Life begins at conception, regardless if it's a chimp, or a human. That life may become a human being or a chimp... but it's still just a clump of cells at conception, and for months later regardless of what it LOOKS LIKE.
But, to the point of my post... what that fetus LOOKS LIKE has little to do with the end result. My response was to: "LOOKS LIKE A HUMAN" so it's human. We both agree that a fetus "LOOKS LIKE" very different things as it develops... often unrecognizable from the finished product. The "LOOKS LIKE" argument is a deception.
WOW, you are twisted. You first admit that a chimp fetus looks similar to a human fetus at similar stages of development. Looking at the picture I posted showing a 20 week fetus, it is clearly human (or as you point out, it could also resemble a chimp which we share 97% of our DNA with). And I assume that when you are looking at the 20 week picture, you too see that it is not just random tissue, but actually a life, whether it is human or chimp, but it is certainly NOT a tumor.
But this is getting pointless, if you don't want to see a human or a life of any sort, if you want to disregard the heart beat the developed organs and bones, then that's for you to live with. If it helps you sleep at night to believe that - then go right ahead.
WOW, you are twisted. You first admit that a chimp fetus looks similar to a human fetus at similar stages of development. Looking at the picture I posted showing a 20 week fetus, it is clearly human (or as you point out, it could also resemble a chimp which we share 97% of our DNA with). And I assume that when you are looking at the 20 week picture, you too see that it is not just random tissue, but actually a life, whether it is human or chimp, but it is certainly NOT a tumor.
But this is getting pointless, if you don't want to see a human or a life of any sort, if you want to disregard the heart beat the developed organs and bones, then that's for you to live with. If it helps you sleep at night to believe that - then go right ahead.
Another Cicero Rant!
This IS pointless. Cicero, we do agree that Life Begins at Conception. OK? Human, chimp, giraffe... life begins at conception. We disagree on weather that life is a human being... or if it's tissue that WILL become a human being.
Your rant has little to do with my post. The LOOKS LIKE argument is bogus.
If you really believe that an impregnated human egg "IS A HUMAN BEING"... ... then meet your neighbor... his name is BOB! Why don't ya ask him over for a cup of coffee?
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
So at what stage Box a Rox do you consider it a human being?
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
So at what stage Box a Rox do you consider it a human being?
That Henry is a question I leave to science. Later stages of life in the womb are likely a human being... Early stages are nothing like a human being (like our friend Bob in the pic).
The bible repeatedly cites "taking the first breath" as when a fetus becomes a human being... and that explanation was probably suitable for biblical times. No where in the bible is abortion prohibited. When a fetus can survive on it's own outside the womb, would seem to be a better definition today. But There may come a day when the fetus is convinced and grown totally with out a human womb... so birth would have to be defined by some other criteria.
An abortion in the first trimester would seem to be a rational point for most abortions. There are circumstances where a later abortion would seem appropriate.
NY State law now is 24 weeks... I'll agree with that limit.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
When a fetus can survive on it's own outside the womb, would seem to be a better definition today. But There may come a day when the fetus is convinced and grown totally with out a human womb... so birth would have to be defined by some other criteria.
So you quote the biblical definition of life, but you aren't ready to kill at 9 months, AND if advances in science make it so a fetus can survive outside the womb at 12 weeks, then you would have to redefine human human? Your abortion blood lust is scary. YOU ARE INSANE!
LMAO! Cicero takes himself/herself way to seriously!
Human beings are allowed to die every day... some are killed, some just allowed to die for lack of care. Once these babies are born, there is little regard for their life if their mom happens to be on welfare... then those same Conservatives cut funding that will feed the very baby they forced to be born. (that type of murder is acceptable, aborting the fetus is not)
Many object to federal funds used for abortion. I object to federal funds used to murder Americans and Iraqi's in a failed oil war in Iraq.
Cicero sees himself on the side of Right!!! God is on his side!!! His view is the only view!!! Unfortunately for Cicero, the world is a very different place with very different opinions, and his opinion is just that... his opinion. No more valid than the rest of us.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Human beings are allowed to die every day... some are killed, some just allowed to die for lack of care. Once these babies are born, there is little regard for their life if their mom happens to be on welfare... then those same Conservatives cut funding that will feed the very baby they forced to be born. (that type of murder is acceptable, aborting the fetus is not)
When and where have conservatives cut funding to starve babies? That is a rhetorical BOMB. Your liberal comrade Fidel Castro has starved more babies than American conservative.
