Is a 15-Week-Old Unborn Baby a Human Being?

[jimnyc]

So first off, seems democrats can't even address and answer the question properly. Just make statements in reply instead. Pathetic, IMO, they should be able to give an answer.

I will - it IS a human. Everything is already forming nicely and you can easily identify the sex. As to where this "human" stands in the process. The baby is an embryo until after 8 weeks when the baby is now officially called a fetus.

All the things that have happened in the first 3 months:

heart and lungs start developing
arms, legs, brain, spinal cord and nerves begin to form
the ankles, wrists, fingers and eyelids form, bones appear, and the genitals and inner ear begin to develop
all of the main organs have been formed
bones and muscles begin to grow, buds for future teeth appear, and fingers and toes grow. The intestines begin to form and the skin is almost transparent

livescience (https://www.livescience.com/44899-stages-of-pregnancy.html#:~:text=Having%20a%20Baby%3A%20Stag es%20of%20Pregnancy%201%20Conception,4%20Third%20t rimester%20development%20of%20the%20fetus.%20)

And here on WebMD (https://www.webmd.com/baby/interactive-pregnancy-tool-fetal-development?week=1), you can get a weekly progress from weeks 1-13, which IMO, already alone has proven that a baby is a human at this point. You can also then click on the 2nd and 3rd trimesters to learn the rest of the pregnancy process. Now I have my own beliefs of course which I think is much sooner, but to fully understand from a medical viewpoint, this is the best way.


15 weeks:

https://i.imgur.com/KU8pWlBl.png

15 weeks and 5 days:

https://i.imgur.com/hICwLX1l.jpg

The whole search - image search of "baby ultrasound 15 weeks" (https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=AwrExdpMTcpgqywAp3WJzbkF;_ylu=c2VjA3Nl YXJjaARzbGsDYnV0dG9u;_ylc=X1MDOTYwNjI4NTcEX3IDMgRh Y3RuA2NsawRjc3JjcHZpZANvczk1a2pFd0xqSThFamx2WUFoeH BBalhOamN1T0FBQUFBRGg5OVpmBGZyA3lmcC10BGZyMgNzYS1n cARncHJpZANySW1wckoyOFJJV3BhcGcuNXlMZ1hBBG5fc3VnZw MzBG9yaWdpbgNpbWFnZXMuc2VhcmNoLnlhaG9vLmNvbQRwb3MD MARwcXN0cgMEcHFzdHJsAwRxc3RybAMzMARxdWVyeQNiYWJ5JT IwdWx0cmFzb3VuZCUyMDE1JTIwd2Vla3MEdF9zdG1wAzE2MjM4 NzA4MDQ-?p=baby+ultrasound+15+weeks&fr=yfp-t&fr2=sb-top-images.search&ei=UTF-8&x=wrt#id=27&iurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2F1sMOdrvleSA% 2Fhqdefault.jpg&action=close)

---

Is a 15-Week-Old Unborn Baby a Human Being? Sen. Hirono: 'The Supreme Court Has Said...a Woman Has a Right to Choose'

(CNS News) -- When asked if a 15-week-old unborn baby is a human being -- in relation to an upcoming Supreme Court case -- Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) said she is “going with” the Supreme Court, which ruled in Roe v. Wade that “a woman has a right to choose” on abortion.

At the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, CNSNews.com asked Sen. Hirono, “The Supreme Court this fall will review a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Is an unborn baby at 15 weeks a human being?”

Hirono responded: "Who are you with?"

CNSNews.com: "CNSNews."

Hirono then said: "What's CNSNews? Well, as the Supreme Court has said, until they overturn Roe v. Wade, they have said that a woman has a right to choose and make a decision on abortion, and that’s what I’m going with. So.”

CNSNews.com then asked: "So if an unborn--"

Hirono said: "So, that's it."

Rest - https://www.cnsnews.com/article/washington/elisabeth-nieshalla/15-week-old-unborn-baby-human-being-sen-hirono-supreme-court


Is a 15-Week-Old Unborn Baby a Human Being? Sen. Sanders: ‘I Believe Very Strongly in Roe v. Wade’

(CNS News) -- When asked if a 15-week-old unborn baby is a human being--in relation to an upcoming Supreme Court case--Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) did not answer directly but said, “it is women and not politicians who have the right to control their own bodies.”

At the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, CNS News asked Sen. Sanders, “The Supreme Court this fall will review a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Is an unborn baby at 15 weeks a human being?”

Sen. Sanders said, “I believe very strongly in Roe v. Wade. I think it is women and not politicians who have the right to control their own bodies. Thank you.”

In a follow-up, CNS News asked, “If an unborn baby is not a human being, what species is it?”

Sanders did not respond and walked away.

Rest - https://www.cnsnews.com/article/washington/elisabeth-nieshalla/15-week-old-unborn-baby-human-being-sen-sanders-i-believe


Is 15-Week-Old Unborn Baby a Human Being? Sen. Blumenthal: ‘I’m Going to Wait for the Supreme Court Decision’

(CNS News) -- In relation to the upcoming Supreme Court case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, CNSNews.com asked Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D.-Conn.) if a 15-week-old unborn baby is a human being.

Blumenthal did not answer directly but said: “I’m going to wait for the Supreme Court decision.”

At the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, CNSNews.com asked Blumenthal: “The Supreme Court this fall will review a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Is an unborn baby at 15 weeks a human being?”

Blumenthal said, “You know, I’m going to wait for the Supreme Court decision. Right now, abortion at that point in a pregnancy is legal and constitutionally protected, and I believe it should be.”

Rest - https://www.cnsnews.com/article/washington/julia-johnson/15-week-old-unborn-baby-human-being-sen-blumenthal-im-going-wait


Is 15-Week-Old Unborn Baby a Human Being? Sen. Baldwin: 'The Question Will Revolve Around a Previous Precedent in Roe'

(CNS News) -- In relation to the upcoming Supreme Court case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, CNSNews.com asked Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D.-Wisc.) whether a 15-week-old unborn baby is a human being.

Baldwin did not answer directly but said that is a question "the court will be looking at."

At the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, CNS News asked Sen. Baldwin, "The Supreme court this fall will review a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Is an unborn baby at 15 weeks a human being?"

Baldwin said, "Uh, those are the questions that the court will be looking at. So, the question will revolve around a previous precedent in Roe v. Wade, and a lot of those questions will come to the fore. It's going to be a much-watched case."

Rest - https://www.cnsnews.com/article/washington/julia-johnson/15-week-old-unborn-baby-human-being-sen-baldwin-question-will


Sen. Durbin Doesn't Say Whether a 15-Week Unborn Baby is a Human Being

(CNSNews) -- When asked whether a 15-week-old unborn baby is a human being, in relation to a pending Supreme Court case, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) did not answer but said he was focused on immigration at the moment.

At the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, CNS News asked the senator, "The Supreme Court this fall will review a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Is an unborn baby at 15 weeks a human being?”

Durbin replied, “We’re on the issue of DREAMers and immigration. We’ll address the other issues later,” in reference to the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act.

CNS News then asked the senator what species is an unborn baby at 15 weeks. He did not respond.

Rest - https://www.cnsnews.com/article/washington/julia-johnson/sen-durbin-doesnt-say-whether-15-week-unborn-baby-human-being

[Gunny]

Agreed.

Sanders response is a dodge to a question not asked.

[icansayit]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Yes_4G_Logo.png

[revelarts]

Sadly, the real question becomes, are those democrats human?
You have to wonder.
Maybe we should wait for the supreme court to decide.
geez

It's always a horrific when people start DE-Humanizing others, it's always an excuse for legalized abuse and killing.

