Posted on 03/10/2006 1:22:33 PM PST by Doc Savage
Am I the only person with a scientific background that finds it perplexing that secular scientists have absolutely no difficulty suggesting the possibility of bizarre micro-organism life-forms (prokaryotes) existing on a small frozen moon in outer space, but are totally unable to denote or acknowledge a human zygote or embryo in the womb as a living organism solely for the murderous purpose of killing an unborn child?
Imagine the universal condemnation and rebuke you would suffer if you suggested terminating some extra-terrestrial bacterium's life-force. But an unborn child? No problem! Hypocritical and disgusting!
Perhaps astronomers are more honest the medical doctors...although the only professional astronomer I've met was a real jerk (an honest jerk though).
Excellent point.
-A8
So why I not human embryos?
I may stand corrected one day, but I suspect the scientists have this exactly backwards. There is life in the womb and the Saturn moon will be found devoid of it.
I'm jotting this thread down for "most improbable pretext for an abortion screed" for 2006.
geez..now I've seen it all.
They don't deny there is life in the womb. Where did you get that idea from?
… but are totally unable to denote or acknowledge a human zygote or embryo in the womb as a living organism…
Is it a disagreement over when life begins or is it a disagreement over when it is morally acceptable to end that life? I think the latter argument causes the controversy.
That astronaut on Survivor last night seemed like a nice guy . . .
Well, can we wait about 6 yrs and get the childs opinion first?
The US Supreme Court seems to be especially dumbfounded as to what constitutes "personhood."
Nothing except nourishment has to be added to a human zygote in the womb to grow into a "person," even though the reprobates in the USSC don't want to acknowledge it.
In 1857, they also said that a black person wasn't a person.
They definitely act like they are a cup and saucer short of a full place setting.
No, you're a nutcase.
Scientists?
Don't you mean "Politicians", "Lawyers" and "Liberals"?
Any scientist will tell you that even an unfertilized ovum is a living cell.
Everytime I scratch my nose, I destroy thousands of "life" cells.
I usually laugh, "Bwahahaha! DIE life!"
Then scratch my butt, to add insult to injury.
So you hate masturbation, too, because of the life lost?
LOL!
Am I the only person thinking you're comparing apples and oranges?
Those are called illegal aliens. They are protected.
Radical feminism and socialism will subdue a woman's natural urge to nurture a life. Only women can do it with men's support. You see the results in Europe. It's abnormal from the last many thousands of years.
So let me get this straight, the unborn child, or the developing embryo, is a separate entity, a different being, than that which it grows to become and that is eventually born?
Humanity is the sticking point, not independency. If the embryo is human, then it is murder to kill it, regardless of whether or not it can survive on its own. Your analogy to the wart is irrelevant as a wart is not human.
My comment was addressed to the issue of living tissue.
Your analogy to the wart is irrelevant as a wart is not human.
Part of the issue revolves around whether the government should decide for its citizens whether they should have children once conceived. On one end of the spectrum of government power regarding abortion would be China where the government forces its citizens to have abortions, on the other end of the spectrum one can imagine a government which prevents all of its citizens from having abortions. And then there are those who feel that the decision should be between the parents and their doctor with minimal government intrusion.
It is living tissue, but it is not human and never has the potential to be. Therefore, it is irrelevant.
Is it? Is it not really about whether or not an embryo is a human, entitled to all of the rights, priveleges and protections thereof? It isn't about governmental interference in private matters so much as it is about fundamental justice: protecting the smallest and the weakest among us.
Yet no liberty or right is inherent in man, but is granted by God as a charge to government to keep. If we acknowledge not God as the source of these things, they will evaporate and those who founded this country knew it. The reason being that if these things cannot be traced up, then they are arbitrary to change by whoever has the power to do so. As it is, the charge to protect life is from God to the governement, as we can see from these passages:
"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." Genesis 9:6
"For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience." Romans 13:3-5 (Lest anyone cite the "if the governments are bad..." argument, I would like to mention that Paul wrote this while Nero was the emperor of Rome; a man worse than even Bill Clinton).
