[DRAFT] Legalisation of Abortion

[Quelesh]

Any pregnant woman has the right to immediately stop being pregnant. Full stop. Bodily sovereignty demands the right to pregnancy termination. We support this proposal unequivocally, whether On Abortion is repealed or not.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[PleaseStaySafeOP]

We fully oppose murder in our nation and will continue to keep abortion illegal except in extenuating circumstances regardless of whether or not this resolution passes.

[Linux and the X]

We fully oppose murder in our nation and will continue to keep abortion illegal except in extenuating circumstances regardless of whether or not this resolution passes.

Except you won't; compliance is mandatory. If you don't like it, resign. (Not that we're planning to submit this as long as On Abortion isn't repealed.)

[PleaseStaySafeOP]

We fully oppose murder in our nation and will continue to keep abortion illegal except in extenuating circumstances regardless of whether or not this resolution passes.

Except you won't; compliance is mandatory. If you don't like it, resign. (Not that we're planning to submit this as long as On Abortion isn't repealed.)

We would be delighted to see the sanctions the WA would try to impose on us for refusing to allow the murder of our citizens and welcome the attempt with smirks on our faces. We value human life too much to allow the WA to become a body that legalizes the murder of innocent children.

[Linux and the X]

Except you won't; compliance is mandatory. If you don't like it, resign. (Not that we're planning to submit this as long as On Abortion isn't repealed.)

We would be delighted to see the sanctions the WA would try to impose on us for refusing to allow the murder of our citizens and welcome the attempt with smirks on our faces. We value human life too much to allow the WA to become a body that legalizes the murder of innocent children.

You realise that abortion has nothing to do with murder of children (or anyone else), right?

[PleaseStaySafeOP]

We would be delighted to see the sanctions the WA would try to impose on us for refusing to allow the murder of our citizens and welcome the attempt with smirks on our faces. We value human life too much to allow the WA to become a body that legalizes the murder of innocent children.

You realise that abortion has nothing to do with murder of children (or anyone else), right?

Life begins at conception. To kill a fetus is to kill a child.

[Linux and the X]

You realise that abortion has nothing to do with murder of children (or anyone else), right?

Life begins at conception. To kill a fetus is to kill a child.

I'll let Dr Cox respond to this one.

[PleaseStaySafeOP]

Life begins at conception. To kill a fetus is to kill a child.

I'll let Dr Cox respond to this one.

Dr. Alfred M. Bongiovanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life....

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”

A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, “Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins.”2

Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception:

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, “The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.”3

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was a cofounder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand abortions.

Dr. Nathanson’s study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his “increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”4

In his film, “The Silent Scream,” Nathanson later stated, “Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us.” Dr. Nathanson wrote Aborting America to inform the public of the realities behind the abortion rights movement of which he had been a primary leader.5 At the time Dr. Nathanson was an atheist. His conclusions were not even remotely religious, but squarely based on the biological facts.

Dr. Landrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles states,

I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian. 6

The First International Symposium on Abortion came to the following conclusion:

The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week-old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life.7

The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill,” summarized the issue this way:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.8

http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/8 ... onception/

Science disagrees with you. Legalisation of Abortion = Legalisation of Murder. There's no getting around it.

[Linux and the X]

http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/8/scientists-attest-life-beginning-conception/

Science disagrees with you. Legalisation of Abortion = Legalisation of Murder. There's no getting around it.

Religion disagrees with me; please review where that link leads. I don't really give a damn (ha!) about religion's opinions.

[PleaseStaySafeOP]

http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/8/scientists-attest-life-beginning-conception/

Science disagrees with you. Legalisation of Abortion = Legalisation of Murder. There's no getting around it.

Religion disagrees with me; please review where that link leads. I don't really give a damn (ha!) about religion's opinions.

Regardless of what site the information is on, those were quotes from DOCTORS and SCIENTISTS at a Senate hearing. There were no arguments made that life began after conception and the strongest argument against it was "we don't really know when life begins."

Based on the overwhelming evidence by those who know more than you or I about the subject, I simply cannot support a resolution that would legalise murder. It is not a religious matter in this sense. This is science. Also, your failure to recognize the rights of the religious further puts into question the credibility of your resolution.