[jimnyc]

Sadly, the real question becomes, are those democrats human?
You have to wonder.
Maybe we should wait for the supreme court to decide.
geez

It's always a horrific when people start DE-Humanizing others, it's always an excuse for legalized abuse and killing.

And that's what they have done, is dehumanize the entire thing, and avoid all kinds of discussions and admissions so as to avoid it. I love seeing them put on the spot. How can they not admit it's a human? If they do then they know what they would be saying and open a can of worms. And if they say no, then that would open it's own can of worms. It's easier to take a stance on the issue and then just avoid any difficult questions on it. :rolleyes:

[Mika-El]

I appreciate why you chose 15 weeks not as an arbitrary no.

https://www.bundoo.com/category/pregnancy-info/week-by-week/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI37qbxfOe8QIVpG5vBB1XugFJEAAYBCA AEgJQBPD_BwE


Myself and most of you will not like my opinion probably but I see this ultimately as an issue to be decided by the pregnant woman and her physician. To me the issue is doctor-patient privilige.

If the state intervenes and can tell a woman what she must do with her child at 15 weeks, it establishes someone other than the individual and her physician making a decision that direcly impacts on her body for political reasons NOT health reasons.

If the child for example is severely deformed does this mean the government can force the pregnancy along?

If the child is a resolt of rape/incest, can the government force the pregnancy along?

If the mother is facing a chronic condition that will kill her giving birth if its forced along, should the government be able to force it?

What if and its quite possible and a crucial point, a woman does not know she is pregnant until 15 or later weeks which is exactly what happens many times and the first time she finds out its week 15 or 16 and all the issues I raised then come to the forefront-should the government impose?

For me this is a crucial issue and I am not comfortable giving any government direct control over any woman's body due to the above reasons and classic ones dealing with civil rights of the individual.

I personally would hope any woman in a situation of pregnancy could get neutral counselling that does not impose moral judgement, guilt, religious biases, and I think physicians not politicians are the ones best trained to do that. I also think ultimately to tell anyone what they MUST do with their body is a slippery slope. In practicality you can NOT force someone to complete their pregnancy any more than you can force people not to have sex with hookers. Sexual behaviour of any kind of course triggers moral discussions with extreme emotion but governments are limited in what they can actuall do and say when it comes to sexual behaviour.

The bottom line is we want to make sure people who do not want children do NOT get pregnant obviously so much of our focus should be on preventative sexual behaviour which makes sense to prevent this kind of issue and of course the spread of disease.

Me personally I have distinct views of life that would hope any woman carrying life can and does have guilt free options to have a child but I do not think you can have pregnancy police arresting women and keeping them imprisoned 9 months.

Also its not my body. I am very uncomfortable voting for laws telling people what they must do with their body unless they are committing violence to others or a crime.

This is where people argue an abortion is violence against someone else, i.e., murder and therefore a crime and 15 weeks is chosen because under conventional medicine an embryo is considered to have sufficient development to constitute a human.

I would argue its highly unlikely a 15 week old embryo could survive outside a womb and it may be another way of looking at development could be argued to be an embryo be sufficienly developed so that if the mother died it could technically live on its own. That would mean waiting for about 6 months or 7 months of development.

There are many ways you can argue it. Strict anti abortionists argue life begins at insemination not 15 weeks.

Again I appreciate its a volatile issue and most anti Democrats in the US see abortion as a concept only Democrats agree on.

I do believe in fairness, there are both Republicans and Democrats that define the issue as I do. They ideally would want anyone to know their options guilt free BUT we don't see this as an issue for government intervention. Conservatism by the way does not automatically when in doubt go for government intervention. It was a philosophy created for the exact opposite reasons-yes it was to see certain values being continued as integral to a stable society but it was also to discourage state control of individual thought which is why there are people who call themselves conservatives and civil libertarians.

So as much as I sanctify life like the rest of you, I believe this is an issue that should be left in the doctor's office between patient and physician.

The practical reality is if it is not we go back to unsafe people operating underground carrying out these abortions.

I worked for years in a system where we tried to contain and prosecute sex criminals. In theory its of course everyone's concern government intervene and arrest and jail such people. In reality the vast majority never have their crimes reported and when they do because of the sheer volume of people in jail are out in less than a year. The cold hard reality is the government is very limited on what it can actually do. If I thought there was a way a physician with a physician-patient relationship could contain a sex criminal from engaging in sexual behaviour that approach would make the most sense. It can't be done. So far no one has come up with a containment treatment that fully works.

With abortion we have not come up with a way to guarantee BEFORE the fact people get pregnant and so after the fact we now have to deal with the consequences of life if started. It places a practical limitation as to what can be done. An impregnated woman is not a criminal. She is not a sex criminal. I don't think arresting her and forcing her to full term would make sense and ultimately that is what these laws would have to do to stop abortion.

Thanks. Just my opinion for adding to the debate.

[jimnyc]

I appreciate why you chose 15 weeks not as an arbitrary no.

https://www.bundoo.com/category/pregnancy-info/week-by-week/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI37qbxfOe8QIVpG5vBB1XugFJEAAYBCA AEgJQBPD_BwE


Myself and most of you will not like my opinion probably but I see this ultimately as an issue to be decided by the pregnant woman and her physician. To me the issue is doctor-patient privilige.

If the state intervenes and can tell a woman what she must do with her child at 15 weeks, it establishes someone other than the individual and her physician making a decision that direcly impacts on her body for political reasons NOT health reasons.

If the child for example is severely deformed does this mean the government can force the pregnancy along?

If the child is a resolt of rape/incest, can the government force the pregnancy along?

If the mother is facing a chronic condition that will kill her giving birth if its forced along, should the government be able to force it?

What if and its quite possible and a crucial point, a woman does not know she is pregnant until 15 or later weeks which is exactly what happens many times and the first time she finds out its week 15 or 16 and all the issues I raised then come to the forefront-should the government impose?

For me this is a crucial issue and I am not comfortable giving any government direct control over any woman's body due to the above reasons and classic ones dealing with civil rights of the individual.

I personally would hope any woman in a situation of pregnancy could get neutral counselling that does not impose moral judgement, guilt, religious biases, and I think physicians not politicians are the ones best trained to do that. I also think ultimately to tell anyone what they MUST do with their body is a slippery slope. In practicality you can NOT force someone to complete their pregnancy any more than you can force people not to have sex with hookers. Sexual behaviour of any kind of course triggers moral discussions with extreme emotion but governments are limited in what they can actuall do and say when it comes to sexual behaviour.

The bottom line is we want to make sure people who do not want children do NOT get pregnant obviously so much of our focus should be on preventative sexual behaviour which makes sense to prevent this kind of issue and of course the spread of disease.

Me personally I have distinct views of life that would hope any woman carrying life can and does have guilt free options to have a child but I do not think you can have pregnancy police arresting women and keeping them imprisoned 9 months.

Also its not my body. I am very uncomfortable voting for laws telling people what they must do with their body unless they are committing violence to others or a crime.

This is where people argue an abortion is violence against someone else, i.e., murder and therefore a crime and 15 weeks is chosen because under conventional medicine an embryo is considered to have sufficient development to constitute a human.

I would argue its highly unlikely a 15 week old embryo could survive outside a womb and it may be another way of looking at development could be argued to be an embryo be sufficienly developed so that if the mother died it could technically live on its own. That would mean waiting for about 6 months or 7 months of development.

There are many ways you can argue it. Strict anti abortionists argue life begins at insemination not 15 weeks.

Again I appreciate its a volatile issue and most anti Democrats in the US see abortion as a concept only Democrats agree on.

I do believe in fairness, there are both Republicans and Democrats that define the issue as I do. They ideally would want anyone to know their options guilt free BUT we don't see this as an issue for government intervention. Conservatism by the way does not automatically when in doubt go for government intervention. It was a philosophy created for the exact opposite reasons-yes it was to see certain values being continued as integral to a stable society but it was also to discourage state control of individual thought which is why there are people who call themselves conservatives and civil libertarians.

So as much as I sanctify life like the rest of you, I believe this is an issue that should be left in the doctor's office between patient and physician.

The practical reality is if it is not we go back to unsafe people operating underground carrying out these abortions.

I worked for years in a system where we tried to contain and prosecute sex criminals. In theory its of course everyone's concern government intervene and arrest and jail such people. In reality the vast majority never have their crimes reported and when they do because of the sheer volume of people in jail are out in less than a year. The cold hard reality is the government is very limited on what it can actually do. If I thought there was a way a physician with a physician-patient relationship could contain a sex criminal from engaging in sexual behaviour that approach would make the most sense. It can't be done. So far no one has come up with a containment treatment that fully works.

With abortion we have not come up with a way to guarantee BEFORE the fact people get pregnant and so after the fact we now have to deal with the consequences of life if started. It places a practical limitation as to what can be done. An impregnated woman is not a criminal. She is not a sex criminal. I don't think arresting her and forcing her to full term would make sense and ultimately that is what these laws would have to do to stop abortion.

Thanks. Just my opinion for adding to the debate.

No one person or issue will be the same. I do think those who were raped or part of incestual rape, or baby already basically diagnosed with a death sentence.... But, overall, generally speaking - a baby is a human. A human deserves an opportunity to live and thrive. Anyone pregnant chose to get that way or didn't use any personal responsibility. And even if they did, when they had sex, they made the decision to do so knowing that there could potentially be issues. And should that happen they have a responsibility.

In many cases a baby can be adopted or taken care of in another manner. I just don't agree in a death sentence for that baby made by anyone else, even mom in many cases.

Far too many women out there will use abortion as a condom. They will have zero sense of personal responsibility whatsoever. Or many men out there that will "force" their women to get an abortion, because they either don't want a child or cannot afford a child. Those are not reasons for snuffing out the life of a baby, IMO.

But yeah, in the types mentioned and other reasons at times where it might be the right thing to think about. I believe those times are MUCH more rare compared to abortions performed on a perfectly healthy child, that mom or dad just simply don't want.

Either way though - my point in sharing that article is that AT LEAST admit that it's a human being. A baby. It makes it so much easier to think about and deal with when you turn the baby into an inanimate object, like I think the above democrats did, and like to knowingly keep that way. When you admit the baby is a human, and bring various forms to life, it makes their decision tougher. But more so - it makes their discussing of the issue better. They can talk about established law, and rights and other crap, anything other than acknowledging a baby, a human & a life being snuffed out.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I WILL CALL - ANY PERSON- A LIAR OR ELSE A MORON THAT CLAIMS IT IS NOT.
These filthy lib/dem socialist politicians are the ones that --are not human, imho.
Best solution would be to --abort- them, imho.. A give the rest of us a much needed rest nd break from their insanity and wicked bullshit..
As my dear departed friend used to say. FUKKK 'EM FEED EM FISHHEADS.
Which to me is a most apt response to the ffing vermin.
Not a damn one of them is worth more than an angry spit into the wind.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I appreciate why you chose 15 weeks not as an arbitrary no.

https://www.bundoo.com/category/pregnancy-info/week-by-week/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI37qbxfOe8QIVpG5vBB1XugFJEAAYBCA AEgJQBPD_BwE


Myself and most of you will not like my opinion probably but I see this ultimately as an issue to be decided by the pregnant woman and her physician. To me the issue is doctor-patient privilige.

If the state intervenes and can tell a woman what she must do with her child at 15 weeks, it establishes someone other than the individual and her physician making a decision that direcly impacts on her body for political reasons NOT health reasons.

If the child for example is severely deformed does this mean the government can force the pregnancy along?

If the child is a resolt of rape/incest, can the government force the pregnancy along?

If the mother is facing a chronic condition that will kill her giving birth if its forced along, should the government be able to force it?

What if and its quite possible and a crucial point, a woman does not know she is pregnant until 15 or later weeks which is exactly what happens many times and the first time she finds out its week 15 or 16 and all the issues I raised then come to the forefront-should the government impose?

For me this is a crucial issue and I am not comfortable giving any government direct control over any woman's body due to the above reasons and classic ones dealing with civil rights of the individual.

I personally would hope any woman in a situation of pregnancy could get neutral counselling that does not impose moral judgement, guilt, religious biases, and I think physicians not politicians are the ones best trained to do that. I also think ultimately to tell anyone what they MUST do with their body is a slippery slope. In practicality you can NOT force someone to complete their pregnancy any more than you can force people not to have sex with hookers. Sexual behaviour of any kind of course triggers moral discussions with extreme emotion but governments are limited in what they can actuall do and say when it comes to sexual behaviour.

The bottom line is we want to make sure people who do not want children do NOT get pregnant obviously so much of our focus should be on preventative sexual behaviour which makes sense to prevent this kind of issue and of course the spread of disease.

Me personally I have distinct views of life that would hope any woman carrying life can and does have guilt free options to have a child but I do not think you can have pregnancy police arresting women and keeping them imprisoned 9 months.

Also its not my body. I am very uncomfortable voting for laws telling people what they must do with their body unless they are committing violence to others or a crime.

This is where people argue an abortion is violence against someone else, i.e., murder and therefore a crime and 15 weeks is chosen because under conventional medicine an embryo is considered to have sufficient development to constitute a human.

I would argue its highly unlikely a 15 week old embryo could survive outside a womb and it may be another way of looking at development could be argued to be an embryo be sufficienly developed so that if the mother died it could technically live on its own. That would mean waiting for about 6 months or 7 months of development.

There are many ways you can argue it. Strict anti abortionists argue life begins at insemination not 15 weeks.

Again I appreciate its a volatile issue and most anti Democrats in the US see abortion as a concept only Democrats agree on.

I do believe in fairness, there are both Republicans and Democrats that define the issue as I do. They ideally would want anyone to know their options guilt free BUT we don't see this as an issue for government intervention. Conservatism by the way does not automatically when in doubt go for government intervention. It was a philosophy created for the exact opposite reasons-yes it was to see certain values being continued as integral to a stable society but it was also to discourage state control of individual thought which is why there are people who call themselves conservatives and civil libertarians.

So as much as I sanctify life like the rest of you, I believe this is an issue that should be left in the doctor's office between patient and physician.

The practical reality is if it is not we go back to unsafe people operating underground carrying out these abortions.

I worked for years in a system where we tried to contain and prosecute sex criminals. In theory its of course everyone's concern government intervene and arrest and jail such people. In reality the vast majority never have their crimes reported and when they do because of the sheer volume of people in jail are out in less than a year. The cold hard reality is the government is very limited on what it can actually do. If I thought there was a way a physician with a physician-patient relationship could contain a sex criminal from engaging in sexual behaviour that approach would make the most sense. It can't be done. So far no one has come up with a containment treatment that fully works.

With abortion we have not come up with a way to guarantee BEFORE the fact people get pregnant and so after the fact we now have to deal with the consequences of life if started. It places a practical limitation as to what can be done. An impregnated woman is not a criminal. She is not a sex criminal. I don't think arresting her and forcing her to full term would make sense and ultimately that is what these laws would have to do to stop abortion.

Thanks. Just my opinion for adding to the debate.

