• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bright flash of light marks incredible moment life begins when sperm meets egg

There's a few hundred active members in DP who would quickly disagree with what you've just said.

Well, it's quite creepy that they know about how much popcorn I have.
 
Umm...No.

However, you are already aware of this from all the prior arguments in all the other threads on this topic in this forum.

The fact that you choose to believe otherwise? Not proof a human being exists at the moment of fertilization. :shrug:

Henrin is one of several members who loves to play the denial game. Biological and legal facts aren't their friends.

Know how many times I've posted the following for all of these folks who claim a zygote is automatically a human being, including Henrin?:

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)
 
Henrin is one of several members who loves to play the denial game. Biological and legal facts aren't their friends.

Know how many times I've posted the following for all of these folks who claim a zygote is automatically a human being, including Henrin?:

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

I believe we were talking about biological reality, not legality.
 
Just because the biology starts at that point does not mean that a human life, for purposes of legal protection, has begun. And to the extent that rights should be granted, those rights - like all rights - have to be weighed against the rights of other human beings. And specifically, in this case, the rights of the mother trump most governmental interests in protecting the "biology" inside of her.

That is absolutely right. The conflicting rights must be weighed against each other. The innocent young life against the convenience of a girl having fun and with no desire to take responsibility for the consequences. ;)
 
I believe we were talking about biological reality, not legality.

Then the use of the word "human being" is inappropriate prior to birth. That is a legal and biological reality. No biology dictionary or text books, or studies refer to the yet to be born at any stage prior to birth as "human being".
 
Actually they do.
No, that is simply not true.

Does it? Why don;t you explain how?

Also, its DNA is human.
Really...as opposed to what?

So it is a living human.
Still not so.

Denying this is no different than denying evolution.
This based on your expertise? How about asserting is like declaring the Earth flat?
 
Actually they do. A fertilized egg presents all 7 biological characteristics of a living organism.

Also, its DNA is human.

So it is a living human.

Denying this is no different than denying evolution.

This is one more irrelevant, totally meaningless pro-life argument . SO FRICKIN WHAT that a zygote, embryo, or early stage fetus...and on to the death of a human life...is an organism? It simply doesn't matter. All living things on this planet or organisms.

Pro-choice can make their argument clearly and concisely without using words like organism, homeostasis, zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus...or even ABORTION.
 
That is absolutely right. The conflicting rights must be weighed against each other. The innocent young life against the convenience of a girl having fun and with no desire to take responsibility for the consequences. ;)

So how about an eye for an eye? Let's start executing all females for aborting the yet to be born? Would that work for ya? Would you see that as some sort of zero sum game?

But wait...

Gosh, as I recall, women can reproduce multiple times and the earth's population is still going strong despite all of the abortions. ;)
 
Bright flash of light marks incredible moment life begins when sperm meets egg

When life begins...

Fact.

“All of biology starts at the time of fertilization...” -- Professor Teresa Woodruff

To pre-meditatively end that human life after this point? It's murder.

Like in many, too-many cases -- government and the law just need to catch up.

But they will.

And the article says it's been observed in other animals. So....should it now be illegal to kill other animals?

Exactly how does this make Homo sapiens 'special' and not subject to abortion?
 
Don't like abortion?


Don't have one.
 
Actually they do. A fertilized egg presents all 7 biological characteristics of a living organism.

Also, its DNA is human.

So it is a living human.

Denying this is no different than denying evolution.

Human DNA is in fingernail clippings too. Are they also human? It takes more than DNA to make an organism human. More like a proto-human. As many as 3/4's of all fertilized eggs do not develop into babies because they naturally abort, that's a lot of funerals. Or proof that nature does not consider a tiny blob to be human yet either and would rather discard a zygote than risk all that effort for a human with diminished abilities. Not that unlike what women do when they decide it is not the right time for a child and it would not get the life it deserves. The availability of abortion only increases the value of all those that get born. If you truly cared about children's lives you would understand that.
 
Last edited:
Human DNA is in fingernail clippings too. Are they also human? It takes more than DNA to make an organism human. More like a proto-human. As many as 3/4's of all fertilized eggs do not develop into babies because they naturally abort, that's a lot of funerals. Or proof that nature does not consider a tiny blob to be human yet either. Without our unique and powerful brain we are nothing but ordinary animals.

No, that is proof that we can die at any stage of our life.
 
Don't like rape?

Don't rape anyone.

Hey, I think your logic is pretty good. :lol:

Rape is a crime.

Too bad that absolutely stupid posts like yours aren't.
 
So? Who cares when life begins inside of another human being? It's still that other human being's right to abort it if she so desires.

That's right. When the law makes unethical behavior legal, you can act like a criminal with impunity.
That is usually how mass murder and ethnic cleansing is manufactured. ;)
 
Scenario:
- Pro life individual walks into a room, to find a 20 week fetus in a tube, and a baby. The pro lifer has to choose to save one of them. Of course, they both are babies in the mind of a pro lifer so it should be easy. Just randomly push the button and save either one! Of course, the pro lifer will always save the baby, not the fetus. I guess all life isn't equal.
 
No, that is simply not true.

Does it? Why don;t you explain how?

1. The fertilized egg is Composed of cells
2. The fertilized egg has different levels of organization
3. The fertilized egg consumes energy
4. The fertilized egg respond to their environment.
5. The fertilized egg grows
6. The fertilized egg reproduces
7. The fertilized egg adapts to it's environment by creating a barrier to prevent further sperm from entering.

Really...as opposed to what?

Non-Human DNA. How is this a hard concept for you?

Still not so.

It still is so regardless of how vehemently you deny the science.

This based on your expertise?

Based on the evidence.

How about asserting is like declaring the Earth flat?

That is essentially what you are doing.

Now take the 7 characteristics of life and apply it to an egg by itself, or a sperm, or a skin cell. Those are parts of a larger organism, the fertilized egg is a living organism unto itself. A living human organism.
 
Scenario:
- Pro life individual walks into a room, to find a 20 week fetus in a tube, and a baby. The pro lifer has to choose to save one of them. Of course, they both are babies in the mind of a pro lifer so it should be easy. Just randomly push the button and save either one! Of course, the pro lifer will always save the baby, not the fetus. I guess all life isn't equal.

Oh boy you went all out on that straw man, didn't you?

You do realize that in your own scenario you introduce the concept that a 20 week old fetus can be saved, right? If both can be saved then there is no rational reason to choose one over the other.

I like how you go on to tell us how you think a pro-lifer would choose just to put the dumb cherry on the top of your stupid scenario.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom