Discussion:
"Science confirms that human life begins at fertilization"
Add Reply
Rudy Canoza
2017-03-04 17:54:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.liveactionnews.org/science-confirms-that-human-life-begins-at-fertilization/?utm_source=thenewamericana.com
[...]
The scientific community continues to prove that human life begins at
conception (fertilization).
In their latest edition of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented
Embryology, professors Keith Moore, TVN Persaud, and Mark Torchia shed
significant light on the development of the human person – and they
don’t
shy away from the reality of when life begins. Here are six revealing
[...]
Read the article to see the reasoning.
Thanks for the cite, David, but we don't need science to tell us
something
that obvious.
When people speak of "human life", the implication is they are referring
to when the life becomes a person (personhood).
There is no other time personhood might begin.
Kevrob
2017-03-04 18:12:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.liveactionnews.org/science-confirms-that-human-life-begins-at-fertilization/?utm_source=thenewamericana.com
[...]
The scientific community continues to prove that human life begins at
conception (fertilization).
In their latest edition of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented
Embryology, professors Keith Moore, TVN Persaud, and Mark Torchia shed
significant light on the development of the human person – and they
don’t
shy away from the reality of when life begins. Here are six revealing
[...]
Read the article to see the reasoning.
Thanks for the cite, David, but we don't need science to tell us
something
that obvious.
When people speak of "human life", the implication is they are referring
to when the life becomes a person (personhood).
There is no other time personhood might begin.
Consider the source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Action_%28organization%29

Kevin R
Rudy Canoza
2017-03-04 19:01:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.liveactionnews.org/science-confirms-that-human-life-begins-at-fertilization/?utm_source=thenewamericana.com
[...]
The scientific community continues to prove that human life begins at
conception (fertilization).
In their latest edition of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented
Embryology, professors Keith Moore, TVN Persaud, and Mark Torchia shed
significant light on the development of the human person – and they don’t
shy away from the reality of when life begins. Here are six revealing
[...]
Read the article to see the reasoning.
Thanks for the cite, David, but we don't need science to tell us something
that obvious.
When people speak of "human life", the implication is they are referring
to when the life becomes a person (personhood). The determination of the
criteria for when personhood begins isn't a scientific question. Thus,
your "obvious" conclusion, and David's scientific facts, have no bearing
on the question being debating.
Yes, I know that and you know that, but most of those here who argue
pro-choice don't and I enjoy watching them make asses of themselves. (I'm
pro-choice too.)
Which proves that we're *not* sock puppets, because I'm not "pro-choice"
on the issue of abortion. I actually maintain that the "pro-choice"
side on that is not really in favor of choice at all, because they
*oppose* choice in so many other aspects of life.

Anyway, back to the question of personhood...there is no point *other*
than conception at which personhood might be acquired. Certainly
personhood is not determined by some mental capacity or anything like
that - when an adult person is in a coma or under general anesthesia for
surgery, we do not revoke his personhood while he is mentally
incapacitated. We don't impose some test of intelligence or other
mental ability on babies and very small children before declaring them
to be persons. It is obvious and beyond any possible dispute that there
is no difference in mental or moral capacity of a baby 10 minutes before
birth and 10 minutes after. Clearly and indisputably, personhood does
not and *cannot* depend on mental capacity. It's found in something else.

Here is an excellent piece that discusses the issue very well:
https://infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/roth1.html

I don't claim that's the last word on it, but a pro-abortion advocate
with an open mind might find himself questioning his preconceptions as
to what constitutes a person, and when. The author, a secular humanist
named Jennifer Roth, talks about the ability to perform "personal acts",
specifically to think and act on moral principles, as the essence of
personhood. She correctly notes that, for the most part, adults in
comas or under anesthesia undoubtedly have performed personal acts in
the past, and will resume doing so in future if they regain
consciousness. They are persons - no doubt about it.

But what about infants? Ms. Roth puts this very eloquently, and the
logic obviously extends backward to cover whom she calls "prenates",
that is developing human babies at some stage of development prior to birth:

An infant, unlike a comatose person, has never performed a personal
act. Is the infant, then, a non-person? Only if a non-person can
become a person. However, if that is possible, then why do other
non-persons, such as trees and ladybugs, never become persons?
Presumably, there is something inherent in a human infant which
differentiates her from other creatures. It is in the nature of the
infant to develop into a being which can reason and make moral
choices -- barring catastrophe, of course. The ability to perform
personal acts is not added, by some outside force, to the developing
infant. In the process of her growth, she naturally builds the
mental structures necessary to function as a person. I would argue,
therefore, that personhood itself is inherent in the infant.

We are agreed that the question of personhood is not a scientific
question. It also cannot be a mere legal question, either, because the
law is entirely arbitrary. It's a *philosophical* and *moral* question,
and someone is going to have a very difficult time, philosophically,
explaining how a non-person can become a person.

It's worth noting that the person to whom you are responding above is an
exceptionally sleazy sophist who imagines, fatuously, that *everything*
can be reduced to a legal question, or more precisely, a legalism. He,
along with the vast majority of the pro-abortion mob, routinely commit
the egregious is-ought fallacy when the state of things is as they like
it to be, as with the current state of the law regarding abortion. They
believe that because the law at present in effect says that an unborn
baby isn't a person, i.e. possessed human rights, that is as it ought to
be. They believe that personhood is "conferred" or "granted" by live
birth. As I said, that reduces it to a mere legalism, and that cannot
possibly be right, because if it were, we could declare as a matter of
law that people lose their personhood every day when sleeping. Clearly
that is absurd.

There's another major problem with the notion that personhood is
"conferred" by live birth, and this problem goes directly to an issue on
which you have agreed with me in the past. Personhood is, most
essentially, about rights. This is obvious even in the debate about
abortion itself. The pro-abortion side maintain that it is morally
acceptable to kill the developing unborn baby precisely because it is
not a person and thus has no right. But if personhood is defined by
law, then one is agreeing that the law is what "confers" or "grants"
rights to us. I am quite certain you have agreed with me in the past
that our rights are *not* "granted" or "conferred" by the law (the
state), but rather are inherent in our existence as human beings. We
have rights *because* we are human beings, not because some other humans
have decided to give them to us.
Rudy Canoza
2017-03-04 19:03:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.liveactionnews.org/science-confirms-that-human-life-begins-at-fertilization/?utm_source=thenewamericana.com
[...]
The scientific community continues to prove that human life
begins at
conception (fertilization).
In their latest edition of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented
Embryology, professors Keith Moore, TVN Persaud, and Mark Torchia
shed
significant light on the development of the human person – and
they don’t
shy away from the reality of when life begins. Here are six
revealing
[...]
Read the article to see the reasoning.
Thanks for the cite, David, but we don't need science to tell us
something
that obvious.
When people speak of "human life", the implication is they are
referring
to when the life becomes a person (personhood). The determination
of the
criteria for when personhood begins isn't a scientific question. Thus,
your "obvious" conclusion, and David's scientific facts, have no
bearing
on the question being debating.
Yes, I know that and you know that, but most of those here who argue
pro-choice don't and I enjoy watching them make asses of themselves.
(I'm
pro-choice too.)
David - a pro-life advocate - made a mess of himself by quoting this
article and you made a mess too by supporting him.
I was supporting his statement "Science confirms that human life
begins at
fertilization". Now explain my "mess".
"Human life" connotes personhood.
Exactly.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-03-04 20:03:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Until people start having children outside of the womb of a female person the question of personhood is pointless.

The woman is free to choose whether or not to carry to term.
We are not going to be a country that forces women to have children.

Birth control and abortion access are signs that women are free. When women are free the world is a better place. This is evidenced by the difference between those countries that are engulfed in poverty and the countless starving people vs any country where women have reproductive rights.
Or is it your intention to make everywhere like India?
Rudy Canoza
2017-03-04 19:14:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.liveactionnews.org/science-confirms-that-human-life-begins-at-fertilization/?utm_source=thenewamericana.com
[...]
The scientific community continues to prove that human life
begins at
conception (fertilization).
Thanks for the cite, David, but we don't need science to tell us
something that obvious.
When people speak of "human life", the implication is they are
referring to when the life becomes a person (personhood). The
determination of
the criteria for when personhood begins isn't a scientific
question. Thus,
your "obvious" conclusion, and David's scientific facts, have no
bearing on the question being debating.
Yes, I know that and you know that, but most of those here who argue
pro-choice don't and I enjoy watching them make asses of themselves.
(I'm pro-choice too.)
David - a pro-life advocate - made a mess of himself by quoting this
article and you made a mess too by supporting him.
No I stated scientific fact, the idea that this life is not human is a
political one, and a mistaken one at that.
Again, "human life" connotes "personhood".
Exactly - again.
Clave
2017-03-04 19:15:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.liveactionnews.org/science-confirms-that-human-life-begins-at-fertilization/?utm_source=thenewamericana.com
[...]
The scientific community continues to prove that human life begins at
conception (fertilization).
In their latest edition of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented
Embryology, professors Keith Moore, TVN Persaud, and Mark Torchia shed
significant light on the development of the human person – and they
don’t shy away from the reality of when life begins. Here are six
[...]
Read the article to see the reasoning.
By this reasoning, life begins before conception, since the sperm and the egg are both living beings.
No. They are not living *human* beings.
Mike Duffy
2017-03-04 19:56:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clave
No. They are not living *human* beings.
So, what type of living *non-human* beings are they?

Separate human egg & sperm cells are living human cells with the potential
to produce a person. Most fail to find a match and die.

A fertilized egg (zygote) is a living human cell with the potential to
produce a person. Most zygotes (& subsequent embryos) fail to implant in
the uterus and die.

If I believed in god(s), I would probably say that a zygote becomes a
person when a god decides to give it a soul.

NB: NGs trimmed; ES supports 3Max
Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
2017-03-04 19:58:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 11:15:18 -0800, Clave
Post by Clave
http://www.liveactionnews.org/science-confirms-that-human-life-begins-at-fertilization/?utm_source=thenewamericana.com
[...]
The scientific community continues to prove that human life begins at
conception (fertilization).
In their latest edition of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented
Embryology, professors Keith Moore, TVN Persaud, and Mark Torchia shed
significant light on the development of the human person – and they
don’t shy away from the reality of when life begins. Here are six
[...]
Read the article to see the reasoning.
By this reasoning, life begins before conception, since the sperm and the egg are both living beings.
No. They are not living *human* beings.
Yes. They are *human,* you blithering idiot. What species are they,
then?

[newsgroups trimmed]
Clave
2017-03-04 20:06:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 11:15:18 -0800, Clave
Post by Clave
http://www.liveactionnews.org/science-confirms-that-human-life-begins-at-fertilization/?utm_source=thenewamericana.com
[...]
The scientific community continues to prove that human life begins at
conception (fertilization).
In their latest edition of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented
Embryology, professors Keith Moore, TVN Persaud, and Mark Torchia shed
significant light on the development of the human person – and they
don’t shy away from the reality of when life begins. Here are six
[...]
Read the article to see the reasoning.
By this reasoning, life begins before conception, since the sperm and the egg are both living beings.
No. They are not living *human* beings.
Yes. They are *human,*
No, a sperm cell and an egg are not human beings.
Davej
2017-03-04 20:19:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clave
No, a sperm cell and an egg are not human beings.
Neither is a fertilized egg.

You can make a human being (a clone) out of various
human cells. That doesn't make every such cell a
human being just because it has the "potential" to
become one.
Rudy Canoza
2017-03-04 19:17:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.liveactionnews.org/science-confirms-that-human-life-begins-at-fertilization/?utm_source=thenewamericana.com
[...]
The scientific community continues to prove that human life begins at
conception (fertilization).
In their latest edition of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented
Embryology, professors Keith Moore, TVN Persaud, and Mark Torchia shed
significant light on the development of the human person – and they
don’t
shy away from the reality of when life begins. Here are six revealing
[...]
Read the article to see the reasoning.
Thanks for the cite, David, but we don't need science to tell us
something
that obvious.
When people speak of "human life", the implication is they are referring
to when the life becomes a person (personhood). The determination of
the criteria for when personhood begins isn't a scientific question.
Thus, your "obvious" conclusion, and David's scientific facts, have no
bearing on the question being debating.
Give it up Josh, Human life begins at fertilization, whether or not you
like it.
The fact that not everyone agrees when human life begins
Everyone *necessarily* agrees when human life - the existence of a
genetically complete human being - begins.
Rudy Canoza
2017-03-04 19:43:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.liveactionnews.org/science-confirms-that-human-life-begins-at-fertilization/?utm_source=thenewamericana.com
[...]
The scientific community continues to prove that human life begins at
conception (fertilization).
In their latest edition of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented
Embryology, professors Keith Moore, TVN Persaud, and Mark Torchia shed
significant light on the development of the human person – and they
don’t
shy away from the reality of when life begins. Here are six revealing
[...]
Read the article to see the reasoning.
Thanks for the cite, David, but we don't need science to tell us
something
that obvious.
When people speak of "human life", the implication is they are referring
to when the life becomes a person (personhood). The determination of
the criteria for when personhood begins isn't a scientific question.
Thus, your "obvious" conclusion, and David's scientific facts, have no
bearing on the question being debating.
Give it up Josh, Human life begins at fertilization, whether or not you
like it.
The fact that not everyone agrees when human life begins
Everyone *necessarily* agrees when human life - the existence of a
genetically complete human being - begins.
Then explain the process involved in determining precisely when the lives of twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc. begin.
What's the problem? The zygote before splitting *still* is complete
human life. The fact that it is not "a" single human being is wholly
immaterial.

You clowns are so funny. You don't know anything about twinning or
chimerism or any of that stuff. This is just bullshit you've cadged off
some pro-abortion page as ammunition. It's exactly the same as your
fake mastery of "global warming science." The basic and indisputable
fact is, *YOU* don't know the science at all. You're bullshitting about
science in service to ideology. Fuck off.
Rudy Canoza
2017-03-04 20:05:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[followups vandalism by science-illiterate cocksucker repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.liveactionnews.org/science-confirms-that-human-life-begins-at-fertilization/?utm_source=thenewamericana.com
[...]
The scientific community continues to prove that human life begins at
conception (fertilization).
In their latest edition of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented
Embryology, professors Keith Moore, TVN Persaud, and Mark Torchia shed
significant light on the development of the human person – and they
don’t
shy away from the reality of when life begins. Here are six revealing
[...]
Read the article to see the reasoning.
Thanks for the cite, David, but we don't need science to tell us
something
that obvious.
When people speak of "human life", the implication is they are referring
to when the life becomes a person (personhood). The determination of
the criteria for when personhood begins isn't a scientific question.
Thus, your "obvious" conclusion, and David's scientific facts, have no
bearing on the question being debating.
Give it up Josh, Human life begins at fertilization, whether or not you
like it.
The fact that not everyone agrees when human life begins
Everyone *necessarily* agrees when human life - the existence of a
genetically complete human being - begins.
Then explain the process involved in determining precisely when the lives of twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc. begin.
What's the problem? The zygote before splitting *still* is complete
human life. The fact that it is not "a" single human being is wholly
immaterial.
Grade: F.
No, liar. You don't have a point. Let's restore the part you snipped
Post by Rudy Canoza
You clowns are so funny. You don't know anything about twinning or
chimerism or any of that stuff. This is just bullshit you've cadged off
some pro-abortion page as ammunition. It's exactly the same as your
fake mastery of "global warming science." The basic and indisputable
fact is, *YOU* don't know the science at all. You're bullshitting about
science in service to ideology. Fuck off.
You really don't know what you're bullshitting about, bitch.
Rudy Canoza
2017-03-04 20:24:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[followups vandalism by science-illiterate cocksucker repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
[followups vandalism by science-illiterate cocksucker repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.liveactionnews.org/science-confirms-that-human-life-begins-at-fertilization/?utm_source=thenewamericana.com
[...]
The scientific community continues to prove that human life begins at
conception (fertilization).
In their latest edition of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented
Embryology, professors Keith Moore, TVN Persaud, and Mark Torchia shed
significant light on the development of the human person – and they
don’t
shy away from the reality of when life begins. Here are six revealing
[...]
Read the article to see the reasoning.
Thanks for the cite, David, but we don't need science to tell us
something
that obvious.
When people speak of "human life", the implication is they are referring
to when the life becomes a person (personhood). The determination of
the criteria for when personhood begins isn't a scientific question.
Thus, your "obvious" conclusion, and David's scientific facts, have no
bearing on the question being debating.
Give it up Josh, Human life begins at fertilization, whether or not you
like it.
The fact that not everyone agrees when human life begins
Everyone *necessarily* agrees when human life - the existence of a
genetically complete human being - begins.
Then explain the process involved in determining precisely when the lives of twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc. begin.
What's the problem? The zygote before splitting *still* is complete
human life. The fact that it is not "a" single human being is wholly
immaterial.
Grade: F.
No, liar. You don't have a point.
FAILURE.
No, retarded kid. You *don't* have a point. Every human being,
including identical twins and other multiple births, starts from a zygote.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Let's restore the part you snipped
Snip the
No, we'll put it back, because it really does illustrate your science
Post by Rudy Canoza
You clowns are so funny. You don't know anything about twinning or
chimerism or any of that stuff. This is just bullshit you've cadged off
some pro-abortion page as ammunition. It's exactly the same as your
fake mastery of "global warming science." The basic and indisputable
fact is, *YOU* don't know the science at all. You're bullshitting about
science in service to ideology. Fuck off.
You really don't know what you're bullshitting about, bitch. You were
directed to some pro-abortion site that thought twinning somehow shoots
down the life-begins-at-conception claim, but of course it doesn't, and
of course you, being a science-illiterate, were incapable of seeing
exactly how it fails.

Rudy Canoza
2017-03-04 19:19:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.liveactionnews.org/science-confirms-that-human-life-begins-at-fertilization/?utm_source=thenewamericana.com
[...]
The scientific community continues to prove that human life begins at
conception (fertilization).
In their latest edition of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented
Embryology, professors Keith Moore, TVN Persaud, and Mark Torchia shed
significant light on the development of the human person – and they
don’t shy away from the reality of when life begins. Here are six
[...]
Read the article to see the reasoning.
By this reasoning, life begins before conception, since the sperm and the
egg are both living beings.
It isn't *a* human until conception, you little idiot.
Yeah, did you notice shookie's clumsy attempt at sleight-of-hand? We
weren't just talking about "living beings" - we were specifically
discussing living *human* beings. The sperm and the egg are not, of
course, human beings.
Hey Milton, I suspect that you're retarded, but here's how we can know for
This message is encrypted with TardBlock, which is special software that
prevents retards from reading or responding to posts.
Can you read this and respond? If not, then you must be retarded, because
TardBlock blocks only retards. Everybody else can read it and respond to
it.
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2017-03-04 19:21:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.liveactionnews.org/science-confirms-that-human-life-begins-at-fertilization/?utm_source=thenewamericana.com
[...]
The scientific community continues to prove that human life begins at
conception (fertilization).
Thanks for the cite, David, but we don't need science to tell us
something that obvious.
When people speak of "human life", the implication is they are referring
to when the life becomes a person (personhood).
There is no other time personhood might begin.
How did you reach that conclusion?
It came straight from his ample buttocks.
Consider that, throughout history, it has always begun when we draw our first breath.
No.
Just Wondering
2017-03-04 20:26:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.liveactionnews.org/science-confirms-that-human-life-begins-at-fertilization/?utm_source=thenewamericana.com
The scientific community continues to prove that
human life begins at conception (fertilization).
Thanks for the cite, David, but we don't need science
to tell us something that obvious.
When people speak of "human life", the implication is they are
referring to when the life becomes a person (personhood).
There is no other time personhood might begin.
How did you reach that conclusion?
It came straight from his ample buttocks.
Consider that, throughout history, it has always begun when
we draw our first breath.
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quickening

The word "quick" originally meant "alive". Historically, quickening has
sometimes been considered to be the beginning of the possession of
"individual life" by the fetus. British legal scholar William Blackstone
explained the subject of quickening in the eighteenth century, relative
to feticide and abortion:

Life... begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able
to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by
a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her,
whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead
child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or
manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious
a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.

Nevertheless, quickening was only one of several standards that were
used historically to determine when the right to life attaches to a
fetus. According to the "ancient law" mentioned by Blackstone, another
standard was formation of the fetus, which occurs weeks before
quickening. Henry de Bracton explained the ancient law, about five
hundred years before Blackstone:

If one strikes a pregnant woman or gives her poison in order to
procure an abortion, if the fetus is already formed or quickened,
especially if it is quickened, he commits homicide.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, a woman convicted of a
capital crime could claim a delay in her execution if she were pregnant;
a woman who did so was said to "plead the belly". In Ireland on 16 March
1831 Baron Pennefather in Limerick stated that pregnancy was not alone
sufficient for a delay but there had to be quickening.[
Rudy Canoza
2017-03-04 19:24:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.liveactionnews.org/science-confirms-that-human-life-begins-at-fertilization/?utm_source=thenewamericana.com
[...]
The scientific community continues to prove that human life begins at
conception (fertilization).
In their latest edition of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented
Embryology, professors Keith Moore, TVN Persaud, and Mark Torchia shed
significant light on the development of the human person – and they
don’t shy away from the reality of when life begins. Here are six
[...]
Read the article to see the reasoning.
Why isn't it considered a human life after it's birth, by "pro" life?
They do, dummy.
Davej
2017-03-04 20:01:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
There is no other time personhood might begin.
Bullshit. When a "person" is declared "brain-dead" they
take them off the ventilator. The brain is still there:
It just isn't performing certain functions. A fertilized-
egg has no brain at all. It is a brainless speck of flesh.
"Personhood" certainly cannot begin before there is a
functioning brain.
Loading...