Sola
beta
Hyde
2 months

So New York recently passed a law allowing abortion up until the point of birth. I've really been on the sideline, and haven't really taken up the issue politically. Instead I just keep similar minded people in my life, and let others go. However, abortion up to the point of birth sends excessive, unnecessary, and eerily similar to murder, as pointed out by Dr. David McKnight.

Photo #1 from DeFuniak Springs, United States by Hyde made on 2019-01-25 02:35 for Sola

I understand there are extreme circumstances such as rape or mother's life endangerment. However, those circumstances are even more rarely learned about towards the end of three pregnancy.

Photo #2 from DeFuniak Springs, United States by Hyde made on 2019-01-25 02:35 for Sola

the real question seems to be where did life begin? Science doesn't know, so you must recognize your view is just an opinion.

I believe we should measure life the same way we measure death. The heart beat. I'll leave you with this thought and then a poll.

Photo #3 from DeFuniak Springs, United States by Hyde made on 2019-01-25 02:35 for Sola
Photo #4 from DeFuniak Springs, United States by Hyde made on 2019-01-25 02:35 for Sola
where does life begin?
30%Conception
25%Heartbeat
10%3ish months
10%6ish months
25%Only after birth
20 votes
3254votes
0.982SOL earned
Vote
Share
Vote
Share
86
312
3254
United States, DeFuniak Springs
86 comments
Farmer Jeff
The science is crystal clear on this one. Biological life begins at the moment of conception.
William
Uh, what?
Farmer Jeff
William, biology 101. The moment the two specialized cells of sperm and ovum form the zygote, the behavior and molecular composition is no longer simply that of specialized cells. The biological process of life begins. Isn’t science wonderful? I love how they have an objective, verifiable scientific criteria that determine precisely when a new cell type is formed.
William
Farmer Jeff, science education doesn't end at 101 and "life" is not a specific enough term for this discussion as I have already demonstrated. Under your unspecific definition, all life is equal once sperm and egg meet, so a couple cells are granted equal protections to a fully grown human? Amoeba should be granted the same rights as other life? Can you see how maybe your "science 101" definition might not be complete and not helpful in any way in determining medical decisions or even legal considerations for grown adults. You're using an imprecise definition to confuse and conflating your naive religious definition of life using an overly simplified explanation of complex biological processes written for the layman. It's not helpful and only confuses a real discussion.
20
Farmer Jeff
William, from a biological perspective we are talking about a living HUMAN organism here, not an amoeba. This doesn’t have anything to do with religion. Abortion terminates future potential. That potential could have a positive profound effect on all of humanity all the way to being a burden or destructive to humanity. You seem to want to focus on some definition or arbitrary line that helps you feel better about terminating that potential because it might turn out to be bad. The real discussion isn’t weather it is a life or not. By all scientific definitions it is a living human organism. The discussion should be, given the fact that we are talking about a living human, what responsibilities we have towards that life. Seems to me you’re the one conflating the argument here.
William
Farmer Jeff, there is very little difference between a small bundle of cells and an amoeba. The idea of "future potential" has nothing to do with biology or medical decisions. A "termination of future potential" is purely a flight of imagination and outside the bounds of deciding when an organism gains rights or what rights it has. It's something to consider when debating law, but it's not scientific in any sense, it's primarily emotional and doesn't allow for precise decision making. The potential could just as likely be negative as positive; we can't know. A bundle of cells isn't a "living human" it is a fetus and it has different rights and considerations that a grown adult human, unless you want to hold women accountable for murder every time they miscarry. You're trying to overly simplify things again which isn't helpful. I understand your position, but it's simply incorrect and unhelpful. A fetus is not the same as a grown adult; it's just not, and forcing a woman or a doctor to risk their lives or forego their best judgement simply to protect a fuzzy definition of "human life" and "future potential" is not logical and not right. The woman's life deserves just as much and more consideration, trusting her judgment and the doctor's judgement comes before any outside moralistic ideations.
10
Farmer Jeff