[Linux and the X]

Regardless of what site the information is on, those were quotes from DOCTORS and SCIENTISTS at a Senate hearing.

Doctors of what?

Based on the overwhelming evidence by those who agree with me and have apparently fancy titles,

ftfy

Also, your failure to recognize the rights of the religious further puts into question the credibility of your resolution.

I recognise the rights of the religious to not get an abortion. There is not, however, a right to refuse abortions to others.

[PleaseStaySafeOP]

Regardless of what site the information is on, those were quotes from DOCTORS and SCIENTISTS at a Senate hearing.

Doctors of what?

Based on the overwhelming evidence by those who agree with me and have apparently fancy titles,

ftfy

Also, your failure to recognize the rights of the religious further puts into question the credibility of your resolution.

I recognise the rights of the religious to not get an abortion. There is not, however, a right to refuse abortions to others.

There is overwhelming science to back up the claim that human life begins at conception. Your ignorance is comical and entertaining so please continue.

As for your final point, it reads "there is not, however, a right to refuse the right to murder innocent children"

[Linux and the X]

There is overwhelming science to back up the claim that human life begins at conception.

No. Really. There's not any reliable science to demonstrate that, unless you are prepared to consider cancer human life.

As for your final point, it reads "there is not, however, a right to refuse the right to murder innocent children"

As for your entire post, it reads "dear mods, please ban me from this game forever". See how fun making up quotes is?

[PleaseStaySafeOP]

There is overwhelming science to back up the claim that human life begins at conception.

No. Really. There's not any reliable science to demonstrate that, unless you are prepared to consider cancer human life.

As for your final point, it reads "there is not, however, a right to refuse the right to murder innocent children"

As for your entire post, it reads "dear mods, please ban me from this game forever". See how fun making up quotes is?

I can't believe you're not even willing to admit that there are numerous scientists who support my assertion. It is mind-blowing.

I'm not making up quotes, but simply stripping the euphemism (abortion) from your statement.

[Linux and the X]

I can't believe you're not even willing to admit that there are numerous scientists who support my assertion. It is mind-blowing.

You have not demonstrated this. You have shown an incredibly small number of people holding doctoral degrees support your assertion.

I'm not making up quotes, but simply stripping the euphemism (abortion) from your statement.

Untrue. You are applying your own spin to what I say in an attempt to make me appear to support a violation of moral standards, rather than admitting that you are the one who wishes to violate moral standards by oppressing pregnant people.

[PleaseStaySafeOP]

I can't believe you're not even willing to admit that there are numerous scientists who support my assertion. It is mind-blowing.

You have not demonstrated this. You have shown an incredibly small number of people holding doctoral degrees support your assertion.

I'm not making up quotes, but simply stripping the euphemism (abortion) from your statement.

Untrue. You are applying your own spin to what I say in an attempt to make me appear to support a violation of moral standards, rather than admitting that you are the one who wishes to violate moral standards by oppressing pregnant people.

"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]

"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]

"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]

"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]

"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 Müller, 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]

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/artic ... otes2.html

Friend, these people know far more than you or I about the subject so I must compel you to reconsider your position on the matter.

[Linux and the X]

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Friend, these people know far more than you or I about the subject so I must compel you to reconsider your position on the matter.

You are advised to see where the opinions of those seven (OOC: holy shit, I guessed right without counting!) people are found. You are further asked to demonstrate that abortion is murder while cancer treatment is not.

[Sofnikos Anaxaux]

begging your sincerest apologies, but can we stop hijacking this thread into an abortion debate, and focus instead on the resolution at hand? There's a separate forum for all of that...

[PleaseStaySafeOP]

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Friend, these people know far more than you or I about the subject so I must compel you to reconsider your position on the matter.

You are advised to see where the opinions of those seven (OOC: holy shit, I guessed right without counting!) people are found. You are further asked to demonstrate that abortion is murder while cancer treatment is not.

The difference being that they are two different types of cells. The cancer cell has no chance of becoming a conscious, human life whereas the zygote has a very high probability of becoming a conscious being. If your mother considered you "just a cell" you would not be here today. If the potential is there for a cell to become human life, you are robbing that entity of personhood thus murdering it. That is why I cannot support this proposal.

