Zygote, Fetus, Clump of Cells, Alive, Dead???

Dis-qualifications: 1) Being is not Human.

If not, what addition SPECIFIC qualifications are necessary for you to think that one is 'worthy' of protection of their right to life?

Oh, so the issue only involves one building of one university in Missouri?

It would appear then that when I wrote:

real life wrote:

More political rants and exaggeration?

I was correct.

and when you wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Missouri right to life is now trying to stop all funding to MO schools

you were incorrect (exaggerating?)

Sad commentary on your position indeed. Are you able to discuss this civilly, or have you completely lost that ability?

I see no one has been able to tell us which are human and which are not....

This illustration is pointless. Every life-form endures a microscopic period during its evolution into maturity. Why is it important that someone viewing this thread has the ability to distinguish between the photo's?

You state that abortion PRIOR to 24 weeks should be allowed because the unborn isn't a living human being.

But you still are willing legally to allow abortion AFTER 24 weeks if the mother chooses it.

So your argument regarding sentience is meaningless, a smokescreen.

What development of 'character' does a newborn exhibit?

The answer is obviously --- NONE.

What development of 'culture' does a newborn exhibit?

The answer is obviously --- NONE.

Of course the logical answer to that is:

Don't throw them away at all. Allow them to grow into mature human beings.

If you can't do that, then don't create so many. Only create as many as you are able to allow to grow to maturity.

The main objection to that is always 'well that would make IVF so much more expensive'.

So, are dollars and cents worth throwing human life in the garbage?

real life wrote:

You state that abortion PRIOR to 24 weeks should be allowed because the unborn isn't a living human being.

But you still are willing legally to allow abortion AFTER 24 weeks if the mother chooses it.

So your argument regarding sentience is meaningless, a smokescreen.

Apparently I did not make this clear enough to you:

After 24 weeks, it is the mother's choice (with medical consultation) whether to abort or continue gestating a non-viable fetus. It is also her choice (with medical consultation) whether to abort a possibly-sentient fetus or voluntarily accept the risks of continuing a pregnancy that endangers her. In other words, she always has the right to kill another human being in self-defense, and she is not obligated to endure the discomforts of pregnancy for a defective fetus that cannot survive birth or will not have any quality of life if it does. Those are the ONLY 2 reasons I gave for 3rd-trimester abortions.

Now, how about answering this question - posed to you for the third time: How do you feel about the right of mothers to knowingly harm their fetuses through their use of cigarettes/drugs/alcohol or intentionally handicap them?

and:

Was it self-evident to Thomas Jefferson that his slaves were his equals or had a right to liberty? Alleged rights are meaningless unless recognized and protected by society.

real life wrote:

What development of 'character' does a newborn exhibit?

The answer is obviously --- NONE.

What development of 'culture' does a newborn exhibit?

The answer is obviously --- NONE.

Have you never interacted with a newborn infant???? They respond to other people from birth. Experiments have shown that they recognize sounds and music they heard while still in the womb. They absorb culture at a tremendous rate, developing character all the while. They show preferences for food, sounds, stimulation, position, wake/sleep cycles, etc. Embryos do none of these things, because they have not yet developed brains that can respond to anything.

real life wrote:

Of course the logical answer to that is:

Don't throw them away at all. Allow them to grow into mature human beings.

If you can't do that, then don't create so many. Only create as many as you are able to allow to grow to maturity.

The main objection to that is always 'well that would make IVF so much more expensive'.

So, are dollars and cents worth throwing human life in the garbage?

They can't grow into human beings on their own. And their biological parents may not want more children, but also may not want someone else raising children with their genes.

Thanks to the wastage God/nature built into the reproductive process, you have to over-create embryos in order to have sufficient viable ones to implant. 2/3 of embryos resulting from sexual intercourse fail to grow into human beings, often due to genetic defects, and are flushed from the woman's body without ever triggering a pregnancy. There is no ethical reason for IVF to refrain from creating extra embryos that will die, when all naturally-procreating couples do the same thing.

Quote:

Dis-qualifications: 1) Being is not Human.

This means that a dog, a horse, a seal is disqualified you fool. Learn to read. If this line was omitted the law would protect other animals than humans.

Quote:

If not, what addition SPECIFIC qualifications are necessary for you to think that one is 'worthy' of protection of their right to life?

I specifically isolated 5 disqualifiers. Done.

Quote:

Oh, so the issue only involves one building of one university in Missouri?

It would appear then that when I wrote:

real life wrote:

More political rants and exaggeration?

I was correct.

and when you wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Missouri right to life is now trying to stop all funding to MO schools

you were incorrect (exaggerating?)

Learn to read. The irony lies in the fact that the MO right to life movement is trying to block MOHELA funding to ALL UM schools (UMR,UMKC,MU,UMSL) when only one school, and one building can do the research they oppose. A building in which IRONICALLY, they lobbied money for. So what about the other three schools? This affect thousands of students who have nothng to do with the issue. What a group of zealots. I hear they are looking for new talent. Your pentchant for stubborn idiotic janitor rants might intrest them.