William, there is a very distinctive biological difference between a bundle of living cells and a living organism. Living organisms exhibit unique characteristics that can reliably distinguish them from mere cells. A fetus is not a bundle of cells. It is a living ‘human’ organism. Biologists, the people who study these things, are in agreement on this. There are literally thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications on this. The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence.
William
Farmer Jeff, living organisms are just a bundle of cells in different stages of development. Your comment makes no sense. There are thousands of peer reviewed publications on what? You don't even say what the studies are testing or trying to demonstrate. I assure you nobody is doing studies on whether a bundle of cells is a "human organism" or studies on when "human life begins" because those are nonsensical statements. Biological development is a gradient, not a particular moment. Feel free to link to a peer reviewed study on what you are saying, I'd be curious to read it, but I suspect they are much more specific and nuanced than what you are claiming. I'd also like a study on where the human soul resides while you're at it.
Farmer Jeff
William, human soul? I thought you wanted to leave religion out of this? Your first sentence is essentially correct. You are indeed a collection of cells at a particular state of development. Biologists define such collections of cells as a living organism. Your life as a living ‘human’ organism began with the formation of the zygote. At that point two seperate specialized living cells ceased being simply cells and transformed into a living human organism. Your collection of blood cells, while living, on their own do not constitute a living organism. Your heart, if you have one, while living is classified as an organ and not an organism. Zygote, fetus, baby, adolescent, etc. are all stages of development of the same single human organism. Individual human life is composed of all of these stages. There is a huge distinction between cells and organisms. Cells on their own perform a specific function. An organism, on the other hand, is a collection of differing cells that work together to carry on the activities of life. To say that a zygote or fetus is just a collection of cells and isn’t a living human organism is absurd. The distinction here is what’s important. While referring to a fetus as a collection of cells is technically correct, you’re missing the fact that those cells are part of a living human organism. That living organism, regardless of its stage of development, is still a human life. The process of human life begins at conception. The zygote is the first stage of an individual human being. Biology 101. I’m done.
William
Farmer Jeff, "A zygote is an egg that has been fertilized by sperm, and which could develop into an embryo." At what point is a zygote a human? 1 cell? 2 cells? 4 cells? 16 cells? Do 32 cells get the same legal and medical consideration as a fully grown woman? Are 64 cells a human organism? Do 128 cells have specific definably functions and organs? Do we charge women who take the morning after pill for murder? Do we hold funerals for 256 cells? If I showed you the fetuses of different animal species early in development could you identify the human embryo by sight alone? Your position is extreme and like all extremes, it is not defendable in a reasonable manner. Do you believe all abortions should be illegal no matter how early in the pregnancy? What is your overall point in classifying a zygote as a human in the same sense an adult woman is a human? Can you not see the difference?
Farmer Jeff
William, there is obviously a difference between the stages of development. You need to stop reading more into this than what I’m saying. I am arguing the biological definition of organism vs cell. Sperm and ovum meet the definition of cells. At fertilization (conception) they become a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Within less than 30 seconds the zygote engages in behavior differentiating it from just cells, and it takes on all the characteristics of an organism. The life of a human organism begins at conception. This is a biological fact. The science has been settled on this fact for some time. There is nothing extreme or radical about this fact.
William
Farmer Jeff, an organism begins development at conception, I don't know what you mean by "the life of a human organism begins at conception" but at this point I think we are arguing semantics and being imprecise with our definitions. My overall point is to show there are differences in development that have to be considered when dealing with laws and medical decisions surrounding pregnancy, there is a fine gradation that has to be acknowledged and I'm glad you're willing to do so. You started out this discussion by seemingly trying to claim human life is the same at all stages of development (or so it seemed to me), which we have now moved past.
Farmer Jeff
