Active Users:345 Time:17/06/2025 04:59:10 PM
A valid question Jeordam Send a noteboard - 27/01/2010 10:07:16 PM
I'm not an embryologist, but I have a feeling I've had more education on the subject than you. Yes there are differences, but for the most part, the early stages of development are identical in almost every single mammalian species.

What education have you had. I now have 2 science degrees (1 business one), and work in the medical industry where embryonic development is something which is seen, noted, taken records on, and examined in our daily work.

The early stages being the cell division? Because if we're talking chromosomal make-up, antibody behavior, and specific protein systhesies...there are differences

Scientists cannot even define what makes up a persona, much less what causes it and when it develops.

I know. So why just assume that it's a lump of cells, when you can accurately be described as everything from a lump of cells to a "bag of mostly water" (note the Star Trek: TNG reference)

Many, many people disagree entirely with your opinion that someone is a "person" at conception. There is no definitive proof for either side.

I know that. Which is why I err on the side of caution.

But going with the assumption that one is a person with full rights upon conception, we then have doctors and families in a very difficult position. Potentially lose yourself/wife/signficiant-other? Lose a child you do not know and have no attachment to (beyond hormonal drive)? Both are horrible outomes and it is an incredibly difficult decision to make. One that requires a great deal of opinion to come to. In the case of a mother's safety, how can you force someone to make that call in either direction?

No more attachment beyond hormonal drive? I seem to remember mourning with my friend as his wife miscarried their first child. She wasn't far along, but it wasn't just a normal drive. You automatically assume that parents do not have an emotional investment on a zygote or fetus. Some may have no attachment, but then some others do. Either way, it is besides the point, because the person is a person. How we emotionally regard them is not relevant.

Isn't that what freedom of choice is about?

No, that's not what freedom of choice is all about. If abortion was limited to in the case of the mother's life, it wouldn't be a problem. Instead, abortion is all about the mother's convience and comfort.

Of course, then you have all the legal ramifications of defining a zygote as a human being. If a woman drinks while she is 2 weeks pregnant, is she guilty of child abuse? If she miscarries during a car accident, is the guilty party tried for manslaughter? If a husband hits his pregnant wife, should he be tried twice for domestic abuse? If someone accidently aborts their child through ignorance (ex. certain herbs or medications), should they be tried in court? Could the father sue?

All these things would have to be worked out. I believe much of the same arguements took palce when African Americans were declaired to having the same full rights as everyone else. When their humanity was regarded as being legitimate. It took a bit of time for it to get worked out (voting rights, afirmative action, etc)...but we're getting there as a society.

It is simply my opinion that it is unethical to make abortions illegal since the definition of when a zygote becomes a human being is nonexistent and to outlaw it would put a definitively human woman in a position for risk.


And it is simply my opinion that it is unethical to have legal elective abortion, because it amounts to having no difference to a woman taking her todler into the woods and shooting him in the head....or a person poisoning a mentaly disadvantaged person. Not ascribing the developing person human rights is no different than when the same rights were not granted to those who were slaves or the Jews in the 1930's-40's in Nazi territories.