The only exageration is the responce by the MO right to life movement.

real life wrote:

Sad commentary on your position indeed. Are you able to discuss this civilly, or have you completely lost that ability?

I'll take my insults and incivility over your incompetance ANY day.

How do you feel about the right of mothers to knowingly harm their fetuses through their use of cigarettes/drugs/alcohol or intentionally handicap them?

Planned Parenthood Celebration Jolted by Abortion Survivor TED HARVEY


................"The cause of Gianna's cerebral palsy is not because of some biological freak of nature, but rather the choice of her mother.

"You see when her biological mother was 17-years-old and 7-and-a-half months pregnant, she went to a Planned Parenthood clinic to seek a late-term abortion. The abortionist performed a saline abortion on this 17-year-old girl. This procedure requires the injection of a high concentration of saline into the mother's womb, which the fetus is then bathed in and swallows, which results in the fetus being burned to death, inside and out. Within 24 hours the results are normally an induced, still-born abortion.

"As Gianna can testify, the procedure is not always 100 percent effective. Gianna is an aborted late-term fetus who was born alive. The high concentration of saline in the womb for 24 hours resulted in a lack of oxygen to her brain and is the cause of her cerebral palsy.................

The funding to UM schools is not the same as 'all funding to MO schools'.

As I said, you exaggerated the story and implied that 'ALL funding to MO schools' was the issue.

Imagine if Americans Against the War lobbied for money for a facility to study and find ways of bringing about global peace, and then the Army decided to move their War College from Ft Leavenworth to that facility. Do you think AAW would object? It seems like they probably would.

I'll scroll past your posts in the future.

Can you distinguish between 'self defense' and 'discomfort'? If someone makes me 'uncomfortable', have I the right to kill them in 'self defense'?

Again, your argument regarding sentience is little more than a smokescreen if you are willing to defend the woman's 'right' to abort if she is 'uncomfortable' at any point in the pregnancy.

I thought the example I gave of a mother maiming the child in utero would have made my position clear. The unborn is a living human being and it is wrong to intentionally harm him/her at any point.

Two different questions, and I don't have an answer for either. Sorry. They are scarcely related to the topic at hand. The Framers of the Constitution , as a group, declared certain rights to be inalienable. How Mr Jefferson's individual view did or didnt coincide with this is somewhat irrelevant.

Whether I consider someone my 'equal' is not the same as asking whether I think I have the right to kill that person if they inconvenience me. Do you see the difference?

I agree that rights should be recognized and protected by society. That was the position of the Founders as well. Rights do not ORIGINATE with society, however, and that is an important difference.

At the moment of birth, the newborn is a 'living human being', i.e. 'a person', NOT because he/she has interacted with another or has 'developed character (or character traits)' or 'developed culture'.

The same is true BEFORE birth. The unborn is a living human being, i.e. a person.

He/she does not 'become a person' only after some interaction with another.

There is a difference between something that happens unintentionally and something that is intentionally caused.

Do you not see the difference?

Many people contract AIDS unintentionally. Does that mean one has the right to intentionally infect someone with HIV to cause AIDS?

Miscarriage is not a justification for abortion.

Would your definition of 'intentionally handicapping' include Gianna's cerebral palsy?

I agree that a newborn is a living human being (as is a third trimester fetus)...............

As I said several times already (you should try responding to what is posted instead of arguments that only exist in your own mind), 3rd trimester abortions ARE NOT AND CANNOT BE DONE SIMPLY FOR CONVENIENCE.

A human being may be killed to save the life or health of the mother.

And an abortion may be done to reduce her suffering IF THE FETUS IS NON-VIABLE DUE TO GENETIC DEFECTS.

Terry wrote:

I agree that a newborn is a living human being (as is a third trimester fetus)...............

So at PRECISELY what point does the fetus become a living human being?

Is it at midnight on the day the third trimester begins?

And how do you know when the third trimester begins , since these dates are all estimates, based on measurements of the size of the unborn as it grows (and of course all of them do not grow at the same rate, nor are they born the same size), and the recollection of the woman of the approximate date of her last period, and the approximate date of sexual activity that could have initiated the pregnancy........

In other words, nobody knows EXACTLY when the third trimester begins, so even if it could be proven that the unborn becomes a living human being at that PRECISE moment, nobody knows when it is.

And of course, the unborn may become a living human being a day prior to the third trimester, may it not? Or two days prior? Or three? Or a week? Or.............can you admit you don't know?

Since that is the case, doesn't allowing abortion up to the third trimester virtually GUARANTEE that living human beings are killed?

Then after the third trimester begins, do you support the complete banning of abortion except to save the life of the mother? If not, then your emphasis on sentience is meaningless, isn't it, since you will allow the unborn to be killed for convenience at that stage also?

...This is the primary concept that continues to escape the brain of real. Tring to discuss this issue with "this" poster is like knocking one's head against the wall; it never penetrates.