Bull, neither the woman nor the doctor has a right to commit murder.
Spit out all the shades of gray)liberal nuances) that you like-- there is no way of getting around that glaring truth.
And no man has the right to engage in murder despite the filthy dems's murderous decree..
I am a true AMERICAN, TRUE CITIZEN THAT YIELDS NOT TO THOSE CRAVEN, WORTHLESS COWARDS AND/OR THEIR EQUALLY CRAVENLY WORTHLESS ALLIES.
I never water down the truth to appease anybody.
Any that does not like my saying that- can right royally kiss my ass! I never mix my words.
And I NEVER BACK DOWN.:saluting2:--Tyr

[gabosaurus]

I notice first that all the previous responders in this thread are men. Who tend to take Biblical views of fetal gestation instead of human ones. When is an unborn child a "human being?" It has to do with fetal viability, or when can the fetus survive outside the womb. But that is only part of it. My concerns rest primarily with the mother. I notice that many of those who believe that life begins at conception tend only to care about the unborn child. Once the baby is delivered, their concern magically disappears. How many of these bleeding hearts are willing to ante up the funds necessary for maternity leave and post natal care? Do they actually care about at risk teens who are victims of rape, incest and abusive relationships? Same with young adults. Would they support a tax increase to help parents care for babies born with birth defects or diseases? This is all part of the same package.

[jimnyc]

I notice first that all the previous responders in this thread are men.

Not really sure it matters whether a man or a woman is presented with a question about when someone is a human being. That's pure medical science and doesn't take a pregnant woman or even a woman at all to know. Yes, of course women will be much better off in addressing other related pregnancy issues - but I'm speaking solely of addressing that particular question, and more specifically why those democrats wouldn't answer. In those choices it's 3 men and 2 women being asked and all of them ignored the question. Nor is it biblical, not my answer and why either.

I too believe life starts at conception - but scientifically speaking only, and as to the question, a 15 week old baby is a human.

I've heard many before state claims about money, paying for an adoption or paying for this and that. All good points down the road for the responsibility question, but again, for just this thread I was only addressing the question and answers of others. Quite frankly, I don't care about what others personal feelings are on abortion in general, when life begins or any religious portion. That's why I tried to avoid even entering my beliefs and trying to stay on the science of it.

[gabosaurus]

I have addressed your issue. Fetal viability is when life begins. Which is why abortion should be only be prohibited after three months. Unless the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Conception is merely cell development and growth.

[jimnyc]

I have addressed your issue. Fetal viability is when life begins. Which is why abortion should be only be prohibited after three months. Unless the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Conception is merely cell development and growth.

I know you addressed it, I was just pointing out the extras that went along with it.

Now, at the beginning of the 2nd trimester, around the 13th week, 2 weeks prior to this question. And we know that a baby develops quite quickly, and even that 2 weeks will add up to more development. So, science speaking, you and I both agree there.

So we could debate anytime about the first trimester and when folks think life first begins. But that's altogether a different argument. Just discussing the very question that was asked of everyone.

So they disagree with you and I. Why do you think that is? And why do you believe they didn't really even answer and gave the non-answers to a large extent? Do you have any thought as to humanizing or dehumanizing to make someone's argument better?

It was a direct question of all of them. The answer can only be yes or no. As we know, ALL politicians tend to ride the fence many times.


Woman has a right to choose, going with the SC.
I believe strongly in Roe vs. Wade.
I am going to wait for the SC decision.
Those are questions for the court.
Refusal to answer, moved onto immigration.

So why do you think they answered as they did, rather than offering up an answer that supports their opinion?

[Gunny]

I know you addressed it, I was just pointing out the extras that went along with it.

Now, at the beginning of the 2nd trimester, around the 13th week, 2 weeks prior to this question. And we know that a baby develops quite quickly, and even that 2 weeks will add up to more development. So, science speaking, you and I both agree there.

So we could debate anytime about the first trimester and when folks think life first begins. But that's altogether a different argument. Just discussing the very question that was asked of everyone.

So they disagree with you and I. Why do you think that is? And why do you believe they didn't really even answer and gave the non-answers to a large extent? Do you have any thought as to humanizing or dehumanizing to make someone's argument better?

It was a direct question of all of them. The answer can only be yes or no. As we know, ALL politicians tend to ride the fence many times.



So why do you think they answered as they did, rather than offering up an answer that supports their opinion?
Was I the one arguing with you about allowing intellectually dishonest trolls posting? Wonder what I was thinking.

[jimnyc]

Was I the one arguing with you about allowing intellectually dishonest trolls posting? Wonder what I was thinking.

I'm trying to get some things more even keel as of late. Maybe more debating and linking and facts and opinions, and less attacks, lack of facts and rhetoric.

[gabosaurus]

So why do you think they answered as they did, rather than offering up an answer that supports their opinion? Since when do politicians ever offer answers that support their real opinions? That would lose them votes. There are no yes and no questions that can't be hedged. --------- If you want my direct answer, it is fetal viability. The ability to survive outside the womb.
Was I the one arguing with you about allowing intellectually dishonest trolls posting? Wonder what I was thinking. What is there to disallow? I personally have never considered you intellectual, dishonest or a troll. :rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I have addressed your issue. Fetal viability is when life begins. Which is why abortion should be only be prohibited after three months. Unless the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Conception is merely cell development and growth.

"" Fetal viability is when life begins. ""

That is a dishonest set up/ imho....

viability simply means = survivability

So that survivability standard applies even after birth and first breath.
If the pregnancy course is not interrupted those babies are born and take first breath- still the survivability is in question and remains in question even into maturity and beyond.
The interruption--"abortion" is what adds to lack of viability.
And that is a man made interference-- most call murder.

The standard you used has no real relevance-- as saying it can not survive at that stage , must pre-include the interference.
You cant use the interference- to justify the interference..
That which came first argument- the chicken or the egg- bring the whole argument for abortion into its proper place.

It is kinda like shooting the chicken eggs before they hatch and then when somebody asks you why you shot them - you say -well they were not viable so I shot them.
When your act of shooting them is what made them not viable.
Logic and truth win over political agenda and the argument that at that stage to baby does not meet a viability standard-- when it is the damn preemptive interruption of the normal course the pregnancy would have taken, that makes it not meet some convenient standard so illogically used to try to say it is not murder!

Think of it this way, perfectly healthy baby is born.
Guy grabs the baby, drops it out of a two story window onto the concrete below and then says-- see it does not meet the viability standard. --Tyr

[jimnyc]

Since when do politicians ever offer answers that support their real opinions? That would lose them votes. There are no yes and no questions that can't be hedged. --------- If you want my direct answer, it is fetal viability. The ability to survive outside the womb.

When it's an extreme mater of importance. Most people will in fact explain their position and why on abortion. Same with attempting to explain their positioning on the 2nd amendment. That's why such questions are often asked of candidates during campaigns. THE most important people, the most forgotten people - the constituents want to know those answers. Of course once in office, that changes a lot. They don't necessarily have to support their positions, and more so when it's the media asking them.

And while the truth may lose them votes, the truth can also win them votes. And non-truths and non-answers can also lead to less votes. Not always the case though, not nearly.

Myself, as a constituent, I WANT to know what their specific position is on things like that. But that's me and a campaign.

Weird thing is - the question really doesn't even have anything at all to do with them revealing a position, nor them losing or winning votes. It's a simple science answer and their answer shouldn't make a difference to either side. it's just answering a basic science question, or what they think the answer is. It shouldn't change anything. But like I said, it would humanize or dehumanize.