~Jeordam
ex-Admin at wotmania (all things wot & art galleries)
Saving the Princess, Humanity, or the World-Entire since 1985
Reply to message
Anti-Abortion CBS Super Bowl commercial - 27/01/2010 05:35:37 PM 1924 Views
I think that its a fantastic idea... - 27/01/2010 05:46:17 PM 1132 Views
agreed... somewhat. - 27/01/2010 05:52:26 PM 1130 Views
See, that's the debate here... - 27/01/2010 06:03:01 PM 886 Views
depending on the developmental stage, an embryo might be nothign more than a clump of cells. - 27/01/2010 07:18:25 PM 770 Views
You make baby Allah cry. *NM* - 27/01/2010 07:58:01 PM 531 Views
was it the dog comparison? - 27/01/2010 07:59:22 PM 921 Views
Nah, Dog is God reversed, after all. - 27/01/2010 08:29:12 PM 880 Views
parasites! parasites i say!!! - 27/01/2010 08:37:53 PM 910 Views
yeah except islam allows abortion in certain conditions - 28/01/2010 05:43:29 AM 901 Views
Do those conditions include "I don't want a baby"? - 28/01/2010 11:52:24 PM 1124 Views
some scholars say yes, some say no - 29/01/2010 05:51:18 AM 1023 Views
Shall we be technical.... - 27/01/2010 09:28:20 PM 895 Views
And since when are you a trained eye? - 27/01/2010 09:52:05 PM 999 Views
A valid question - 27/01/2010 10:07:16 PM 872 Views
Okay then, that's fair enough - 27/01/2010 10:48:10 PM 892 Views
If there's a chance the mother might die... - 27/01/2010 07:30:54 PM 959 Views
Which is why I'm against elective abortion - 27/01/2010 09:33:59 PM 915 Views
Then we are in accord. - 27/01/2010 10:00:32 PM 921 Views
That works.... - 27/01/2010 10:10:22 PM 918 Views
And I think that is wonderful. - 27/01/2010 10:33:05 PM 1014 Views
I want to see an atheism Superbowl ad - 27/01/2010 06:21:02 PM 962 Views
Re: I want to see an atheism Superbowl ad - 27/01/2010 06:35:30 PM 994 Views
Go ahead and pay for one.... - 27/01/2010 06:37:18 PM 1030 Views
- 27/01/2010 07:01:59 PM 961 Views
at your - 27/01/2010 07:03:39 PM 904 Views
how does atheism take anything away? - 27/01/2010 07:20:49 PM 938 Views
Exactly - 27/01/2010 07:29:49 PM 918 Views
Smiles.... - 27/01/2010 09:38:25 PM 906 Views
just because you believe in god - 27/01/2010 09:57:39 PM 786 Views
losing, not loosing *NM* - 27/01/2010 10:22:51 PM 543 Views
Re: Smiles.... - 29/01/2010 09:03:48 PM 875 Views
LOL It only "takes away" mental enslavement. - 27/01/2010 07:50:56 PM 912 Views
Who says? - 27/01/2010 09:42:07 PM 902 Views
You're not "open" to anything. - 27/01/2010 10:02:03 PM 1040 Views
I don't need your sadness dude...or your pity. - 27/01/2010 10:19:43 PM 928 Views
Personally speaking - 27/01/2010 10:36:45 PM 972 Views
Although off topic that's exactly how I see it too. *NM* - 27/01/2010 10:43:49 PM 532 Views
But notice your perspective Brian... - 27/01/2010 11:08:52 PM 1035 Views
Your argument assumes in the existance of the Christian God. - 27/01/2010 11:28:16 PM 892 Views
Because we're His children - 28/01/2010 01:08:20 AM 925 Views
My perspective as someone who is for the most part an Atheist? - 28/01/2010 01:13:02 AM 837 Views
You have a very odd and self-serving notion of what "open" is. - 28/01/2010 12:12:06 AM 4259 Views
Tolerance much? - 27/01/2010 08:11:12 PM 971 Views
I took care of that. - 27/01/2010 08:33:18 PM 944 Views
Don't read an emotion into that I didn't put into it. - 27/01/2010 09:44:37 PM 756 Views
Oh, well there are examples. Google those ads I mentioned - 27/01/2010 11:24:10 PM 751 Views
all athesim means is not believing in deities 9_9 - 27/01/2010 11:30:37 PM 762 Views
Fortunately, positivity doesn't appear to be the qualifying characteristic - 27/01/2010 08:26:28 PM 863 Views
Well there is a difference between... - 27/01/2010 09:47:36 PM 1059 Views
The fact is that it was a positive message, whether you agreed with it or not. - 27/01/2010 09:52:47 PM 925 Views
Says the Protestant. - 27/01/2010 11:22:05 PM 915 Views
What is the UCC? *NM* - 29/01/2010 02:59:07 AM 554 Views
United Church of Christ - 29/01/2010 02:24:11 PM 806 Views
I don't think it is the same thing - 27/01/2010 07:17:19 PM 775 Views
I wasn't making an argument- just that it'd be interesting - 27/01/2010 08:11:57 PM 752 Views
