New York State abortion bill now allows babies, At any point of pregnancy, to be aborted

[/dev/null]

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

A. “They’re coming for women” is not happening at all.

 

B. The “majority”?................New Poll Shows Heavy Majorities in Favor of Substantial Abortion Restrictions http://bit.ly/2DsxNxD

 

C. The irony of “they’re coming for Roe.”....................Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, became pro life.

 

 

#stopthebans

 

This is something both sides of the political spectrum can actually agree on

 

 

 

 

 

[whatdrought]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

I run an IVF lab.  You have a moral position which, while I respect, I cannot agree with.  Scientifically you are incorrect and I have outlined in a post above why this is the case.

 

Your scientific explanation is that you can’t scientifically say.

 

I appreciate your expertise and your well thought out posts, but I do diaageee with a lot of what you’ve said. 

 

Does a zygote have uniqe DNA before implantation?

[DC Tom]

29 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Your scientific explanation is that you can’t scientifically say.

 

 

That is a perfectly valid scientific explanation.

[whatdrought]

31 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

That is a perfectly valid scientific explanation.

 

Well, It is, but it leaves the door open to debate because the absence of proof isn't proof. 

[oldmanfan]

1 hour ago, whatdrought said:

 

Your scientific explanation is that you can’t scientifically say.

 

I appreciate your expertise and your well thought out posts, but I do diaageee with a lot of what you’ve said. 

 

Does a zygote have uniqe DNA before implantation?

Unique?  Not necessarily.  Because identical twins have the same genome, and are considered separate entities.  Also there is the issue of mutations.

 

One cannot define when life begins scientifically because one cannot apply the scientific method to the question.  You make a hypothesis - in this case that life begins at conception let's say.  Then you have to test that hypothesis experimentally.  How do one do that?  And thus a scientific proof is absent.

[whatdrought]

7 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Unique?  Not necessarily.  Because identical twins have the same genome, and are considered separate entities.  Also there is the issue of mutations.

 

One cannot define when life begins scientifically because one cannot apply the scientific method to the question.  You make a hypothesis - in this case that life begins at conception let's say.  Then you have to test that hypothesis experimentally.  How do one do that?  And thus a scientific proof is absent.

 

Unique in that it has never existed previously. Unique as in when that DNA is fabricated, all the necessary genetic coding is there for a life. 

I would think that the DNA question is really the answer to the hypothesis... If in fact that DNA is unique in the world, and it is human DNA, is that not the proof of human life? What standard must be met to prove life? 

 

Also, thanks for engaging in this conversation- seriously. Im a novice for sure and I know what I believe, but it's great to hear from someone close to the situation. (especially someone willing to discuss in a rational way) 

Edited May 18, 2019 by whatdrought

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

I run an IVF lab.  You have a moral position which, while I respect, I cannot agree with.  Scientifically you are incorrect and I have outlined in a post above why this is the case.

My contention is that every unique genome is evidence of an individual, independent being no matter how small. It's THEIR bodily autonomy that's being violated, not the mother's.

[oldmanfan]

15 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Unique in that it has never existed previously. Unique as in when that DNA is fabricated, all the necessary genetic coding is there for a life. 

I would think that the DNA question is really the answer to the hypothesis... If in fact that DNA is unique in the world, and it is human DNA, is that not the proof of human life? What standard must be met to prove life? 

 

Also, thanks for engaging in this conversation- seriously. Im a novice for sure and I know what I believe, but it't great to hear from someone close to the situation. 

Good discussion.  I would tell you this.  The DNA is unique, but DNA by itself does not define human life.  The DNA has to code for specific proteins which in turn have to carry out specific functions which in turn, if all works as planned, potentially creates a human life.

 

A poster above indicated IVF labs routinely throw embryos out and equated what I do as abortion.  I have heard such issues for over 30 years and realize folks like that do not want to listen to fact.  You seem more open though.  The reality is that not every fertilized egg has the same developmental capacity, despite having very similar genomes.  The fertilized egg's growth is driven by materials synthesized and stored by the egg during development.  At the 4-8 cell stage a switch occurs and the embryo has to synthesize its own materials and embryos are prone to arrest at that point.  In other words, they cease having viability.  I can have two embryos in the same culture drop, one arrests and one goes on in development, is transferred and pregnancy ensues.  No one killed the one that arrested; that is normal biology.  And yes, the embryo is discarded when non-viable.

6 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

My contention is that every unique genome is evidence of an individual, independent being no matter how small. It's THEIR bodily autonomy that's being violated, not the mother's.

I understand and respect your viewpoint.  But it is not based in the science of early development; it is a moral viewpoint.  You are certainly entitled to your moral stance, I would simply say one should not use an incorrect description of science to support it.

Edited May 18, 2019 by oldmanfan

[whatdrought]

10 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Good discussion.  I would tell you this.  The DNA is unique, but DNA by itself does not define human life.  The DNA has to code for specific proteins which in turn have to carry out specific functions which in turn, if all works as planned, potentially creates a human life.