[icansayit]

As a Christian MAN, MALE, or other units being bantered about. I have no reason to explain why I believe What I Believe to ANYONE. I answer to a Higher Power (SIGHT UNSEEN) with Faith in the (UNSEEN) since I first heard the words GOD, JESUS, and BIBLE...at a REAL CHURCH long before most of the members of this Forum...WERE BORN. And I REFUSE to change just to appease anyone who hates me.

THE 6TH COMMANDMENT SAYS IT ALL.

http://icansayit.com/pictures/tencommands.jpg

[fj1200]

I appreciate why you chose 15 weeks not as an arbitrary no.

https://www.bundoo.com/category/pregnancy-info/week-by-week/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI37qbxfOe8QIVpG5vBB1XugFJEAAYBCA AEgJQBPD_BwE


Myself and most of you will not like my opinion probably but I see this ultimately as an issue to be decided by the pregnant woman and her physician. To me the issue is doctor-patient privilige.

If the state intervenes and can tell a woman what she must do with her child at 15 weeks, it establishes someone other than the individual and her physician making a decision that direcly impacts on her body for political reasons NOT health reasons.

...

Thanks. Just my opinion for adding to the debate.

I think the answer to the question is undeniable. If it's not a human being what else is it? We know what it's going to be with no outside interference. I may agree with you that the issue is best a doctor-patient question but it's been taken away from that for 50? years now. It could have been a decision best made at the state level but it's been nationalized by a poorly-thought out decision IMO. As an aside assisted suicide is a state-by-state decision and a better way to handle things in a Federal system.

At what point does a child get protections by the State? Viability? That's a moving target as science gets better. Or some arbitrary number of weeks with each side pulling from conception to birth? That's of course where we're at but I think we could at least hope for questions being answered honestly.

[fj1200]

I notice first that all the previous responders in this thread are men. Who tend to take Biblical views of fetal gestation instead of human ones. When is an unborn child a "human being?" It has to do with fetal viability, or when can the fetus survive outside the womb. But that is only part of it. My concerns rest primarily with the mother. I notice that many of those who believe that life begins at conception tend only to care about the unborn child. Once the baby is delivered, their concern magically disappears. How many of these bleeding hearts are willing to ante up the funds necessary for maternity leave and post natal care? Do they actually care about at risk teens who are victims of rape, incest and abusive relationships? Same with young adults. Would they support a tax increase to help parents care for babies born with birth defects or diseases? This is all part of the same package.

No biblical view required to have an opinion on the issue. There's a clear progression between mother and father to human being and viability is not really a decision point. Viability is completely dependent on scientific advancement so how can a baby now viable, and a human being, at 15 weeks have been not a human being at 26 weeks decades ago? It's an intellectually dishonest position in my mind.

43% of births area already paid for by Medicaid. 53% of babies are already on WIC. Rape and incest are miscule percentages of abortions (1% and .5%)

It seems to me that us bleeding hearts are already paying for babies to be born and to feed them not to mention other poverty benefits. It also seems to me that one side will use the rape/incest issue as a cudgel to stifle debate on the subject. But as with any government fiat over time people say "what about ..." and completely avoid the unseen effect that created many of the issues we have today. Take away a requirement of taking responsibility and then don't be surprised when people avoid taking responsibility.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/

[Mika-El]

Not really sure it matters whether a man or a woman is presented with a question about when someone is a human being.

I respectfully disagree. We men do not carry the "human being" in our body so our perspective of "human being" is naturally different. It would be impossible not to be. We are dettached from the life so more likely to see it as distinct. Because it is part of the woman's body as well, that distinction between her and the baby is not as clear.

I think we men forget that "life" is also inside another "life" and those two lives may not feel or appear to be as dettached as we men think it is.

Necessarily discussion about that "life" must also deal with the woman's life who carries it.

[Mika-El]

I WILL CALL - ANY PERSON- A LIAR OR ELSE A MORON THAT CLAIMS IT IS NOT.
These filthy lib/dem socialist politicians are the ones that --are not human, imho.
Best solution would be to --abort- them, imho.. A give the rest of us a much needed rest nd break from their insanity and wicked bullshit..
As my dear departed friend used to say. FUKKK 'EM FEED EM FISHHEADS.
Which to me is a most apt response to the ffing vermin.
Not a damn one of them is worth more than an angry spit into the wind.-Tyr

With due respect you and some others in response have shown how the discussion on this topic quickly breaks down into emotional references.

Tell you what. I may disagree with what Jim argues but not the issue of whether he wants to call a 15 week old embryo a baby.

Whether we call the embryo a human, embryo, baby, unborn life form, we know it is a life form developing within a larger life form of course. However as long as it is in the larger life form, i.e., a woman's body, you and I can not force that woman to do anything with her body unless you want to be charged and convicted of assault and battery or worse.

A woman must come to any decisions she makes about her body based on her own free will and based on one would hope hav having had the opportunity to work through all her issues with a professional who keeps that professional's personal views out of the advice.

Sorry but that woman is more likely to get better advice from a nurse, physician, close female friend, mother, grandmother, sister, Aunt, women's support group than you or I or anyone with a specific agenda we want to impose on that woman.

Furthermore the position of arguing you support the sanctity of life but at the same time showing disrespect for the sanctity of the pregnant woman's life to me makes no logical sense. There are TWO lives interconnected not dettached.

Because of that lack of dettachment it necessarily is an issue as to how the woman who is pregnant will deal with what goes on within her own body.

That has nothing to do with Democrats, Republicans, etc. Its a fact. I don't reference moral, religious, political values-I state anatomy. If its within a woman's body it is her medical condition not yours, not mine.

This assuming you can tell a woman how to treat her own self is unrealistic.

Now for people who say rape, incest, is not relevant or use numbers like .05% that is absurd. No such numbers say that and those are very important issues.

This stereotype that the only people who want abortions are anti God or leftist is not true.

Most persons facing the decision are unwed, financially limited, young, single, have other socio-economic-psychiatic or psychological issues including rape,incest, pressured sex.

My perspective comes from working within the criminal, youth and family court systems and with nurses, gps, social workers, volunteers, counselors of all kinds, clergy, police. You would be surprised. Most of us don't disagree. We limit our role as to being neutral and protecting people who feel vulnerable so they can speak with their doctor and/or nurse in a judgement free environment as to what to do.

You can not point a gun at the head of a woman and shout at her to give birth. That has nothing to do with Liberalism and everything to do with basic human compassion, respect and dignity.

[jimnyc]

I respectfully disagree. We men do not carry the "human being" in our body so our perspective of "human being" is naturally different. It would be impossible not to be. We are dettached from the life so more likely to see it as distinct. Because it is part of the woman's body as well, that distinction between her and the baby is not as clear.

I think we men forget that "life" is also inside another "life" and those two lives may not feel or appear to be as dettached as we men think it is.

Necessarily discussion about that "life" must also deal with the woman's life who carries it.

I see what you mean. But whether a pregnancy at 15 weeks of age has reached 'human life' form is really just a scientific question. Now, some will disagree and debate over what makes an embryo into a human, and when. I do agree that men and women will see things from a completely different light, no debate there. But for example, when does a woman become pregnant? It's a simple scientific question. When do various portions of the baby develop? Scientific. These answers shouldn't be different between men and women, they are simple scientific evaluations. -- But I understand that's how I see things. I respect your view and see it. I just think that specific question can be answered, and definitely better than they offered.

That detachment we men have is real for sure. We don't have to go through that experience. But then the democrats as a political party will purposely do the same, and take all emotion out of the discussion and become completely detached. And that's why they can so easily form their agendas and why they won't answer directly and instead offer their detached non-answers.

[jimnyc]

With due respect you and some others in response have shown how the discussion on this topic quickly breaks down into emotional references.

Tell you what. I may disagree with what Jim argues but not the issue of whether he wants to call a 15 week old embryo a baby.