that I can agree with - 27/01/2010 08:27:30 PM 854 Views
Re: I think that its a fantastic idea... - 28/01/2010 03:36:11 AM 863 Views
Hey whatever they want to pay for - 27/01/2010 05:52:11 PM 971 Views
Hahahaha... I couldn't care less, but this line cracked me up - 27/01/2010 06:19:37 PM 946 Views
wow...I didn't even think of that... - 27/01/2010 06:39:04 PM 897 Views
Heh. *NM* - 28/01/2010 10:43:43 PM 544 Views
I think they need to treat all sides the same - 27/01/2010 06:49:47 PM 894 Views
agreed *NM* - 27/01/2010 07:15:48 PM 540 Views
this. *NM* - 28/01/2010 01:33:01 AM 481 Views
whether you agree with Tebow or not... - 27/01/2010 06:51:58 PM 920 Views
I don't think there'd be a problem if it wasn't the Super Bowl - 27/01/2010 07:35:18 PM 893 Views
The problem is the hyprocrisy of CBS. - 27/01/2010 07:56:58 PM 1020 Views
Bingo. - 27/01/2010 07:58:01 PM 765 Views
And they claim this is the result of you liberal types pissing and moaning. - 27/01/2010 08:40:57 PM 858 Views
Yeah, I'm sure that's it. - 27/01/2010 08:44:26 PM 756 Views
"the buggery agenda" - 27/01/2010 08:47:28 PM 895 Views
I know, I loved it! I might start using that instead of Fagenda. *NM* - 27/01/2010 09:03:53 PM 553 Views
You might need to rework titles too. "Most Buggered", "Her Buggerness" - 27/01/2010 09:06:44 PM 1028 Views
this commercial is only a big deal to those - 27/01/2010 07:59:27 PM 961 Views
I really, really hope a pro-choice group buys the next ad space - 27/01/2010 08:09:16 PM 1040 Views
Replace Hitler with Ben Affleck and I'd help pay for it. - 27/01/2010 08:12:25 PM 772 Views
that's funny enough it'd pay for itself - 27/01/2010 08:13:31 PM 866 Views
But how would you folks argue on the internet then? I'd still have Stalin... *NM* - 27/01/2010 08:49:17 PM 514 Views
I'm sure people could think of something *NM* - 27/01/2010 09:00:23 PM 410 Views
LMAO! that would be awesome *NM* - 28/01/2010 12:02:25 AM 551 Views
The funny thing is - 27/01/2010 08:28:22 PM 1075 Views
Oh no you di'in't! - 27/01/2010 08:54:47 PM 685 Views
I had a similar thought... - 27/01/2010 10:17:15 PM 882 Views
*NM* - 28/01/2010 01:12:46 AM 492 Views
*brain explodes* - 27/01/2010 08:30:51 PM 793 Views
are your sinuses clear now? *NM* - 27/01/2010 08:54:18 PM 503 Views
Oddly enough, they aren't. - 27/01/2010 08:59:27 PM 937 Views
thats what you get for living in the hill country - 27/01/2010 09:10:09 PM 852 Views
Not my idea, and I'm working on it. - 28/01/2010 12:36:17 AM 889 Views
the super bowl is no place for political messages, no matter how thinly veiled. - 28/01/2010 05:15:13 AM 785 Views
Are you saying that CBS should be required to run an opposing ad? *NM* - 28/01/2010 05:19:39 AM 492 Views
if they are going to approve a political message, they should be required to air the opposite view - 28/01/2010 05:27:33 AM 781 Views
I'm pretty strongly pro-choice and even I find that silly. *NM* - 28/01/2010 06:55:37 AM 551 Views
What kind of ad would they run in response? - 28/01/2010 11:50:10 PM 919 Views
more like.... - 29/01/2010 03:20:24 AM 1029 Views
The problem with Pro-Choice is... - 28/01/2010 02:12:13 PM 897 Views
Not really a fair comment - 28/01/2010 02:44:21 PM 879 Views
Re: Not really a fair comment - 28/01/2010 03:27:03 PM 982 Views
I can't see Youtube at work and am out the next couple of nights so I can't see it till the weekend - 28/01/2010 03:36:48 PM 759 Views
I know you were going to tell me that it was slanted... - 28/01/2010 03:57:37 PM 912 Views
That is unfair on me - 28/01/2010 04:18:07 PM 906 Views
Sorry...wasn't trying to be unfair.... - 28/01/2010 04:34:18 PM 925 Views
Apology accepted - 28/01/2010 04:52:39 PM 740 Views
...which is yet another argument for publicly funded healthcare - 28/01/2010 03:46:25 PM 772 Views
Re: ...which is yet another argument for publicly funded healthcare - 28/01/2010 04:03:46 PM 885 Views
An unfortunate choice of words.... - 28/01/2010 07:00:18 PM 762 Views
I don't think it's so much a matter of supplying misleading information, - 28/01/2010 11:07:24 PM 821 Views
Ah, - 29/01/2010 02:51:22 PM 873 Views
No. - 29/01/2010 06:10:47 PM 959 Views

Reply to Message