William, can we at least agree that biologically it is human life regardless of the stage of development? That’s the point I’m trying to make. I’m not suggesting the stages are all the same. I’m saying by definition all stages are comprised of a human organism that is carrying on the activity of life. I’m not sure why that is so hard to comprehend.
flack
Farmer Jeff, by those same standards, the steak you last ate was still alive when it hit the pan. Biological life is not a good place to draw the line.
Farmer Jeff
flack, no, the steak I last ate was from a dead organism. The salad I ate, however, likely had some living plant cells in it.
flack
Farmer Jeff, that’s not what the biological definition of life is, relating to your use of it. It means the basic organic chemical processes of life. And your steak, unless from frozen (I don’t think you are that kind of monster) is almost certainly still alive. Life, like the evolutionary processes that created it, is a gradual process, it’s not black and white and therefore is up to humans to arbitrarily draw a line.
HydeAuthor
flack, so where do a draw line?
Farmer Jeff
flack, do enlighten us regarding the biological state of a steer that has been butchered regarding weather it is biologically still alive or not, or the state of a steak removed from said steer. This should be fun.
flack
Farmer Jeff, biology defines life as certain metabolic chemical reactions. When viewed through that definition it’s nearly impossible to distinguish a sample of a live deer from a sample of a steak. There is a very good book from the late 70s called the Romeo error by Lyall Watson. It can take weeks for those chemical reactions to stop. Just like applying a current to a frogs leg to make it twitch, the reactions still occur. That’s why we use brain death to confirm if a person is actually dead, heartbeat isn’t even reliable, and even then, people come back from tens of minutes of brain death. The point is, using a biologists definition of life is pretty poor. I prefer the use of brain activity as a starting point, and then balancing that against the mothers need.
flack
Hyde, that’s personal, my idea may be different from yours, but personally I say the later the abortion, the more justification should be required. With third trimester terminations requiring extreme reasons, ie; severe risks to the long term health of the mother. What about you?
Farmer Jeff
flack, biology has a very clear definition of living cells vs. a living organism. The science is clear that the life of an individual human organism begins at conception.
HydeAuthor
flack, my thoughts closely mirror your own and I like the way you stated it. The later the abortion the more justification should be required, with the third trimester requiring extreme conditions. There send to be a dogma almost, that pro-lifers don't care for the mother. That just isn't true. However, we do understand the mother is not the only person involved in this situation. It does bother me when, folks view abortion as something akin to taking a dump. Just wipe your ass and go on about your day. I do want the mother healthy, I also take into account that the mother is not that only life involved.
flack
Farmer Jeff, bullshit. Show me or shut up.
flack
Hyde, on either side there are screaming extremists. It’s good to know people are taking a balanced view out there.
1
Farmer Jeff
Hyde, the mother is the only person? person - noun - a human being regarded as an individual Just because a fetus is at a different stage of development doesn’t make it non-human. At the moment of conception the RNA from both sperm and ovum fuse into a completely new and unique DNA thus creating a uniquely individual human. I have a problem when people try to dehumanize an unborn human. It is not simply a bunch of cells produced by the mother. The mother is simply the host providing environment and nutrition to a completely unique human individual that is its own organism with its own DNA. The cell division going on that leads to a fully developed baby is not occurring from the mother.
Farmer Jeff
flack, cell - noun - the smallest structural and functional unit of an organism, typically microscopic and consisting of cytoplasm and a nucleus enclosed in a membrane organism - noun - an individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form
HydeAuthor
flack, Farmer Jeff, sorry for the typo above..... we do understand the mother is NOT the only person involved in this situation
Farmer Jeff
Hyde, I’m just amazed at the complete ignorance regarding biology on this card. The scientific definitions of life and what constitutes a human being/organism/individual are non controversial. They are devoid of moral or religious influences in their definitions. Yet everyone seems to be trying to redefine these terms for their own moral or religious reasons to support their positions on abortion. Life begins at the moment of conception. Sperm/ovum fusion produces a distinct organism with its own completely unique DNA. This organism is 100% human. A synonym for organism is being. So we are talking about a completely unique individual human being. No religion. No morals. No philosophy. Just science.