 

A poster above indicated IVF labs routinely throw embryos out and equated what I do as abortion.  I have heard such issues for over 30 years and realize folks like that do not want to listen to fact.  You seem more open though.  The reality is that not every fertilized egg has the same developmental capacity, despite heaving very similar genomes.  The fertilized egg's growth is driven by materials synthesized and stored by the egg during development.  At the 4-8 cell stage a switch occurs and the embryo has to synthesize its own materials and embryos are prone to arrest at that point.  In other words, they cease having viability.  I can have two embryos in the same culture drop, one arrests and one goes on in development, is transferred and pregnancy ensues.  No one killed the one that arrested; that is normal biology.  And yes, the embryo is discarded when non-viable.

 

But it sounds to me like the DNA is there immediately, is coding towards that end that you're speaking of, and sometimes (most of the time based on what you mentioned) it fails to continue the process... Does that make it less life before it ceases that process? As in, how long does it have to do the processes to become life? I get that that's the whole conversation, but it seems to me that if it's happening at all its life- whether or not it continues past xdays. 

 

I gotta be honest, I don't know the science that well on this, and I really don't know what to think about IVF. It's definitely grey to me. I might be reductionist (and i'm sure i'm the kind that bothers you) but I usually default to the idea that there's enough kids out there without families to begin with.. But that's oversimplification I know. 

 

 

Edit: this is a pro-life site, so take it for what you will, but I thought this was a good look at the conversation: https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

The part of distinct cell and specific functions sounds like life to me. 

 

 

I'm not trying to step on your toes- I also don't disagree that there is a level of ambiguity to it that makes it a moral question, but that seems like the natural extension of when science falls short or leaves us with questions. 

Edited May 18, 2019 by whatdrought

[oldmanfan]

12 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

But it sounds to me like the DNA is there immediately, is coding towards that end that you're speaking of, and sometimes (most of the time based on what you mentioned) it fails to continue the process... Does that make it less life before it ceases that process? As in, how long does it have to do the processes to become life? I get that that's the whole conversation, but it seems to me that if it's happening at all its life- whether or not it continues past xdays. 

 

I gotta be honest, I don't know the science that well on this, and I really don't know what to think about IVF. It's definitely grey to me. I might be reductionist (and i'm sure i'm the kind that bothers you) but I usually default to the idea that there's enough kids out there without families to begin with.. But that's oversimplification I know. 

 

 

Edit: this is a pro-life site, so take it for what you will, but I thought this was a good look at the conversation: https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

The part of distinct cell and specific functions sounds like life to me. 

 

 

I'm not trying to step on your toes- I also don't disagree that there is a level of ambiguity to it that makes it a moral question, but that seems like the natural extension of when science falls short or leaves us with questions. 

I read the article you linked and the author makes interesting points.  But she says at the moment of sperm-egg fusion life is defined.  That is simply incorrect and can be shown by the fact that a sperm can enter the egg yet not result in completion of the fertilization process.  My research interests focus on that fusion process. Many times the sperm fuses but does not cause egg activation and resulting embryo development.  This is most clearly shown by a procedure called ICSI where a sperm is injected directly into the egg to achieve fertilization.  Even when you manually put the sperm into the egg, fertilization does not occur 15-20% of the time.

 

have to get to bed because I have cases early tomorrow morning.  I'll pick things up then.

[whatdrought]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I read the article you linked and the author makes interesting points.  But she says at the moment of sperm-egg fusion life is defined.  That is simply incorrect and can be shown by the fact that a sperm can enter the egg yet not result in completion of the fertilization process.  My research interests focus on that fusion process. Many times the sperm fuses but does not cause egg activation and resulting embryo development.  This is most clearly shown by a procedure called ICSI where a sperm is injected directly into the egg to achieve fertilization.  Even when you manually put the sperm into the egg, fertilization does not occur 15-20% of the time.

 

have to get to bed because I have cases early tomorrow morning.  I'll pick things up then.

 

Interesting. I am seeing what you mean about the scientific uncertainty of it. 

[Doc Brown]

17 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Question: why is rape a crime?

 

Please note, I'm not advocating for rape, I'm asking for your definition as to what makes it a crime.

 

Related to abortion....intercourse with a person against their will.

 

17 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

There should be no difference between how a person gets pregnant as it pertains to abortion. If it's considered murder after the first trimester for a baby conceived out of love then it's still murder of a baby even if it was conceived during a rape. The Alabama law was passed for one reason and that was to get it reviewed by the SCOTUS.

Yet the argument I hear most often to why a woman shouldn't be allowed an abortion by the pro life crowd is she could've remained abstinent or used birth control implying personal responsibility.  You can't make the same case when it comes to a woman who was raped. If you're going to make abortion illegal I think pregnancy due to rape should be an exception.

[bbb]

I keep seeing this control, power, etc. thing.  What are men controlling with abortion?

 

 

 

And, from my Facebook timeline:

 

This is about control. This is about subjugation. This has never been about life. Women will lose the right to control their own bodies.

