Alabama votes no more abortion!

[CradleRC58]

It is an intruder, and the woman’s body fights against it.

The woman, who herself, enabled it. By choice.

 

[ATraveller]

Biologically speaking, of course, it is.

No. It’s just your opinion.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Certainly true. It is an intruder, and the woman’s body fights against it.

Possibly the most asinine statement in this entire thread. It’s like you think women get kidnapped by aliens and wake up one day with some life form from another planet inside them. Stop treating women, children, and pregnancy like some diabolical plot forcing unsuspecting women into servitude.

 

[midori]

The woman’s BODY fights against it, especially if it is a male.

Actually, women’s bodies treat sperm as unwanted invaders. Her immune system will try to kill them.

From the BBC video-- “From the original 20 million sperm, by the time they reach the safety of the fallopian tubes, there may be only 20 left.”

One of the reasons why people keep a stable partner is because, biologically speaking, it gives the woman’s immune system time to adjust to recognize his sperm as “belonging”, rather than “invader.” And consequently, it ups the chances of conceiving.

There are about 105 or 106 boys conceived for every 100 girls. If the women’s bodies fight against male embryos, there would be far fewer boys conceived. For a while, based on miscarriage evidence, it was suggested that the ratio was more like 160:100 boy:girl (which would definitely have implications), but with modern prenatal testing—

Analysis of the results of 61,000 pregnancies with chorionic villus sampling between 8 and 14 weeks found 51.4 percent male fetuses (sex ratio 105.7), while more than 800,000 amniocentesis results between 12 and 22 weeks found 50.6 percent male (sex ratio 102.4). These are slightly inconsistent, and may reflect some small biases due to the screening that selects women for these tests. But again, there is no evidence of a sex ratio at any time that is substantially above the well-known typical sex ratio of 106 at birth.

as well as

With current or foreseeable technology there is no way to make any direct measurement of the sex ratio closer to conception. Instead, we turn to embryos from assisted reproductive technology clinics, which help couples with difficulties having children on their own. The procedures carried out in these clinics typically involve in vitro fertilization and often include preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in order to improve the chances of a successful pregnancy by eliminating embryos with an abnormal complement of chromosomes. A sample of 140,000 3- to 6-day-old embryos analyzed for genetic defects in PGD was consistent with an exactly balanced sex ratio (100.8±1.2) at conception.**

The unavoidable conclusion of the data is that the first trimester of pregnancy is a unique exception to the “fragile male” rule, the principle stating that males have higher mortality than females of the same age. In fact, when we look more closely at our PGD embryos, we see that males are overrepresented among those with missing or extra chromosomes. These chromosomally defective embryos are almost invariably fated to miscarry, most of them even before implantation, so the males are starting out at an actual deficit. Among those with the correct complement of chromosomes, perhaps 49.3 percent are male. Over the course of about three months there must be very substantial excess female mortality, resulting in something close to the birth sex ratio of 51.5 percent males remaining by about 15 weeks into the pregnancy.

 

[Economist]

I meant to exclude the commencement of brain activity as a starting point. You have not shown that the brain has anything to do with the issue.

You are welcome to deny it. I did not expect anything else.

These are very clearly different things.

Oh, are they? So why do your cohorts try to present them as human beings and sometimes even human persons???

 

[Maxirad]

Alabama abortion ban: Should men have a say in the debate?

Many of the US states passing abortion bans have male-majority legislatures - does that matter?

www.bbc.com

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Oh, are they? So why do your cohorts try to present them as human beings and sometimes even human persons???

I asked you earlier in this thread and you have ignored the question. What species is the blastocyst or zygote in a woman’s womb? Or whatever other stage of development you feel like railing against. What species is it?

Moreover, your position on current brain function has interesting implications for other cases outside abortion. Take a patient in a deep coma for example. Let’s say you know for a fact, with 100% certainty, that this patient will recover all brain activity within 5 weeks. By your argument, it is perfectly ok to go ahead and kill them even though they are guaranteed to fully recover. Do you hold such a position?

This is a fundamental problem with your entire argument. You keep trying to paint the unborn child as some unassembled contruct that only receives all its parts at the end of 9 months. You keep saying that an unborn child at early stages of development does not have a brain or some other organ. This is misleading, because that unborn child has, at the very moment of its creation, the code for every single biological trait it will ever have. This includes all its organs, which you are preoccupied with, height, eye color, hair color, if a boy how soon it will go bald, etc. there is nothing that happens from that moment of creation until birth that adds something new to this and your insistence that it is somehow missing things and is therefore not human is factually incorrect. It has absolutely everything a human being is supposed to have at that exact moment in time.

But by your logic, a double amputee is less human than someone with both their legs.

Moreover, you keep trying to inject personhood as somehow unrelated to being human. Personhood is a legal concept that allows groups of people to be treated as an individual under the law. It has also been used in the past to deny some disfavored people, aka human beings, full representation and deny their humanity. You know, slavery and Nazi race laws. Legal personhood is simply the law’s recognition of a living human being. It is not a biological concept and has no bearing on if a human being is intrinsically valuable.

 

[Victoria33]

Oh, are they? So why do your cohorts try to present them as human beings and sometimes even human persons???

One is saying that individual DNA does not represent an individual person.

Also, many gynecologists right down the line say life begins at conception. Unless, one is in that field as well, I will go with their word as to when life begins.

 

[DENNYINMI]

Science alone that can tell us that at any necessary forerunning stage of development the outcome is indeed human.

