Random Conversation 2.0

Sure they are.
I think people tend to imesh a woman's desire or right to choose, with that of when life begins. Two different things. Social acceptance -or society's determination tell you it's when a baby is born and breathing on its own, but it's not scientifically when life begins. Abortion laws are based on the Social concerns, even then, laws recognize after 24 weeks it's a viable baby and abortions becomes illegal... Regardless, if you want to argue using science and say "for a fact science proves life doesn't begin in the womb" there are science text definitions that refute that.

 

Im sorry but to me life begins when a new cell is produced. That is extremely scientific and other scientist agree.
The problem i have is eith raider and fg is that they really dont know when life begin when real questions come up and then they want to arbritrarily move the definition of life to fit a warm and fuzzy feeling or their agenda.

Homie dont play that.

 

Now dont get mad...u were playing around too. Now so just keep it mackish.

Now were u saying science this and that. Now its opinion

Come on now. U are changing the rules

 

My point has really about people having agendas and really dont know when life begins. We can guess but do we really know.

Scientist dont know. They are guessing and they too flip flop. Im not against planned patenthood but dont bullshit me.

 

Very smart GL. Claim that your opinion is scientifically just, yet refuse to listen to an actual scientist tell you the facts lol. Like FG told you 10 posts ago, believe whatever you want just don't claim science as your reasoning.

I don't even know what the first part of that post means but I'll address the latter half. I'm not changing any rules. I'm sure science defines a life around the embryo stage but that's not my personal opinion. See, what you're incapable of doing is separating opinion from fact. If the scientific community decides that life begins when the pregnancy reaches the embryonic stage, that would be a fact. It wouldn't be my belief, but it would still be fact.

 

It's funny, growing up, anytime we celebrated a birthday in my family or with friends, we would all say the age and my mother would always interrupt and say, "no, you're __ and 9 months"
And we would constantly have this argument with her that you are "born" on the day you were born and she would always say, "no, you're born in the womb- that is the beginning of your life".
My mother wasn't a deeply religious person, she just understood the scientific reality of when life begins. (which l now understand)

 

I did listen u guys believe thst life doesnt begin until it survive on its own. You guys said that it was scientifically proven. You guys kept saying science science science.

I used science too. I even quoted other scientist.

You tried to disregard cause you believe my pov was of religous belief. I never mentioned my religion. So were u really listening or were u going on agenda.

I asked specific question and u changed when life began. Summarized.

Dont write off peoples position just cause , especially when they are using the logic you the scientific world put out.

You the scientific world said cells are life....not me. The scientific world made that declaration.


Embyo stage thats fine but dcience also call cells life organisms too so lets acknowlge that.

 

They taught cells uniting creates new life even in college. Now that we are questioning tgem on it they flip flop.

Im not a religous person. I follow god and ect...im also a liberal but im not going to buy every dsrn thing
Liberal tell me. I listen then i decide.. im my own man.
Now if if u go abortion willy nilly be aware of the chances of not being able to have kids.

 

GL we'll just have to agree to disagree. So much of what you claim in your post didn't even happen or wasn't even said. It was how you perceived it. I ask you to research things further before going off on tangents, it'll help in the long run. You speak of agendas but taking PP as an example, very lucrative company...but just 3% of their services are abortion related. Where's the agenda when their money maker isn't actually abortion? You and I will never see eye to eye on this topic because we interpret fact and beliefs differently. It is what it is. You know I still dig u

 

The facts show it's not what GL thinks, it's what Science thinks as fact - science text defines its at conception. I always thought, like you, that it begins outside the womb, but science tells us we were wrong...so not sure why you and FG are insisting science 'refutes him.

 

I think the greatest disservice done to pregnant women (beause let's face it, abortion isn't really discussed in depth In high school, if at all) ...is that those seeking it are not really informed. I would like to see greater education given to those seeking one, on what truly is happening, will happen, and the psychological impact abortions can wreak on the woman.

I dont feel the 24 hr notice is sufficient, particularly because It's more often treated as a formality, rather than a sincere attempt to help the mother make an informed decision. A decision that can greatly, hugely impact the rest of her life.

 

Trust me i understand. Its like asking which came first...the chicken or the egg.

The biggest problem i have is if i say life begins at conception then labels come out. Ami a prolifer? Its a matter of timing. Im not for the death penalty but the movie theater killer can get the switch twice. I aint playing. Overall no. To many innocent people been found on death row. Why im bringing that up cause prolifers are sometimes ate hypocrites.

Just like scientist. They will sayvlife stsrts here then u ask them questions then they flip on you and u figure out they dont know.

Example u said when they can durvive on their own except when they are premmies. Well they are surviving on incubators (man made) Mothers are natural incubators....so whats the real difference.

 

But even by the info you posted, science describes life as "animate existence, characterized by growth, reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli". I think there are even a few more characteristics required to define life but going off of just the four quoted above, zygotes don't meet the scientific criteria for life. Embryos are more likely to meet those criteria. I define life differently than science does as well, so I can appreciate goodloves stance here, I just don't agree that zygotes meet the criteria for life.

 

I think planned parenthood organization need to be in high schools

 

Im far from qualified but more questions need to be asked and i would like to see these cells transform myself.

 

This is why its so important for women to research not only their options but the facility in which they're going to. If the facility treats you like you're part of some cattle call, run. Women need to understand all their options and all the facts before making a permanent decision like abortion. When I have a pt crying on the table, I take her to another room and speak privately with her. I piss off many physicians doing this because Im putting a kink in their flow but imo...fuck their flow. This is a forever choice and I won't be a part of anything the pt isn't 100% on. Just like an medical care, research research and research more.

 

Mothers are incubators but an ega of 16 weeks isn't a life imo because even with medical assistance they won't survive outside mom. The best chance they have is to make it to 24 wks. There's only so much medicine can do. Just like a 12 wk ega doesn't have a chance of survival outsude mom...so to me I don't consider it a life. I believe science defines life around the embryonic stage, which I personally don't agree with. I don't discount it as fact, I just believe differently.

 

Maybe the argument should be restated to say: "life" versus "sustainable life".

 

Now thats deep.

 

gL, chill, right now you are being arrogant
I have work to do. I don't hang in here every minute to answer your questions. That the primary point of sex is reproduction has nothing to do with if two cells coming together instantlyn equals a living creature, I mean seriously? How do you think there?

To both Bliss and you, STILL no science exists proving there is life at the conception. All you all did was post a bunch of definitons that has nothing to do with the question at all

Science say that life is something , like LL said respond to stimuli, that does not necessarily mean a brain, we have simple organisms with one neuron that we regard as life. Scientifically, you have to have stilmuli response in order to be recognized as a life. Any discussions beyond that, is philosophy, ethics, etc. I dont get what is so bad with that.

Science can not record a stimuli response in a zygote, because it doesn't exist, its not there and as science only deals with facts. Now, there are a lot of debate when that life should be recognized, but ts not science, some of you really miss what science actually is and how its defined and when it stops being science

I'm tapping out, this is rexhausting