Political Crossfire Forums

[AllAmericanMan]

A human embryo is a living human organism. It is a system of organized cells, resisting entropy and possessing its own metabolism. It is offspring from human beings. It is actively engaged in the process of human development.

To support my statements, I will take a detailed look at the process of human development a long with you. Let us look together at this process with an open mind.

To reference the material see each stage in this chart.
http://www.visembryo.com/baby/hp.html

Quote: Within 11 hours following fertilization, the oocyte has extruded a polar body with its excess chromosomes. The fusion of the oocyte and sperm nuclei marks the creation of the zygote and the end of fertilization.


Above we have the fusion from the 2 natural male and female counterparts identified, into a single entity, the zygote. A new living human organism, created through human reproduction
The zygote immediately begins the process of human development, a stage called "cleavage".




Quote: The zygote now begins to cleave, with each division occurring into two cells called blastomeres. The zygote's first cell division begins a series of divisions, with each division occurring approximately every twenty hours. Each blastomere within the zona pellucida becomes smaller and smaller with each subsequent division.


The singular human organism, begins to grow.



Quote: When cell division ungenerated about sixteen cells, the zygote becomes a morula (mulberry shaped). It leaves the fallopian tube and enters the uterine cavity three to four days after fertilization.


Amazing. So soon after the formation of a human, it relocates.

Quote: About four days after fertilization, the morula enters the uterine cavity. Cell division continues, and a cavity known as a blastocele forms in the center of the morula. Cells flatten and compact on the inside of the cavity while the zona pellucida remains the same size. With the appearance of the cavity in the center, the entire structure is now called a blastocyst.



Absolutely incredible, its body is already changing all for the purpose of human development.


Quote: The presence of the blastocyst indicates that two cell types are forming: the embryoblast (inner cell mass on the inside of the blastocele), and the trophoblast (the cells on the outside of the blastocele).


As you can see the growth is continuous steady process, immediately beginning at conception and continuing throughout.

Quote: The blastocyst "hatches" from the zona pellucida around the sixth day after fertilization, as the blastocyst enters the uterus. The trophoblast cells secretes an enzyme which erodes the epithelial uterine lining and creates an implantation site for the blastocyst.



Remarkably, the human life is engaged in a complex process to secure itself in its natural habitat all before it is granted the right to even be called an embryo.

I could go on, but Ive demonstrated how alive and active human life is at its first stages of development. This process is steadily progressive. This process that does not belong to the mother, or the father. It belongs to a new being, it is their life, and their body. Once a new human is conceived, it should not be up to the mother to kill it for convenience.

A fetus is not potentially human in the way sperm or an egg are. It is human. From zygote to new born baby, the organism maintains its identity and possibly splits into separate identities.

[Saf]

What about my left leg? Is skinning my knee murder? On a smaller scale, every cell in my body meets the criteria you've set forth. What makes a human a human is a mind, with the ability to think and feel. Lacking these, a fetus is not a person.

[AllAmericanMan]

Saf wrote: What about my left leg? Is skinning my knee murder? On a smaller scale, every cell in my body meets the criteria you've set forth. What makes a human a human is a mind, with the ability to think and feel. Lacking these, a fetus is not a person. Respectfully I disagree. Your skin cells do not meet the criteria I have laid out above. They in themselves are not systems of cells, they are clumps of cells. Only when you have a complete system, is the individual human organism defined. They are not actively engaging in human development (developing into an adult). What makes a human a human is all the criteria I mentioned. What makes a human a "person" is entirely different, and subject to varying opinions. What makes a human a human is scientifically quantified and verifiable. WHat you are doing is confusing being human and being a thinking person. One is biological fact, the other is opinion and philosophical conjecture perpetrated by the pro abortionist agenda. One is defined, the other is opinion on when human life gains value.

[Otacon]

Once again, this means nothing. A woman can terminate the baby before it's born because it really hasn't experienced life yet.

[Plodder]

an embro has experienced life since it IS life. On;ly an unscientific view contradictiit.

[AllAmericanMan]

Otacon wrote: Once again, this means nothing. A woman can terminate the baby before it's born because it really hasn't experienced life yet. This is a good summary of the pro choice side I believe. Basically what it boils down to, is that the less something looks, acts, and feels like us, the less we can equate its value to us. This is pure human nature, but is ignorant to our knowledge of biology. Biologically, you were once an embryo. Why shouldnt you have the same right to life then as you do now? Any seperation between the two is arbitrary and immoral and based off ignorance. An unborn baby hasnt experienced life as we have, but ONLY because it is YOUNG. A new born baby hasnt experienced life like I have either, or a teenager, can we kill them too? No.

[Kt]

It's still a parasite, by definition

[name]

Quote: Within 11 hours following fertilization, the oocyte has extruded a polar body with its excess chromosomes. The fusion of the oocyte and sperm nuclei marks the creation of the zygote and the end of fertilization.


In the original quote, you bolded the word 'body.' I assume that you did this to make a point. In this sense, the word 'body' refers simply to a generic cell. The polar body does not become the embryo.

In response to the original topic, 'it's my body' does not refer to the body of the fetus. It refers to the fact that the fetus is INSIDE the body of the mother. We all have the right to life, but the right to life inside another against one's will? You absolutely cannot leave the mother out of this argument; you cannot separate the abortion issue from the issue of the woman's body. By definition they are closely connected. The woman's rights must not be ignored.

Also, by your argument, the embryo being a totally separate 'person' trumps all the rights of the mother. Would you force a pregnancy upon a rape victim?