It’s one thing to voice logical truth to ‘economist’ on a Catholic forum where for the most part we preach to the choir our favorite hymn…It will be quite another to discuss the part we dislike the most with a woman similar to the one who may live in Alabama, below the poverty line in what is considered one of our poorest states in the nation. (or anywhere)

There is a wonderful intricacy of the physiology of the human body from it’s beginning, but then comes the part we don’t care for…We must discuss medical care, appropriate housing, appropriate nutrition, education and childcare and all things associated with babies and children.

And we’d do this because we realize that although there will now be a law that prohibits abortion there is no law that can take the child away from the Mother that carries the child because of poverty. Right?

To not address this will be like many Protestant sects that believe that Mary, the Mother of God does not deserve that title or reverence because she was simply the “Vessel” that brought HIm forward…Vessel?

We’re more than talking pamphlets, our rhetoric is well known, poverty does not necessitate ignorance. But, I would suggest the pull yourself up by your bootstrap rugged individualist mentality that is Traditional of the conservatives in this country will not benefit the aforementioned woman. I would also suggest they are the biggest threat to the right to life movement we currently have.

 

[Economist]

Or whatever other stage of development you feel like railing against. What species is it?

Speciesism? They have a DNA, which is usually called human DNA - even though it is inexact. But a tumor is also a bunch of cells, having this human DNA. Besides, “species” is another inexact classification. What about a mutation, which is so severe, that the new being is a super-human, unable to procreate with ordinary humans? The concept of species is an artificially created classification, not a philosophical one.

Take a patient in a deep coma for example.

Even in a deep coma, the brain works. Only a small percentage of the brain activity happens in conscious area, the grey cells, most of it happens in the white cells.

You keep saying that an unborn child at early stages of development does not have a brain or some other organ.

The only organ that counts, is the brain. The difference between potential and actual is important, and it plays a fundamental role in Thomism, which is the most important part in Catholic theology.

But by your logic, a double amputee is less human than someone with both their legs.

On the very contrary, I asserted that someone with some missing organs is still a human being, as long as it has a functioning brain. It may lose some minor or major functionality, but it is still a human.

Moreover, you keep trying to inject personhood as somehow unrelated to being human

Personhood is frequently considered as more important than a simple “being” - especially by the anti-abortionists.

One is saying that individual DNA does not represent an individual person.

Nope. One is saying that personhood is not determined by DNA. At best there is a loose correlation.

 

[DENNYINMI]

Nope. One is saying that personhood is not determined by DNA. At best there is a loose correlation.

DNA is used to identify who it is, who was there, and who done it…Logically the “who” is a person.

Reconsider your ideas. Step away from the favorite forum topic that finds its way into every thread and enjoy a good day for yourself (seriously) This is a red meat topic that feeds a populace that maintains a storehouse of elaborate talking points, and as correct as they may be it becomes a confirmation of the brother/sisterhood of an incorrect belief that since they are indeed right here…They should be considered right in everything else.

How something so right can be so wrong…That’s a song isn’t it? Enjoy a day off, I will. If you still feel the need to join in the feeding frenzy it will be here when you get back.

 

[vz71]

You are welcome to deny it. I did not expect anything else.

A clear flaw in the argument is shown for what it is.
Believe me, no one is surprised.

 

[vz71]

They have a DNA, which is usually called human DNA - even though it is inexact.

This is simply incorrect.
Human DNA is exactly that, human.

 

[vz71]

Personhood is frequently considered as more important than a simple “being” - especially by the anti-abortionists.

You keep pushing “personhood”
But we all know it is simply an effort to confuse the topic.

But on the off chance we are incorrect, how about you provide us a definition that is precise and incontrovertible.
What precisely is this “personhood” you keep pushing?

 

[sallybutler]

My understanding is that this bill does not criminalize destroying embryos in fertility clinics. Is that true?

 

[Annie]

Oh, are they? So why do your cohorts try to present them as human beings and sometimes even human persons???

I can’t answer for all my “cohorts,” but I assume you are upset by the fact that it is said that from the moment of conception, a new organism, is formed, with its own DNA, comprising its own being, even tho it consists of only 1 cell, and if the DNA is human, this single cell is a human being.

Is that what you are having a problem with?

 

[Economist]

I can’t answer for all my “cohorts,” but I assume you are upset by the fact that it is said that from the moment of conception, a new organ ism , is formed, with its own DNA, comprising its own being, even tho it consists of only 1 cell, and if the DNA is human, this single cell is a human being.

I am not upset at anything. I am merely interested in your usage of “human being” and “human person”, and so far I am not getting any response, only evasions. Will be back with details.

 

[Annie]

A “human being” is a member of the species homo sapiens.

A “human person” would be a person who is a member of the species homo sapiens, as opposed to corporations in the US, members of the Holy Trinity, angels, demons, etc.

 

[grotto]

Those who have committed themselves to denying a “person-human child” is living will just have to live with their failure. The mantra of Roe v Wade being the “Golden Rule” has been a legal mistake, and that is the best summary of it one can make.

Keep praying and one day soon the Supreme Court will have that decision thrown out.

 

[Jeanne_S]

At the very least for starters’ it needs to be emphasized that we are a Democratic Republic.Each state is sovereign and as such is able to decide such issues on a state by state level.The federal government needs to stay out of the business of abortion.The people or Georgia ,Alabama and Missouri have spoken.All the outrage by those in love with abortion will just have to go elsewhere.God willing in time every state will follow the example of these pro life states.