You believe 24 week fetuses are nothing more than a clump of cells regardless what science says, then you say moronic things like conservatives starve babies by cutting government funding with ZERO proof. Talk about pushing an agenda with total disregard to fact.
Remember we're talking about constitutional rights for babies. I agree that society allows human beings to die everyday, and some are killed, and some die from lack of care. In those cases, those children receive the legal protection of the Constitution from anybody knowingly and purposefully killing, starving, or not caring for a defenseless child. The unborn don't receive that same protection.
As we see in NJ, the dehumanization of the unborn has Planned Parenthood selling abortions like a used car salesman. I wonder if the abortion salesperson with the most abortions gets a week in the Bahamas at the PP timeshare.
His/Her rant continues... (Half of a conversation is listening... )
~liberal comrade Fidel Castro!(from abortion to Liberal Comrade Castro? ) ~you say moronic things! ~total disregard to fact! ~Remember we're talking about constitutional rights for babies (no we're not. We're discussing a fetus, not a baby) ~The unborn don't receive that same protection(we agree) ~Planned Parenthood selling abortions like a used car salesman (a rhetorical BOMB) ~abortion salesperson (no one sells this service) ~ the most abortions gets a week in the Bahamas at the PP timeshare.(another rhetorical BOMB)
Cicero won't listen to my words, I've used his/hers. No point in continuing a one sided conversation.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Cicero Did you ever invite your (human being) neighbor Bob over for coffee? Or even a baby bottle of formula? (If Bob is a BABY as you suggest, he must like a nice warm BABY bottle of formula) Let me know, I'd like to join in that conversation.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Cicero Did you ever invite your (human being) neighbor Bob over for coffee? Or even a baby bottle of formula? (If Bob is a BABY as you suggest, he must like a nice warm BABY bottle of formula) Let me know, I'd like to join in that conversation.
No, I didn't invite him over, Bob is still receiving his nourishment from his mother inside the womb (or host, since it is more like a parasite to you). Then after Bob exits the womb, he will continue to receive his nourishment from his mother’s milk. If the mother can't produce milk though, Bob will probably just die, since the child cannot survive outside the womb with out the mother’s milk, and that would mean Bob is not a human being. Since the mother cannot naturally produce milk, it is her choice to allow the baby to starve. There is nothing society can do about it.
This IS pointless. Cicero, we do agree that Life Begins at Conception. OK? Human, chimp, giraffe... life begins at conception. We disagree on weather that life is a human being... or if it's tissue that WILL become a human being.
If two human beings conceive.........will they be wondering if it they will be parents to a chimp or giraffe????
And can you see the look on the chimp and the giraffe's face when they give birth to a human being??
Placing a HUMAN BEING in the same category as an ANIMAL is another attempt at trying to diminish the value of human life hence allowing one to sleep better at night. Sleep well boxy!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Bob will do just fine once he's born, and even through his childhood years (thanks no doubt to Democrat programs like WIC, school meals, and childhood nutrition programs).
But as a public service notice to Cicero who seems to be living in the dark ages... Dads can raise an infant with out a mom! YUP IT'S TRUE!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
If two human beings conceive.........will they be wondering if it they will be parents to a chimp or giraffe????
And can you see the look on the chimp and the giraffe's face when they give birth to a human being??
Placing a HUMAN BEING in the same category as an ANIMAL is another attempt at trying to diminish the value of human life hence allowing one to sleep better at night. Sleep well boxy!
Bumble is playing with words in an attempt to fool those of limited ability on this board. (or else he is suggesting bestiality...either way, not my topic)
Humans are an mammals (3rd grade science)... as primates, (any of various omnivorous mammals of the order Primates, comprising the three suborders Anthropoidea (humans, great apes, gibbons, Old world monkeys, and New World monkeys).
If Bumble is suggesting that we are NOT Primates.... then we can leave abortion and head over to that other fairy tail... Creationism!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
“The CDC told us last week there were ‘no plans’ to release the data. The CDC now says it is scheduled for ‘this month’. Did the CDC just not bother looking at the editorial calendar it now tells us is booked ‘well in advance’?”
It’s never the action, it’s the cover up.
Yesterday RedState broke a significant story which points to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the nation’s premier public health organization, making a conscious decision to stop publishing the only federal report on abortion.
