Wait On That Abortion

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

That's the same thing. Here's why:

1 sperm + 1 egg becomes 1 fertilized zygote (a singular human cell that has a distinctly different genetic code than the mother and the father).

That zygote will immediately begin the process of replicating and growing. Without interference it will eventually become a human infant in 9 months, which is why people invented the procedure of abortion in the first place.

This also leads to the inescapable scientific conclusion that life begins at conception based on:

the unique DNA, the immediate and sustained growth in volume and complexity, and the fact that prior to conception, no one organism can exist in two pieces.

Progression is:
Zygote -> Blastocyst -> Embryo -> Fetus -> Infant

As anyone knows who has seen CSI or the O.J. Simpson Trial, among other examples, a unique DNA series corresponds to a unique individual. If you find a DNA sample at a crime scene that does not match your current list of suspects, the correct conclusion is that you need to keep looking for a yet unknown individual.

So, unfortunately for the pro-abortion crowd, the fetus, by definition, is someone else's "body". Stating it again, in any human, all non-reproductive cells have 46 chromosomes (the bundles that DNA is arranged in), and, of those non-reproductive cells, all of them match the code of DNA in each other.

The two exceptions are
1) a pregnant female since the child in her womb has his/her own DNA series and
2) God forbid, a cancerous mutation in an adult of either sex.

The unique DNA, the "blueprint" for our construction, signals a unique individual. Legalisms will not obscure or circumvent that truth. Every abortion that has ever taken place was the taking of a life. Sometimes that might have been necessary to save a mother's life. But to whatever extent it was not necessary and was "chosen", it was a pre-meditated murder committed by the would-be mother with the doctor as an accessory.

You are wrong however it is a great cut and paste job.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

You are wrong however it is a great cut and paste job.

Cut and paste from where? I assure the post is original.

Thanks for enumerating the points where my argument is misguided.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Cut and paste from where? I assure the post is original.

Thanks for enumerating the points where my argument is misguided.

I'll sum it up quickly.

1. Abortion is legal. Your arguments are irrelevant because of this. The race is over and the claim of foul was disallowed by the stewards. Continued debate is a gross waste of taxpayer money.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

I'll sum it up quickly.

1. Abortion is legal. Your arguments are irrelevant because of this. The race is over and the claim of foul was disallowed by the stewards. Continued debate is a gross waste of taxpayer money.

So when Roe v Wade is overturned by a future Supreme Court, you're fine with that as well? Good.

Because it will be overturned, as it must be, since it is obvious that life begins at conception and the current sad state of affairs must be discontinued. The current liberal worshiping at the feet of the Warren Burger court notwithstanding, science is proving the legalism view obsolete.

This is akin to the Catholic Church sticking to their "Earth is at the center of the universe, and by extension the solar system" argument in the face of Galileo disproving that, and being excommunicated. It's laughable. Power and the force of law aside, if the law seems nonsensical, it calls the entire government role into question.

Abortion will again be illegal, as it should be, and this embarrassing and tragic episode, fatal to 40,000,000+ persons, will be over.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by joeydb

So when Roe v Wade is overturned by a future Supreme Court, you're fine with that as well? Good.

Because it will be overturned, as it must be, since it is obvious that life begins at conception and the current sad state of affairs must be discontinued. The current liberal worshiping at the feet of the Warren Burger court notwithstanding, science is proving the legalism view obsolete.

This is akin to the Catholic Church sticking to their "Earth is at the center of the universe, and by extension the solar system" argument in the face of Galileo disproving that, and being excommunicated. It's laughable. Power and the force of law aside, if the law seems nonsensical, it calls the entire government role into question.

Abortion will again be illegal, as it should be, and this embarrassing and tragic episode, fatal to 40,000,000+ persons, will be over.

It won't be overturned. Remember before ROE Wade it was legal in some states. It will revert to a state's rights issue which quite frankly I don't have a problem with. Yes, I'm Pro-Choice, but I'm a big proponent of state's rights...and I myself would never have an abortion to the point where we didn't even have the test on our fetus at the time for Down's Syndrome. We both said if that's what we have, that's the way it is...but I don't represent everyone nor should I.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

It won't be overturned. Remember before ROE Wade it was legal in some states. It will revert to a state's rights issue which quite frankly I don't have a problem with. Yes, I'm Pro-Choice, but I'm a big proponent of state's rights...and I myself would never have an abortion to the point where we didn't even have the test on our fetus at the time for Down's Syndrome. We both said if that's what we have, that's the way it is...but I don't represent everyone nor should I.