Whether we call the embryo a human, embryo, baby, unborn life form, we know it is a life form developing within a larger life form of course. However as long as it is in the larger life form, i.e., a woman's body, you and I can not force that woman to do anything with her body unless you want to be charged and convicted of assault and battery or worse.

A woman must come to any decisions she makes about her body based on her own free will and based on one would hope hav having had the opportunity to work through all her issues with a professional who keeps that professional's personal views out of the advice.

Sorry but that woman is more likely to get better advice from a nurse, physician, close female friend, mother, grandmother, sister, Aunt, women's support group than you or I or anyone with a specific agenda we want to impose on that woman.

Furthermore the position of arguing you support the sanctity of life but at the same time showing disrespect for the sanctity of the pregnant woman's life to me makes no logical sense. There are TWO lives interconnected not dettached.

Because of that lack of dettachment it necessarily is an issue as to how the woman who is pregnant will deal with what goes on within her own body.

That has nothing to do with Democrats, Republicans, etc. Its a fact. I don't reference moral, religious, political values-I state anatomy. If its within a woman's body it is her medical condition not yours, not mine.

This assuming you can tell a woman how to treat her own self is unrealistic.

Now for people who say rape, incest, is not relevant or use numbers like .05% that is absurd. No such numbers say that and those are very important issues.

This stereotype that the only people who want abortions are anti God or leftist is not true.

Most persons facing the decision are unwed, financially limited, young, single, have other socio-economic-psychiatic or psychological issues including rape,incest, pressured sex.

My perspective comes from working within the criminal, youth and family court systems and with nurses, gps, social workers, volunteers, counselors of all kinds, clergy, police. You would be surprised. Most of us don't disagree. We limit our role as to being neutral and protecting people who feel vulnerable so they can speak with their doctor and/or nurse in a judgement free environment as to what to do.

You can not point a gun at the head of a woman and shout at her to give birth. That has nothing to do with Liberalism and everything to do with basic human compassion, respect and dignity.

Just Fwiw, I wasn't debating on the merits of abortion and telling women what to do and what is best for them. I tried to do my best to stay out of that. My points were trying to get to the question of the 15 weeks. The argument of abortion itself and rights is a different matter entirely. Just what I was arguing for anyway. :)

[Mika-El]

Just Fwiw, I wasn't debating on the merits of abortion and telling women what to do and what is best for them. I tried to do my best to stay out of that. My points were trying to get to the question of the 15 weeks. The argument of abortion itself and rights is a different matter entirely. Just what I was arguing for anyway. :)

Absolutely understand. I was speaking in general not specific to you. I very much appreciate you start threads for ALL of us to discuss and you are very clear as to your personal opinions when you have them. Thanks.

Its not an easy topic is it. Brings out intense feelings and concerns for sure.

[revelarts]

I notice first that all the previous responders in this thread are men. Who tend to take Biblical views of fetal gestation instead of human ones. When is an unborn child a "human being?" It has to do with fetal viability, or when can the fetus survive outside the womb. But that is only part of it. My concerns rest primarily with the mother. I notice that many of those who believe that life begins at conception tend only to care about the unborn child. Once the baby is delivered, their concern magically disappears. How many of these bleeding hearts are willing to ante up the funds necessary for maternity leave and post natal care? Do they actually care about at risk teens who are victims of rape, incest and abusive relationships? Same with young adults. Would they support a tax increase to help parents care for babies born with birth defects or diseases? This is all part of the same package.

Please notice that half of the unborn KILLED are women... in the U.S. at least.
In China, India and other Asian countries MORE than half. Since abortion based on gender selection is common where Girls are chosen to die.

Read any medical text book and it will clearly state that human life begins at conception period.All
All life made by sperm and eggs begin at conception. It's a scientific fact.
So the only honest question left is,
Is it MORAL to Kill another person becasue..
they are handicapped?
they are a burden?
they are physical inconvenience for a few months?
they are female?
they are unwanted?

Because the pro lifers don't care what happens after they are born? really?

[jimnyc]

Absolutely understand. I was speaking in general not specific to you. I very much appreciate you start threads for ALL of us to discuss and you are very clear as to your personal opinions when you have them. Thanks.

Its not an easy topic is it. Brings out intense feelings and concerns for sure.

Lots of other fine people here will start many too, just not as of late. I try to make my opinion clear and support my position the best I can. Trust me, I fail enough. We all have our days.

Abortion and many religious topics I'll usually avoid. But this stood out to me when I read all the names and all of the avoidance of the answer. And I saw it as them dehumanizing the issue and and letting the answer fall to the courts. I believe one can be pro-life and state 15 weeks is human and one can be pro-choice and have that same answer. And I think they should. But I think they don't answer, avoid answering or other methods of dehumanizing the issue so as NOT to see it as any form of killing, or form of stopping life, or to prevent listeners seeing/hearing that from them. And if a woman were to abort at say 8 1/2 months into pregnancy, and you ask them the same question about 34-38 weeks, and I think many give that same answer.


Please notice that half of the unborn KILLED are women... in the U.S. at least.
In China, India and other Asian countries MORE than half. Since abortion based on gender selection is common where Girls are chosen to die.

Read any medical text book and it will clearly state that human life begins at conception period.All
All life made by sperm and eggs begin at conception. It's a scientific fact.
So the only honest question left is,
Is it MORAL to Kill another person becasue..
they are handicapped?
they are a burden?
they are physical inconvenience for a few months?
they are female?
they are unwanted?

Because the pro lifers don't care what happens after they are born? really?

I don't normally jump in there, but I too believe life starts at conception as the process of life has begun to evolve already. I don't jump into that debate though, too personal.

The one that pisses me off the most are the women using abortion as a tool. Some have ZERO responsibility when it comes to messing around and then will abort at the snap of a finger, without thought. That falls under the 'unwanted' category. And if someone doesn't want to have a baby - you have got to have some personal responsibility here. Same for the man. And abortion isn't a contraceptive like some thing. Or those having an abortion because they didn't get any contraceptives handed to them for free. :rolleyes: And yes, now add this woman thing to the list. I honestly didn't know that. So they want a boy, perhaps to carry the family name on? I don't know the reason and don't care as that shouldn't be a reason to kill a baby alone, IMO. :rolleyes:

[icansayit]

Whenever (always) a MALE and FEMALE (Man or Woman) have sex (in all cases). They both know...what they are doing...whether Human or of the Animal kingdom...WILL HAVE THE PROBABLE RESULT of making ANOTHER member of the Species "BEGIN". Which...at that FIRST MOMENT...can be rightly identified as the CONCEPTION of a "BABY". A new HUMAN BEING.

SO...IMO. ABORTING any baby of any age from Conception IS...."MURDER". Whether the Mother says so or not.

Example: A COUPLE desires to create an OFFSPRING. Their INTENT was to create a BABY,

The argument is not for WE HUMANS to decide. NATURE and GOD (for those who believe) Have the FINAL SAY!

[darin]

The debate for me ends here:


Every person should be allowed to do anything with their own body; even self-harm. When they attempt to do that to something with different DNA, that is NOT their body. That's a different body.

[gabosaurus]

The debate for me ends here: Every person should be allowed to do anything with their own body; even self-harm. There you go. You have hit the hit right on the head. The fetus is part of a woman's body. It can not exist without her. It is not an independent, viable organism at conception. Or for several weeks after. In most cases, it is not detectable until then. You can't "kill" something that doesn't yet exist.