To briefly recap, for 40 years the CDC has published the Abortion Surveillance Report. For 40 years that report has appeared in the last November or first December issue of CDC’s journal, the Morbidity and Mortality Report Weekly Report. This year it didn’t. A RedState tradition has been to use this report for our annual retrospective on abortion. When it didn’t appear in November… or December… or in January we decided to ask why.
That inquiry and its response led to our article yesterday.
The internet is an amazing thing. After weeks of checking and phone calls and emails … no report. Then one blog post at RedState later, and suddenly the CDC is falling over themselves to produce something. Funny how that works. Two hours and six minutes after the post went live we had an official response from CDC. The full response is posted below the fold.
According to the CDC we should move along because there is nothing to see here. Really? We’re not so sure.
One thing the government does well is routine. If you have any doubt witness the difference between how the government reacts to an emergency and how it delivers Social Security checks or collects taxes. A low intensity statistical report that has been produced at the same time for the past 40 years would strike most of us as the epitome of routine. “Wait,” says their reply, “it isn’t that simple”. Here is their “explanation”. (Full text of statement below the fold):
My understanding is the population data needed to develop rate/ratio statistics was not available at the time we normally prepare the ASR. It is these data that are often desired by many to track trends and changes in a most precise way possible.
Possible. But is it likely? Another key fact is that the report in question covers abortions conducted in the United States in 2007. So the population data has been extant for at least two years because the Census Bureau - which has done routine real well for, oh, 200 years - had that particular data aggregated on July 1, 2008. That’s pretty “available” by our standards.
But let’s just pretend for a moment the data was somehow not “available” to the CDC. Why? It was available to the Census. Indeed, it was available to anyone with internet access. But somehow the CDC was out of the loop? A more likely and obvious reason the data weren’t available is that a decision had been made to not acquire the data.
Now we’re assured that the 2007 Abortion Surveillance Report is “tentatively” – CDC’s response has this word in bold so we’re assuming the real context is “not going to happen but we’re counting on you guys forgetting about it” – scheduled to be published this month. By “this month” they are saying that it will appear in one of the next three issues of the MMWR.
But wait. The response also says the editorial calendar is booked “well in advance.” Most of us would assume “well in advance” is more than three weeks, especially as the report in question will have to proceed through various levels of clearance from the authors through final approval at the Department of Health and Human Services. So if it isn’t on the calendar… which is implied by the CDC response… and the calendar is locked in well in advance … how do we make the trip from there to here?
The short answer is that now CDC is about to do the other thing bureaucracies do frequently but not well: panic.
After all, the CDC told us last week there were ‘no plans’ to release the data. The CDC now says (at least as of late yesterday) it is scheduled for ‘this month’. Did the CDC just not bother looking at the editorial calendar it now tells us is booked ‘well in advance’?
We have very little doubt what happened it this case. An inconvenient report was quietly killed. The interview we had with the CDC press office confirmed that not only had the report not been written but that there were no plans to do so. This was confirmed by the CDC. The person who confirmed it was not confused. She did not misunderstand. She answered that the report hadn’t been produced, that she didn’t know why, and that she would find out. She then later called back to confirm that it was not an oversight, and that the report would not be forthcoming.
The distance between that response and the current position of it being ready to go to press at seemingly a moment’s notice is difficult to bridge without a skyhook.
The CDC did not run the report. They confirmed that they were not going to run the report. Only after we brought attention to it have they begun scrambling to appear as if they were going to do it all along. At RedState, we’re reminded of the guy who trips on a curb and, embarassed, explains, “totally meant to do that.” Full text of CDC response:
Our office prepares the Abortion Surveillance Report (ASR). The next report (for calendar year 2007) is tentatively scheduled for release this month, pending no problems with the publishing schedule for CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Report (MMWR).
The ASR is published annually as a MMWR Surveillance Summary. My understanding is the population data needed to develop rate/ratio statistics was not available at the time we normally prepare the ASR. It is these data that are often desired by many to track trends and changes in a most precise way possible. This created a change in the schedule for MMWR Summary release as the “editorial calendar” is booked well in advance.
Also, please know the ASR is compiled from aggregate data reported by several states and reporting areas. We do take great pains to be sure the data reported is as accurate as possible. Our website presents general information about the ASR – and perhaps might be helpful in the future. http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Data_Stats/Abortion.htm is the “launch page” for information about this topic.
I apologize for any misunderstanding about the report’s release.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
If you look to RedState.com... You'll always find what you are looking for... no matter what your Conservative agenda.
Got a REAL link?
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
