Abortion

Originally posted by autumn dreams
Meaning it is human. From the mment it is conceived, the zygote/embryo/fetus whatever you call it is a human. As it has not taken a breath, supposedly it is not a human being. Fair enough, but it is 100% human, as it was created by two humans who are incapable of producing anything but humans.

Actually it isn't quite as important about the "first breath" - there reaches a point during the pregnancy where the unborn is recognised as such and protected by the law (as Gay Guy tried to misinterpret) with conditions (such as threats to the mothers life.) It still doesn't change the fact that the period during which an abortion can be legally performed is seen as a separate phase from the period where it is protected as an unborn and the phase after birth onwards.

Once again the point is that during that abortion period it is not legally or medically a "human being" - thus an abortion can be carried out. After that period the definition changes and abortions are not legal except in special circumstances.

And so... is a pollunated apple seed an apple tree?

Originally posted by autumn dreams
Meaning it is human. From the mment it is conceived, the zygote/embryo/fetus whatever you call it is a human. As it has not taken a breath, supposedly it is not a human being. Fair enough, but it is 100% human, as it was created by two humans who are incapable of producing anything but humans.

Biggest load of horseshit I've read in this thread for a while.

It's a cell at conception and for a long time thereafter. Nothing human about it, and that's a scientific fact. A cell isn't human, you idiot.

-AC

Medically pregnancy is denoted by implantation of the zygote to the fundus of the uterus, not conception. Often fertilised ova are expelled during menstruation due to failure to implant.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Down's Syndrome is a mistake in genetic information. However, the genotype is still human (the same alleles [sometimes three] and same chromosomes [different number]). Perhaps it should be outlined that humans have 23 types of chromosomes whether they come in pairs or not. Polyploidy is the doubling of the chromosome number to enlarge fruit, but does not change the fruit's identity as an apple (or whatever it is). The fruit still a set number of chromosome types.

There are multiple species of the Frageria genus, distinguished by different polyploidy.

I did change the criteria because I had not originally considered genetic disorders. You have, however, allowed me to make a better and more correct definition through your questioning.

Could you please provide a link to the research involving different species of Frageria so that I might make a more positive, accurate, and acceptable explanation?

Originally posted by Nellinator
I did change the criteria because I had not originally considered genetic disorders. You have, however, allowed me to make a better and more correct definition through your questioning.

Could you please provide a link to the research involving different species of Frageria so that I might make a more positive, accurate, and acceptable explanation?

If you want the knowledge you'll find it. 🙂
It's basic genetics that polyploidy can lead to speciation. There has been a duplication of the "ancestral yeast" genome as part of it's speciation. 🙂

Funny how no one seems to mention whether or not if the mix of a human being and another ape is to be considered a human, if the genetic pools were possible to mix together.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
Funny how no one seems to mention whether or not if the mix of a human being and another ape is to be considered a human, if the genetic pools were possible to mix together.

if u mix an ape with a human abortion would still be killing, but killing is not murder so you would only be taking the life of man-ape, which would still be a choice.

my sister was going to have an abortion about 4years ago. it didnt really occur to me how horrific it was until i saw a downloaded pic on the net showing how it happens. although i my nephew can be a real pain in the neck he doesnt deserve somthing like that.

therefore i vote NO.

Originally posted by Up In Flames
my sister was going to have an abortion about 4years ago. it didnt really occur to me how horrific it was until i saw a downloaded pic on the net showing how it happens. although i my nephew can be a real pain in the neck he doesnt deserve somthing like that.

therefore i vote NO.

do you have a baby in your body that you can kill? NO.

then you can't choose to kill a baby unless you carry one in you're body..

carrying a baby or not you can still have an opinion on whether or not to support abortion.

Be thankful for the cruel science of today that allows for that option at all...

Originally posted by Julie
carrying a baby or not you can still have an opinion on whether or not to support abortion.

True.

Be thankful for the cruel science of today that allows for that option at all...

Don't blame science or call it cruel. Women have (granted, in smaller numbers) been having abortions since ancient time - the difference being in those days it could be potentially dangerous/fatal to the women as well - all sorts of poisons or invasive techniques. Not nice at all.

Science is far from cruel, they have imposed guidelines which pretext the life of the women, and try and insure you don't have people trying to get rid of an unborn at a stage when it is not legal.

Or they could just stop trying to "get rid of the unborn" at all.

Would make things alot easier, wouldn't it?

Plus, you get the added bonus of not ending human life. 🙂

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Be thankful for the cruel science of today that allows for that option at all...