From the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion MINORITY REPORT, Section 17:
SOUTH DAKOTA LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE TO STUDY ABORTION
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2005
MOTION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Independent Fetal “Personhood”
Not Recognized in the U.S. Constitution
The Task Force finds that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the status of personhood or citizenship on a fetus, does not confer independent personhood or citizenship rights on a fetus, nor does it recognize the body of a woman as the site of two separate "persons."
SOURCE: Constitution of the United States
Amendment XIV – Section 1. All persons born or nationalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
On the other hand, from the South Dakota Task Force Final (Majority) Report (Pg. 70), which was accepted by the legislature:
The State of South Dakota has an interest and a duty to protect every citizen's intrinsic rights, most importantly the right to life. This duty includes protecting an unborn child's intrinsic right to life and the mother's natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child, along with the protection of the mother's health.
The Task Force concludes that to fully protect the rights, interests, and health of the mother and the life of her unborn child, a ban on abortions is required. 49 We recommend that the Legislature examine the method and timing of such a ban.
The Task Force is aware of the arguments by which Roe v. Wade and related decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have determined that the Constitution prohibits a state from banning abortion. However, it is clear to us that abortion terminates the life of a child and the relationship with his or her mother and is an unsafe procedure that places women at significant risk for psychological and physical harm. In fact, this decision has already allowed the termination of the lives of well over 40 million children and has harmed women and families across our state and nation. Further, there are new facts and appreciations of those facts, as discussed in this Report...
AS FAR AS WHEN LIFE BEGINS, THE SD TASK FORCE'S MINORITY REPORT CONCLUDED (in Section 1):
The Task Force finds that all life has value, however, the moment at which actual human life begins is fundamentally a religious, philosophical and spiritual issue, subject to differing definitions among religious faiths and even among individuals who share the same religious faith.
The Task Force finds that there is no present or historical consensus among the world’s major religions, including those in South Dakota, as to the propriety or legality of abortion.
SOURCE: Maguire, Daniel C., Sacred Choices: The Right to Contraception and Abortion in Ten World Religions, Augsburg Fortress Publishers, July 2001.
The Task Force concurs that "in the absence of consensus among religious groups as to fetal personhood and as to the value of fetal life or its claims upon the pregnant woman and the community, no law can be decreed based upon the most narrow and rigid proposal without doing damage to and being in violation of the First Amendment" since "such notions of personhood are understandable and supportable only as religious understandings, not as public policy."
SOURCE: Paul Simmons, "Personhood, the Bible and the Abortion Debate," (1987)
Therefore, the Task Force recommends that the State of South Dakota and the South Dakota Legislature abide by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of South Dakota.
The Task Force further recommends that all religious faiths be respected and protected and that no particular religious doctrine be imposed, through state statute or policy, on all citizens.
Scientists, like every other clear-thinking person on the planet, are deathly afraid of feminazis who have the power to terminate careers thanks to suckup politicians who are addicted to feminazi votes.
ON THE OTHER HAND, AFTER CITING EVIDENCE FROM VARIOUS SOURCES, THE SD FINAL REPORT (Pg. 25) CONCLUDES:
There can no longer be any doubt that each human being is totally unique from the very beginning of his or her life at fertilization. (Mark, P. 19-21.)
The significance of methylation of cytosine was unknown until 1985. It has a profound significance in understanding the wholeness or completeness of a human being immediately following conception. Cytosine is one of the four base components of DNA. Methylation of cytosine, just as other methods of gene regulation, is a natural method by which genetic information is periodically silenced or activated for purposes of human development.
Understanding how the genetic information contained in each human being's DNA is activated and how that information is programmed for life is essential to understanding that the human being is whole and complete at fertilization.
A human being at an embryonic age and that human being at an adult age are naturally the same, the biological differences are due only to the differences in maturity. Changes in methylation of cytosine demonstrate that the human being is fully programmed for human growth and development for his or her entire life at the one cell age. (Mark, P. 21-25.)
The ambiguity is not on the part of scientists. Unless you call "social scientists", scientists
… but are totally unable to denote or acknowledge a human zygote or embryo in the womb as a living organism…
Yes, I realize that some of the rabid anti-abortion crowd are unable to understand anything contrary to their views and will interject their own interpretation into all they encounter, but please try to just read a post and comprehend it as written.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.