[revelarts]

The debate for me ends here:


Every person should be allowed to do anything with their own body; even self-harm. When they attempt to do that to something with different DNA, that is NOT their body. That's a different body.
If it's JUST her than i'd give some leeway to that Idea.
But since when does a human being have 2 brains, two heartbeats, 4 legs, 4 arms?
2 distinctly different sets of DNA?
maybe even a set of opposite genitals? (I know that last one has become confusing for some but still)
BTW at 9 weeks a female "fetus" has it's own set of new eggs.


bottom line, from conception there are 2 people.
I'm not sure how some folks somehow forget that's the main biological function of sexual activity is to create NEW people.
A NEW person, a different person is growing inside of a every pregnant woman.
That's always perfectly clear if the child is a "wanted" child.
And miscarriage is CLEARLY understood to be a tragic event. A DEATH of a child.

But somehow if the child is unexpected and/or unwanted then all kinds of mental, moral and legal gymnastics occur to justify killing the child.




There you go. You have hit the hit right on the head. The fetus is part of a woman's body. It can not exist without her. It is not an independent, viable organism at conception. Or for several weeks after. In most cases, it is not detectable until then. You can't "kill" something that doesn't yet exist.

the Fetus/Child is IN a woman's body... temporarily.
The child will not be "independent" even after he or she is born... not for several years... if not 2 decades.

"You can't "kill" something that doesn't yet exist."
um, You can't "Abort" something that does not exist either Gabby.

The biological fact is that a separate human being exist.
A fertilized bird in an egg is alive and growing unless the egg is broken... At that point the bird has been killed.
All humans in the womb are ALIVE and simply in the process of growing. unless the child is killed.

the idea of Abortion starts with dehumanization. Trying to find some feature that supposedly makes it A-OK to kill a particular group of people.
the wrong nationality, the wrong gender or race,
Not healthy enough, not mentally fit, to young, to old, not independent enough,
all for the greater good.

Abortion is the same old genocidal excuses wrapped up in new clothes.

[revelarts]

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/18/1c/2f/181c2f542eb88298759997134b58a84a.jpg

[jimnyc]

There you go. You have hit the hit right on the head. The fetus is part of a woman's body. It can not exist without her. It is not an independent, viable organism at conception. Or for several weeks after. In most cases, it is not detectable until then. You can't "kill" something that doesn't yet exist.

As soon as that zygote is created, the minute the little active spermy buddy finds it's way to an egg it decides it likes, they will merge & then voila, you now have created a life form within your body. Call it what you want, and call it a week to 2 weeks in, but when formed you created life. And whether supported by Mom or another device of some sort, life deserves a chance. At that very moment, so many predetermined features were also added as well. It may not be what one would call a "human form" yet, but life is there. And prior to that spoken of 15 week mark, that human form is then there as well.

Mom and Dad made choices. As a result of those very choices, life was created. But then the beginning of dehumanization begins as well. And I've seen every form of that dehumanizing from inception all the way to birth.

Why I say that these folks should state that the baby is in fact a human when terminated. And why I say that someone having an abortion even earlier is still terminating life, that life will be a human soon. And you most certainly can kill a baby at 15 weeks just as you can kill a life form even earlier. And the very reasons are that they DO exist in there, just in a now dehumanized fashion.

[fj1200]

There you go. You have hit the hit right on the head. The fetus is part of a woman's body. It can not exist without her. It is not an independent, viable organism at conception. Or for several weeks after. In most cases, it is not detectable until then. You can't "kill" something that doesn't yet exist.

Incorrect. Actions have consequences.

[jimnyc]

It appears that our president won't answer the question either, via his spokesperson at least.

This is NOT a political question. This is a simple question about the stages of a pregnancy and not a trick question. You either believe that a human being is in there at 15 weeks or not. Yes or no. A or B. And if these folks are a major part of determining law on this issue, then they should be able to answer the question.

And why no follow-ups telling them that they avoided the answer, that this doesn't answer the question? Why settle for a non-answer?

I might say to have them ask the president directly - but his team hide him from the press at all costs. :rolleyes:

And add Pelosi to the list as well, who also refused to answer.

---

Jen Psaki dodges question on whether Biden thinks 15-week-old unborn baby is a person

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki declined to say if President Biden believes a 15-week-old unborn baby is a human being during Monday's press briefing.

"Does the president believe that a 15-week-old unborn baby is a human being?" a reporter asked Psaki.

"Are you asking me if the president supports a woman's right to choose? He does," Psaki said.

Psaki's response came after the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops voted overwhelmingly to draft a formal document on the meaning of the Eucharist after a contentious debate on whether Biden and other politicians who support abortion policies are worthy of receiving Communion at Mass.

Psaki was asked about Biden's reaction to the news on Monday.

"Joe Biden is a strong man of faith," Psaki said.

"The president's faith is personal. It's something that has helped guide him through some challenging moments in his life. And that's how many Americans see their faith as well, not through a political prism. So I would suspect he will continue to attend church, as he has for many, many years," she continued.

Rest - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jen-psaki-joe-biden-abortion-unborn-15-weeks

[darin]

There you go. You have hit the hit right on the head. The fetus is part of a woman's body. It can not exist without her. It is not an independent, viable organism at conception. Or for several weeks after. In most cases, it is not detectable until then. You can't "kill" something that doesn't yet exist.


its dishonest to call that other person "part of the woman's body". It has its own body. You refuse science because truth scares you. Always has and always will scare you.



I saw this and it's only slightly related - but it kind of makes sense:


"If you applaud a woman for killing her baby because the choice was 'the right thing for the woman and her future' then you should applaud men for abandoning the woman and the baby because it was 'the right thing for the man and his future'."

[darin]

If it's JUST her than i'd give some leeway to that Idea.
But since when does a human being have 2 brains, two heartbeats, 4 legs, 4 arms?
2 distinctly different sets of DNA?
maybe even a set of opposite genitals? (I know that last one has become confusing for some but still)
BTW at 9 weeks a female "fetus" has it's own set of new eggs.


bottom line, from conception there are 2 people.
I'm not sure how some folks somehow forget that's the main biological function of sexual activity is to create NEW people.
A NEW person, a different person is growing inside of a every pregnant woman.
That's always perfectly clear if the child is a "wanted" child.
And miscarriage is CLEARLY understood to be a tragic event. A DEATH of a child.

But somehow if the child is unexpected and/or unwanted then all kinds of mental, moral and legal gymnastics occur to justify killing the child.




Did you catch that we're in agreement?

I think we could make and should make the argument in support of MEN's reproductive rights too. Men are helpless in the eyes of the law to accept a woman's choice about reproduction. Its systemic sexism.

[Abbey Marie]

Sadly, the real question becomes, are those democrats human?
You have to wonder.
Maybe we should wait for the supreme court to decide.
geez

It's always a horrific when people start DE-Humanizing others, it's always an excuse for legalized abuse and killing.

:clap:

[Abbey Marie]

I respectfully disagree. We men do not carry the "human being" in our body so our perspective of "human being" is naturally different. It would be impossible not to be. We are dettached from the life so more likely to see it as distinct. Because it is part of the woman's body as well, that distinction between her and the baby is not as clear.

I think we men forget that "life" is also inside another "life" and those two lives may not feel or appear to be as dettached as we men think it is.

Necessarily discussion about that "life" must also deal with the woman's life who carries it.

All the more reason why men’s opinions on this matter. Men being detached, as you say, can be more objective about it.

Not to mention, the man contributed 50% to the child’s creation.

As for the life being “inside another life”, most folks agree that if the mother’s life is in danger, abortion may be acceptable. And if her life is ​not in danger, you have presented a false equivalency.

[Abbey Marie]

To those who think the fetus is just part of the woman’s body and has no individual life or rights, why do we prosecute folks who kill a pregnant woman for double murder?