[Koko78]

4 hours ago, bbb said:

I keep seeing this control, power, etc. thing.  What are men controlling with abortion?

 

 

 

 

I totally, like, you know, like, believe that, like, she, totally, like, literally wrote that herself.

[SoCal Deek]

AOC never ceases to amaze me, but she’s been so brainwashed with liberal talking points that she serves as an interesting study in many of society’s current debates. She’s like a cartoon case.

 

For example, at it’s core the abortion issue is not about the woman’s  life. It’s about the baby’s life! But AOC has been so minipulated by years of babble that her arguments now don’t even reference the baby at all. It’s as if it doesn’t exist. The Left has ‘evolved’ right past whether the baby is viable (the original talking point) into total denial that the baby is even there. An Amazing transformation into a complete state of denial.

[B-Man]

I HATE ALL OF YOU’: JUNO WRITER REGRETS THAT HER MOVIE WAS PRO-LIFE.

Chiu writes that “having her breakout movie be associated with antiabortion messaging is a regret that has troubled [Diablo Cody] for years.”

 

And who could blame her? You try sleeping at night with all those live babies haunting your conscience.

 

“In a way I feel like I had a responsibility to maybe be more explicitly pro-choice, and I wasn’t,” Cody said during a Planned Parenthood benefit event in 2017 marking the film’s 10th anniversary, Vanity Fairreported. “I think I took the right to choose for granted at the time.”

 

“I didn’t think it was ever going to get made,” she said. “I wasn’t thinking as an activist. I wasn’t thinking politically at all.”

 

And if we take no other lesson from this sad story, let it be that — a good progressive is always an activist. She thinks politically 100% of the time and is always on guard against incursions of normal human feeling and thought.

 

According to Chiu, Cody quickly saw the error of her ways when she got “A letter from her Catholic high school thanking her for “writing a pro-life movie,” she said, describing it as the “most horrifying thing.” The piece added:

 

“I was like, I … hate all of you, and I’m as pro-choice as a person can possibly be,” she said.

 

“I … hate all of you.” Clearly, Cody’s once again a progressive in good standing.

 

 

 

Why is leftism such a cesspit of oikophobia?

 

 

 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

8 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Related to abortion....intercourse with a person against their will.

 

Yet the argument I hear most often to why a woman shouldn't be allowed an abortion by the pro life crowd is she could've remained abstinent or used birth control implying personal responsibility.  You can't make the same case when it comes to a woman who was raped. If you're going to make abortion illegal I think pregnancy due to rape should be an exception.

I think you are missing the point. At some point in a pregnancy a fetus is considered a viable human life and should not be aborted (murdered). Now, where that point is where the debate resides. The far right would almost say it starts with foreplay between a man and a woman, while the far left would say "second grade". Forget about the discussion for a moment where you think that point is. Let's arbitrarily say it's 20 weeks, or you pick another point for the sake of this discussion. In fact let's not even put a number on it but call it the "go/no go point". Think about this: Is it OK to murder a fetus that's passed that "go/no go point because it was conceived from an act of rape but not OK to murder a fetus presumably conceived out of love?

 

The big hullabaloo about rape and ***** is just one large canard to confuse the issue. Seriously, if your sister was raped you wouldn't suggest a "morning after pill"? Problem solved. The only real issue here is determining the "go/no go point". Anything else is just a bunchofbullshit.

[KD in CA]

13 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

The big hullabaloo about rape and ***** is just one large canard to confuse the issue. 

 

Yep.  You can always tell someone has no argument when they rely on the fringe exceptions to make their point.

 

And then there's all the 'white men deciding blah blah blah women's bodies' nonsense that is once again vomited all over facebook.

 

 

 

[whatdrought]

9 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Related to abortion....intercourse with a person against their will.

 

Yet the argument I hear most often to why a woman shouldn't be allowed an abortion by the pro life crowd is she could've remained abstinent or used birth control implying personal responsibility.  You can't make the same case when it comes to a woman who was raped. If you're going to make abortion illegal I think pregnancy due to rape should be an exception.

 

Because we as a society do not advocate murder based on emotional preference... if we agree across the board where the date it becomes life is, then anything after that is murder.

 

Take your point to it’s final conclusion. A woman who was raped and conceived gives birth, raises the child to two years old. When he’s two she sees her rapist at the store, or on the news, whatever, and the sight of him terrorizes her with renewed dreams and flashbacks. Problem is, 2 year old son looks like the bastard. Every time she looks at her son she sees him and she’s taken back to that moment. So one night, when it’s too much to bear, she drowns her toddler in the tub. If she’s allowed to kill that child in the womb because the emotional strain is too much, how is that different?

 

more to the point, cases of rape and ***** (i.e., the abortion lobby’s hobby horse) make up a tiny tiny percentage of abortions. The very high majority are elective. This is just a tactic to muddy the waters. 

[DC Tom]

15 hours ago, whatdrought said:

 

Well, It is, but it leaves the door open to debate because the absence of proof isn't proof. 

 

And thus, we're having this debate.