That's true regarding state's rights, and I also support state's rights and think that many issues currently under the federal umbrella do not need to be so.

But, I must point out, if life does begin at conception, abortion becomes synonomous with murder. Murder is outlawed everywhere in the United States at the local level, in addition to the state level in many cases.

When did laws prohibiting murder become anything less than absolute? We can't call the case for abortion a self-defense situation UNLESS the life of the mother is legitimately in jeopardy.

The main detrement to the Burger court decision is that it did not prove that life begins anywhere BUT conception. It argued viability, and an implied right to privacy that does not exist in the Constitution. Privacy and secrecy in covering up a crime of murder is no great virtue - in fact, we authorize wiretaps all the time to root out the terrorists and the mafia. The inescapable fact remains that life beginning at conception precludes morally any use of abortion - legal or not.

When you consider the Democratic Party's "Pro-Choice" stance, it was laughable that during the Bill Clinton 1992 and 1996 campaigns, the party asserted themselves as "the party for the children". Not the ones systematically destroyed through abortion.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

That's true regarding state's rights, and I also support state's rights and think that many issues currently under the federal umbrella do not need to be so.

But, I must point out, if life does begin at conception, abortion becomes synonomous with murder. Murder is outlawed everywhere in the United States at the local level, in addition to the state level in many cases.

When did laws prohibiting murder become anything less than absolute? We can't call the case for abortion a self-defense situation UNLESS the life of the mother is legitimately in jeopardy.

The main detrement to the Burger court decision is that it did not prove that life begins anywhere BUT conception. It argued viability, and an implied right to privacy that does not exist in the Constitution. Privacy and secrecy in covering up a crime of murder is no great virtue - in fact, we authorize wiretaps all the time to root out the terrorists and the mafia. The inescapable fact remains that life beginning at conception precludes morally any use of abortion - legal or not.

When you consider the Democratic Party's "Pro-Choice" stance, it was laughable that during the Bill Clinton 1992 and 1996 campaigns, the party asserted themselves as "the party for the children". Not the ones systematically destroyed through abortion.

huge question there, one in which even you equivocate. above you said it was obvious, but already in this post, you're at 'if'. it's a point that's been argued, vociferously, by every side.
as far as using birth control, many do so, and not always successfully. so much for that argument...
you feel strongly about this, as is your right. so i say again, don't have one. but don't feel the need to push your beliefs on others. roe v wade won't be overturned. for as long as women have become pregnant, there have been those who don't wish to be, and who have done things to try to change that fact.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Abortion will again be illegal, as it should be, and this embarrassing and tragic episode, fatal to 40,000,000+ persons, will be over.

If you value 40,000,000 lives so strongly, I strongly suggest you stop railing against any programs that help those in poverty, without jobs, public health, trying to defund Planned Parenthood, etc. You can't continue to pick and choose when you respect life as a "person", and when you do not. It appears that for many, respect and concern for "life" ends at birth.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

If you value 40,000,000 lives so strongly, I strongly suggest you stop railing against any programs that help those in poverty, without jobs, public health, trying to defund Planned Parenthood, etc. You can't continue to pick and choose when you respect life as a "person", and when you do not. It appears that for many, respect and concern for "life" ends at birth.

How about instead of abortion, people who can't afford to have children simply do not get pregnant in the first place? Why is that so unthinkable?

It is up to those individuals to exercise discipline and good planning in order to avoid the situation where an "unwanted pregnancy" occurs.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by joeydb

How about instead of abortion, people who can't afford to have children simply do not get pregnant in the first place? Why is that so unthinkable?

It is up to those individuals to exercise discipline and good planning in order to avoid the situation where an "unwanted pregnancy" occurs.

Not realistic.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

How about instead of abortion, people who can't afford to have children simply do not get pregnant in the first place? Why is that so unthinkable?

It is up to those individuals to exercise discipline and good planning in order to avoid the situation where an "unwanted pregnancy" occurs.

Yes, exactly. So why are you butting in and trying to make government control that?

If one is rabidly anti-abortion, I would would think it logical and helpful to promote, support and contribute to programs that teach exactly those things you outline, above. Planning, responsibility, etc. Why don't you?