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: We all have the right to life, but the right to life inside another against one's will? That life was created there by the mother and is simply staying put until its old enough. Ones will becomes irrellevent after that action takes place.

Quote: The woman's rights must not be ignored.
Her right to reproduce is not being ignored, she initiated the life by engaging in sexual intercourse, now that life must be allowed to run its course.

Quote: Also, by your argument, the embryo being a totally separate 'person' trumps all the rights of the mother. Would you force a pregnancy upon a rape victim? First of all rape accounts for such a small minority it isnt really worth mentioning until we can see eye to eye on abortion for birth control.

Second, in the case of rape the mother did not choose to create that life, as is the case in most pregnancies, therefor she should be given a choice in carrying the pregnancy.

My whole point here is that it is not her body, she used her body to create another body. Any system of cells by definition composes a body of cells. A system can be an independent cell undergoing mitosis, or it can be any number of organized cells working together to compose that system.

[AllAmericanMan]

Helena` wrote: It's still a parasite, by definition Not unless you classify the human species as a parasite. While it may have some simularities with a parasite, it is simply a young and immature member of our species. Nature has determined our species to start out in the womb, that doesnt make us all parasites it makes us young. I was never a parasite. I was a human embryo, and there is a difference.

[Enoch]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Helena` wrote: It's still a parasite, by definition Not unless you classify the human species as a parasite. While it may have some simularities with a parasite, it is simply a young and immature member of our species. Nature has determined our species to start out in the womb, that doesnt make us all parasites it makes us young. I was never a parasite. I was a human embryo, and there is a difference. No, like it or not, it is a parasite by definition. It is reliant on the host (the mother) in order to live. If the host dies, it will die.

Now, once the child is born it is no longer reliant on a host. Yes, others have to feed and care for the child until it reaches a further stage of maturity, but it is no longer in a parasitic relationship. The fact that mammals have this as a way to reproduce does not make the fact that it is a parasitic relationship any less valid.

[AllAmericanMan]

UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Helena` wrote: It's still a parasite, by definition Not unless you classify the human species as a parasite. While it may have some simularities with a parasite, it is simply a young and immature member of our species. Nature has determined our species to start out in the womb, that doesnt make us all parasites it makes us young. I was never a parasite. I was a human embryo, and there is a difference. No, like it or not, it is a parasite by definition. It is reliant on the host (the mother) in order to live. If the host dies, it will die.

Now, once the child is born it is no longer reliant on a host. Yes, others have to feed and care for the child until it reaches a further stage of maturity, but it is no longer in a parasitic relationship. The fact that mammals have this as a way to reproduce does not make the fact that it is a parasitic relationship any less valid. Such parasitic relationship is the human condition. Its how we all start out, so how does this change anything? There is a difference between offspring and parasites. Parasites come from the outside and are of a different species than the host. Offspring simply matures inside its mother. That is the key difference here. The mother created this organism through reproduction and is now pregnant. WHen a person has a parasite they are not considered pregnant. Being pregnant and having a parasite are two completely different things. Like I said, while they have simularities, they are apples and oranges.

[Gilbert1908]

Helena` wrote: It's still a parasite, by definition

In fact it lacks the primary definition of a parasite, an embryo/fetus is the SAME species as its mother, parasites BY DEFINITION are not.

[AllAmericanMan]

iVe seen these comparisons brought up again and again by pro abortionists so let me just make this very clear. Whether you want to bring up cancer, skin cells, or any other type of cell on the face of this earth. ALL of them are distinguishable from the human embryo. None of them will develop into an adult human, ever. Abortion does not compare to ANY situation facing man today, to compare it to a plant seed or anything else on the face of the earth is a null and void comparison even before you think of it.

[TheCaliforniaLife]

Brilliantly stated. This is almost the exact arguement I use when I debate pro-choicers ^_^

[AllAmericanMan]

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Brilliantly stated. This is almost the exact arguement I use when I debate pro-choicers ^_^

Check mate in 2 ^^ :lol:

[Politics Mstr]

Saf wrote: What about my left leg? Is skinning my knee murder? On a smaller scale, every cell in my body meets the criteria you've set forth. What makes a human a human is a mind, with the ability to think and feel. Lacking these, a fetus is not a person.

An unborn fetus has the oppurtunity for a mind. Your knee is the not the same as an unborn fetus. Let's say a step towards world peace is going to come out of your knee tomorrow. Abortion would be like purposefully grinding your knee against a ledge so that you wouldn't have to deal with it the next day. Indirectly, you have stopped something great.

[TheCaliforniaLife]

AllAmericanMan wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Brilliantly stated. This is almost the exact arguement I use when I debate pro-choicers ^_^

Check mate in 2 ^^ :lol:
Come again?

[Plodder]

he is paying you a complement and thanking you for your support. and here is another. congrats on being at berkeley AND being pro life. its rare over there. Quote: No, like it or not, it is a parasite by definition. It is reliant on the host (the mother) in order to live. If the host dies, it will die.

Now, once the child is born it is no longer reliant on a host. Yes, others have to feed and care for the child until it reaches a further stage of maturity, but it is no longer in a parasitic relationship. The fact that mammals have this as a way to reproduce does not make the fact that it is a parasitic relationship any less valid. a parasite also harms the host. a baby doe snot harm the host. a tape worm can kill you. a baby will, except in extreme cases never kill the mother.

[AllAmericanMan]

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Brilliantly stated. This is almost the exact arguement I use when I debate pro-choicers ^_^

Check mate in 2 ^^ :lol:
Come again? Stupid joke nvm.

Any other pro abortionists wanna take a shot at cracking this argument?