[icansayit]

I was born a male. I had a Father and Mother who carried me for nine months. The day they discovered I was going to become THEIR BABY. I was a HUMAN being.

So. I don't give two craps what others insist IS or ISN'T a human being upon conception. Nobody can prove to me they know what the real answer is. No doctor, no scientist, and definately NO IGNORANT other person who INSIST'S...they know for sure about anything.

Which is why I say...."M.Y.O.B." If everyone would just MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS and be thankful for LIVING, being HAPPY, and Around others who LOVE each other.

THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION....UNLESS YOU ARE TERRIBLY STUPID!

[darin]

To those who think the fetus is just part of the woman’s body and has no individual life or rights, why do we prosecute folks who kill a pregnant woman for double murder?



...that case years ago, i think in texas...young lady was pregnant and didn't want the baby, so begged her fiance - the father - to kick her in the stomach and beat her until she miscarried. He was arrested and given something like 20 years for 'harming a fetus' - yet she could NOT be prosecuted.

:-/

Everyone know that baby is a unique human. Everyone knows it but many refuse to say it because they want to hide from inconvenient truths.

[MtnBiker]

I notice first that all the previous responders in this thread are men. Who tend to take Biblical views of fetal gestation instead of human ones. When is an unborn child a "human being?" It has to do with fetal viability, or when can the fetus survive outside the womb. But that is only part of it. My concerns rest primarily with the mother.

Interesting choice of words. How is there a mother without a child present? But the word mother is an appropriate use here. Child birth can be risky. Thankfully medical science has and will continue to improve. So in the event that a pregnancy does pose fatal risk to life I would hope a proper medical doctor would give priority to both lives and every effort is made to secure both lives. However I suspect the abortion issue isn’t really about risk full pregnancies, rather unwanted pregnancies. So it is really hard not to view the abortion issue as a choice to end potential life.

[darin]

Interesting choice of words. How is there a mother without a child present?


Brilliant.

[gabosaurus]

My opinion of this topic vs. your opinion on this topic. Many have pointed out that the newly fertilized embryo is immediately a new life form that is independent of the mother. Guess what else fits that description -- tumors. Cancerous tumors are parasitic organisms. Each one is a new species that depends on its host for food, but otherwise operates independently and often to the detriment of its host. The human body has many living entities. That is why it takes several weeks to detect human life. There are too many politicians that want laws to reflect religious doctrines. In the past, some of these crazies wanted women who suffer miscarriages or deliver stillborn babies tried for murder. Others would rather see the mother risk death in order to deliver. Notice that neither of these involve the father. Because the father does not have to carry a baby around for nine months. EVERY potential risk involved in carrying and delivering a baby is borne by the mother. This is why the father (and all men) needs to shut up and sit down until the child is delivered.

[fj1200]

My opinion of this topic vs. your opinion on this topic. Many have pointed out that the newly fertilized embryo is immediately a new life form that is independent of the mother. Guess what else fits that description -- tumors. Cancerous tumors are parasitic organisms. Each one is a new species that depends on its host for food, but otherwise operates independently and often to the detriment of its host. The human body has many living entities. That is why it takes several weeks to detect human life. There are too many politicians that want laws to reflect religious doctrines. In the past, some of these crazies wanted women who suffer miscarriages or deliver stillborn babies tried for murder. Others would rather see the mother risk death in order to deliver. Notice that neither of these involve the father. Because the father does not have to carry a baby around for nine months. EVERY potential risk involved in carrying and delivering a baby is borne by the mother. This is why the father (and all men) needs to shut up and sit down until the child is delivered.

So.... not really interested in debate are you? Babies are cancer. Debate is defined by the crazies where btw, you forgot to mention the partial-birth abortions crazies. The way you make it sound as if child birth is a near death sentence. I'm surprised our species has made it this far.

[icansayit]

My opinion of this topic vs. your opinion on this topic. Many have pointed out that the newly fertilized embryo is immediately a new life form that is independent of the mother. Guess what else fits that description -- tumors. Cancerous tumors are parasitic organisms. Each one is a new species that depends on its host for food, but otherwise operates independently and often to the detriment of its host. The human body has many living entities. That is why it takes several weeks to detect human life. There are too many politicians that want laws to reflect religious doctrines. In the past, some of these crazies wanted women who suffer miscarriages or deliver stillborn babies tried for murder. Others would rather see the mother risk death in order to deliver. Notice that neither of these involve the father. Because the father does not have to carry a baby around for nine months. EVERY potential risk involved in carrying and delivering a baby is borne by the mother. This is why the father (and all men) needs to shut up and sit down until the child is delivered.

I have one question for you. DO YOU HAVE, OR DID YOU EVER HAVE.....A MOTHER? And I almost forgot. DO YOU HAVE A DAUGHTER? Think about it. Then think...HOW THE HELL DID EVEN.....YOU...GET HERE?http://icansayit.com/pictures/harrishand.jpg

[revelarts]

For the record:
SOME of the medical "opinion" from text books and the like.

"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]


"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization(conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]


"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]


"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]


"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]


"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]


"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]


"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]


"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]


"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]


"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]


"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]


"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]


"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]


"[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization....
"[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....
"I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.
"The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"
[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]



“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.”

Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)




“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.”

Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013




“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.


.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ......................


“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


“Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization:



“It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.”

F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi





“Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.”

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1


.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..............................

...not opinion...
but factually, scientifically, speaking, there's really NOT a question.
the only question is, Is it MORALLY RIGHT to KILL another Human Being because...
they are handicapped?
they are young?
they don't look human?
they are a burden?
they are old?
they are expensive?
they are a physical inconvenience for a few months?
they are female?
men don't have to carry them?
those prolifers really don't care?
they are unwanted?

[jimnyc]

My opinion of this topic vs. your opinion on this topic. Many have pointed out that the newly fertilized embryo is immediately a new life form that is independent of the mother. Guess what else fits that description -- tumors. Cancerous tumors are parasitic organisms. Each one is a new species that depends on its host for food, but otherwise operates independently and often to the detriment of its host. The human body has many living entities. That is why it takes several weeks to detect human life. There are too many politicians that want laws to reflect religious doctrines. In the past, some of these crazies wanted women who suffer miscarriages or deliver stillborn babies tried for murder. Others would rather see the mother risk death in order to deliver. Notice that neither of these involve the father. Because the father does not have to carry a baby around for nine months. EVERY potential risk involved in carrying and delivering a baby is borne by the mother. This is why the father (and all men) needs to shut up and sit down until the child is delivered.

A tumor doesn't continue to grow until birth, and is not a human being.

[SassyLady]

My opinion of this topic vs. your opinion on this topic. Many have pointed out that the newly fertilized embryo is immediately a new life form that is independent of the mother. Guess what else fits that description -- tumors. Cancerous tumors are parasitic organisms. Each one is a new species that depends on its host for food, but otherwise operates independently and often to the detriment of its host. The human body has many living entities. That is why it takes several weeks to detect human life. There are too many politicians that want laws to reflect religious doctrines. In the past, some of these crazies wanted women who suffer miscarriages or deliver stillborn babies tried for murder. Others would rather see the mother risk death in order to deliver. Notice that neither of these involve the father. Because the father does not have to carry a baby around for nine months. EVERY potential risk involved in carrying and delivering a baby is borne by the mother. This is why the father (and all men) needs to shut up and sit down until the child is delivered.

In the past we did not have the technology to verify at what point an embryo is considered to be alive. Scientists looking for life on other planets detect bacteria and classify it as sign of life. How anyone can still believe in this day and age of technological sophistication that life doesn't begin at conception baffles me.