.

The *only* thing a zygote needs is an appropriate environment to live in. But in that way, it's no different from any other distinct organism, right? To say that something isn't a complete member of its species because it requires a specific environment to live and grow would fly in the face of biological science. It may be an immature member of its species, but its still a member, right? By the same argument we could say that infants aren't human beings either.

The issue isn't really about biology, or when "life begins". It's about the point at which the rights of the growing person inside a woman outweigh her own rights as it pertains to control over her own body. The argument is that she *is* that environment which is required for the other person to live, and at least to some degree ought to have some say in the matter. Obviously, at the point at which the fetus could be removed and survive outside the womb, no abortion should *ever* be allowed. Yet, we have cases of loopholes in our abortion laws being used to allow just that.


Somewhere along the line, we have polarized this issue so much into an "us vs them" affair that we're willing to overlook gross violations of the principles we should care about in order to "win". We lost sight of the core argument, that a woman has rights with regard to her own body, and have turned it into a right to use abortion to avoid the problems and responsibility of raising a child. That's an incredibly dangerous rationale to use if you stop and think about it.



And? If you don't feed and shelter a baby, it also will not grow and live. And if I deprive you of oxygen, you'll stop living and growing as well. That's not the distinction that defines whether something is "human life", is it? And that's ignoring the reality that when it comes to abortion, we're generally talking about something done deliberately to prevent that growth and life process from happening. You're sidestepping the real issue by arguing that the zygote isn't human life at that point. It is.



I don't think the pro-life people ignore that. I think they make a distinction between said life ending naturally, and a human taking a conscious act to terminate it. I'm not sure what your point is about whether we know they exist or not. And my religious friends would presumably counter that God knows about them, even if we do not. The subject of where their little souls go is more of a matter of dogma though. ;)



Pinning the entire pro-choice argument on the incredibly weak argument that a zygote isn't a distinct "human life" IMO brings even more problems for our side. It makes the counter argument very simple. And you're seeing it: "Life begins at conception". And whether you view the issue from a religious or scientific standpoint, most people are going to agree with that assertion.





Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. From a biological point of view, in sexual reproduction, the merging of two gametes into one combined zygote *is* the point at which a unique member of the species is created. I'm not sure why you're arguing this. It is biological fact. Prior to that point, you have cells with the DNA of one person, and other separate cells with the DNA from another. For species which reproduce sexually, those separate cells cannot form a new member of the species (barring cloning I suppose, but that's kinda out of scope). The zygote is what results when they combine their DNA.


It's absolutely factually correct to say that the zygote is the point at which a new human life begins. Why on earth do you think otherwise?

Like saying it's not really "rape" when we deny aid to some girl in order to save a few pennies and press our social agenda on her.

/nod

Rape is just sex you didn't know you wanted.

Is surprise sex rape

There are three small misconceptions I'd like to clear up that haven't been addressed:

1. It's always the pregnant woman's idea to get an abortion.
2. Abortions are pleasant and an easy form of birth control, and women truly enjoy having the option.
3. It's a woman's choice and completely in her control only whether or not she gets pregnant.

Abortions are a serious procedure. Women don't roll out of bed and say, "Oh, if I **** 10 guys today and become pregnant, I'll just hop over to the clinic and have an abortion!" The only women that may think this way are either the sublimely young or ignorant, or probably in most cases both. And most that do end up getting one will go out of their way to avoid getting another one, because it's trauma to the reproductive system, trauma to the rest of your body, and trauma to your mind.

It's really aggravating to watch men beat their chests and sound off about what's right for something that primarily affects women, especially when a lot of those men have committed a form of rape (gbaji) or think about it on a regular basis (varus). If either of you had enough empathy and lack of misogyny to ever even get a long term girlf that you thought of as more than a ****, you wouldn't be so quick to say that women who "cry" rape but have no physical signs except maybe some date-rape drugs she was taking recreationally (LOL) are probably lying, or could have done something about it. If your girlfriend came to you and said she was pregnant by a rapist, however it happened, you wouldn't be so inclined to let her have the baby and raise it with her. You'd believe her, because 99.99% of women don't take rape OR abortion as lightly as you think we all do.

If this is a bet, I could conceivably design a mechanism by which this could be done, with roughly the same amount of support as a human host would have to provide, barring a few complex chemicals and a cellular wash.

There would be little reason to do so however other than appeasing your warped understanding of biology and the ascetic appeal of a Rube Goldberg people making machine.

The definition of rape precludes the woman (or man) from having a choice. This docket wants to mandate that some court official does indeed pass judgement on a woman based on the conditions of her rape. That's kind of sick gjabi.

But Gbaji doesn't believe in social services, so he can pretend they magically don't exist.

Works as intended.