[Linux and the X]

begging your sincerest apologies, but can we stop hijacking this thread into an abortion debate, and focus instead on the resolution at hand? There's a separate forum for all of that...

The proposal is about abortion...

If the potential is there for a cell to become human life, you are robbing that entity of personhood thus murdering it.

Give me one million dollars or I will inform Security that you have robbed me.

[PleaseStaySafeOP]

begging your sincerest apologies, but can we stop hijacking this thread into an abortion debate, and focus instead on the resolution at hand? There's a separate forum for all of that...

The proposal is about abortion...

If the potential is there for a cell to become human life, you are robbing that entity of personhood thus murdering it.

Give me one million dollars or I will inform Security that you have robbed me.

You were once a zygote. Had your mother seen you as simply a "zygote" or a "cell" with the potential to become a human being yet not a human being and she decided she didn't want to have a child, she would have aborted you, or, let's face it, killed you. What is the purpose of abortion? To destroy any potential the zygote/embryo has of becoming a human life. The entire purpose of abortion recognizes the massive potential for human life to develop and intends to destroy it. Can we at least agree upon the potential for life? I have noticed many pro-choicers are fascinatingly eager to ignore simple biological facts and am curious as to how you would respond to my statement.

[Linux and the X]

You were once a zygote. Had your mother seen you as simply a "zygote" or a "cell" with the potential to become a human being yet not a human being and she decided she didn't want to have a child, she would have aborted you,

Yeah, and?

or, let's face it, killed you

Well, no. I wasn't alive and could not have been killed.

What is the purpose of abortion? To destroy any potential the zygote/embryo has of becoming a human life. The entire purpose of abortion recognizes the massive potential for human life to develop and intends to destroy it.

No, the purpose of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy.

Can we at least agree upon the potential for life? I have noticed many pro-choicers are fascinatingly eager to ignore simple biological facts and am curious as to how you would respond to my statement.

Potential, sure. There's also a potential for me getting a million dollars. By your logic, if you do not give me one million dollars, you've robbed me of it. Shall I call Security, or will you admit that eliminating a potential is not a crime?

[Konderia]

Could you please explain how a group of cells with DNA separate from that of the being it lives inside that take in nutrients to grow and divide are not living? You can make the case that they're not human, but to say that they're not alive defies science.

Also, your argument about "potential" is flawed. In your example, you are simply demanding a million dollars, which is not a right granted to you by any state, whereas the right to life is a right recognized by the WA. The potential to get richer and the potential to live are two separate things.

[Linux and the X]

Could you please explain how a group of cells with DNA separate from that of the being it lives inside that take in nutrients to grow and divide are not living? You can make the case that they're not human, but to say that they're not alive defies science.

So are bacteria. We kill (some) bacteria.

Also, your argument about "potential" is flawed. In your example, you are simply demanding a million dollars, which is not a right granted to you by any state, whereas the right to life is a right recognized by the WA. The potential to get richer and the potential to live are two separate things.

Both are potentials, are they not? I have a right to be rich, and a right to be alive. As much as abortion ends a potential of being alive, not giving me a million dollars ends a potential of me being rich.

[Konderia]

Could you please explain how a group of cells with DNA separate from that of the being it lives inside that take in nutrients to grow and divide are not living? You can make the case that they're not human, but to say that they're not alive defies science.

So are bacteria. We kill (some) bacteria.

Also, your argument about "potential" is flawed. In your example, you are simply demanding a million dollars, which is not a right granted to you by any state, whereas the right to life is a right recognized by the WA. The potential to get richer and the potential to live are two separate things.

Both are potentials, are they not? I have a right to be rich, and a right to be alive. As much as abortion ends a potential of being alive, not giving me a million dollars ends a potential of me being rich.

Bacteria are not humans. We are talking about human life right now, not bacterial life.

Not giving you a million dollars doesn't end a potential of you being rich, as you can get rich other ways. In abortion, however, the terminated/killed zygote ends the potential of being alive as the zygote will not be able to become alive once again. Your logic, sir, is flawed.