Yes, yes of course, much like nuclear engineering is an evil thing because it can develop weapons of mass destruction. Oh wait, can't nuclear energy also help people? Can't surgical procedures save people? Doesn't modern medicine do tihngs that were once considered miracles?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Or they could just stop trying to "get rid of the unborn" at all.

Would make things alot easier, wouldn't it?

Plus, you get the added bonus of not ending human life. 🙂

it's not "ending human life"..get your factual evidence correct..its killing "human life"...biiig difference.

Originally posted by billyjoebobsue
it's not "ending human life"..get your factual evidence correct..its killing "human life"...biiig difference.

No, it is neither ending nor killing human life, no more then removing a tumor is ending or killing human life. It is aborting or killing a cell cluster that is neither legally or medically constitutes a human being. Eventually it will be considered an unborn child - that is when it would be considered killing a human being - not before.

👆 very good.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
No, it is neither ending nor killing human life, no more then removing a tumor is ending or killing human life. It is aborting or killing a cell cluster that is neither legally or medically constitutes a human being. Eventually it will be considered an unborn child - that is when it would be considered killing a human being - not before.

That is possibly true within the first few weeks of development. The cluster of cells is so tiny and no cell is ready to even become a bodypart yet.

However, after the first month the foetus starts to develop. The cells that start forming the head, arms, legs, etc. begin thier processes.

True, the foetus is not a human being. A human being has ego, intelligence, and sense of self. However, between 4-5 months, the foetus becomes sentient. It finishes developing nerves at this stage, and can even hear the sound of its mother's voice.

But no matter what, it is still human. You cannot call it anything other than so. A human courpse is still human, therefore so is a foetus. 😉

The term "Unborn Child" is very general, and has been used to describe both a miscarried and aborted foetus. "Unborn child" is not scientifically official, but still as valid as any other fact here.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Don't blame science or call it cruel. Women have (granted, in smaller numbers) been having abortions since ancient time - the difference being in those days it could be potentially dangerous/fatal to the women as well - all sorts of poisons or invasive techniques. Not nice at all.

Better to have an Abortion that is safer and quicker than one that can hurt the mother as well. 👆

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Science is far from cruel, they have imposed guidelines which pretext the life of the women, and try and insure you don't have people trying to get rid of an unborn at a stage when it is not legal.

Untrue. Scientific bias has existed for a while, especially in the time when Homosexuality was once defined as a mental illness. Even before that superiority and inferiority of RACE was defined by biological means.

True that science does not have the same level of bias and cruelty that religion has, but science has certainly had its share in the inspiriation and utter justification of hatred towards certain people.

But true that it is much better to have the Abortion earlier than later. Partial Birth Abortion was once legal, and I find it appalling that it was once allowed....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
That is possibly true within the first few weeks of development. The cluster of cells is so tiny and no cell is ready to even become a bodypart yet.

However, after the first month the foetus starts to develop. The cells that start forming the head, arms, legs, etc. begin thier processes.

True, the foetus is not a human being. A human being has ego, intelligence, and sense of self. However, between 4-5 months, the foetus becomes sentient. It finishes developing nerves at this stage, and can even hear the sound of its mother's voice.

But no matter what, it is still human. You cannot call it anything other than so. A human courpse is still human, therefore so is a foetus. 😉

The term "Unborn Child" is very general, and has been used to describe both a miscarried and aborted foetus. "Unborn child" is not scientifically official, but still as valid as any other fact here.

Um, no. I've explained this to you before, a fetus is not a human. It is going to be a human, it comes from a human, but it is not one. The use of the word "human" is used as a possesor, much like a "human heart" is not, in itself, a human.

Is human synonymous with the word corpse? No? Then no, a corpse is not a human. It's a corpse. Simple, isn't it?

Oh, a miscarriage is technically an abortion.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Untrue. Scientific bias has existed for a while, especially in the time when Homosexuality was once defined as a mental illness. Even before that superiority and inferiority of RACE was defined by biological means.

True that science does not have the same level of bias and cruelty that religion has, but science has certainly had its share in the inspiriation and utter justification of hatred towards certain people.

But true that it is much better to have the Abortion earlier than later. Partial Birth Abortion was once legal, and I find it appalling that it was once allowed....

How can an abstract noun, referring to knowledge and skills obtained and verified through verified facts, be cruel or biased?

The people known as scientists, and those who use the advancements made in the respective fields, may be cruel and biased, but you can't just label a distinctive procedure or law 'cruel'.

Biological fact: people die.

Is that fact being malicious? Is it cruel? No, it simply exists, and putting a label on it is incorrect.