HydeAuthor
flack, it has to be a balanced look with consideration given to both the adult and the unborn child.
flack
Farmer Jeff, me too. You haven’t understood what I have said at all. I can see I am going to have to use caps here. biologists can’t even settle on a definition of life beyond simple cellular processes. THIS IS MY POINT YOU TOTAL BANANA. The first line of the Wikipedia article on life says this. You cannot claim you have the biological definition of life beyond cellular processes, because IT DOES NOT EXIST IN ANY CONCRETE FORM. If life is your issue, then you better become a non antibiotic using vegan fruitarian. If humanity is your issue, or consciousness, or awareness, we can talk. But this nonsense you are spouting is sheer horse apples.
10
flack
Farmer Jeff, if you are arguing that a bunch of maybe 8 cells are equivalent to an actual adult human life, then you are not thinking straight.
10
Farmer Jeff
flack, no, you haven’t understood what I’ve said at all. Maybe you should listen instead of yelling your clearly unfactual based opinion. Wikipedia? Please. A human organism goes through multiple stages of development throughout its life. Those stages start with the zygote and continue all the way until death of the organism. There is nothing controversial or extreme about this view. It’s just science. To argue that the organism is anything but human anywhere along its development is bananas. Biology clearly defines the lifecycle of a human. The survey on this card asked when does life start. It starts at conception, or sperm/ovum fusion. That’s when a new individual distinctly unique organism is created. This is the same for all mammals. The RNA that combines at fertilization creates human DNA, not the DNA of some other organism.
flack
Farmer Jeff, I have a diploma in biology. I don’t need your children’s textbook definition. To scoff at something so basic that even Wikipedia reports shows you are ill informed or deliberately Misinforming people. I understand your point. It’s crap. Just because something is alive, does not mean it is human, or deserving of the same respect a human gets. Unless you are a vegan of course.
Farmer Jeff
flack, prove it. Show us all your diploma.
flack
Farmer Jeff, I can’t be bothered for a clown like you.
Farmer Jeff
flack, typical reaction of someone whose lost.
flack
Farmer Jeff, claiming victory in the face of all the evidence? not addressing any of the points raised and mindlessly repeating the same kindergarten mantra over and over? Everyone who reads this knows who lost. If you think demanding someone digs out a 25 year old diploma to prove something to an idiot online is winning you are dumber than a sack of hammers.
Farmer Jeff
flack, providing no alternative arguments other than a link to Wikipedia, claiming to have a degree in biology, having your bluff called, and resorting to childish name calling. Yep. Things are pretty clear. Thanks for showing the world what a real loser looks like.
flack
Farmer Jeff, such a shabby twat. You really expect me to dig out a 25 year old A-level diploma for an online argument? Nobody in there right mind is doing that. The fact I referenced wikipedia was to show you how basically, how fundamentally flawed your argument about the biological definition of life was. That you scoff at it as a source says you spend more time in online arguments because of your abhorrent views then in any kind of academic study. If you had spent any time in even the most basic of study you would know that Wikipedia has links that lead to original sources. the information I shared is in any higher education biology textbook. It was something that was taught to me when I was 18. It’s basic. Like 1+1 Now since you cling to “life” being your criteria for being given human rights, I expect you to give up washing and cutting your fingernails, or eating anything at all. Because of all the biologically alive bacteria (both karyotic and eukaryotic) yeasts and viruses you will kill in the process. What are you a fucking Jain? You sad clown.
Farmer Jeff
flack, once again your ignorance comes shining through. It is very difficult to have an intelligent conversation with someone who resorts to insults when their argument lacks anything of substance. I’ll give you one more chance. Try describing how clipping one’s fingernails or washing one’s body is even remotely similar to terminating the life of a living organism. Can you even describe the difference between cells and organisms? I mean, you’re the one with the alleged diploma. You should be well versed on the topic. And you can leave out your opinions on abortion. I’m not interested.
flack
Farmer Jeff, perhaps if you dropped your haughty and condescending tone maybe I would treat you with more respect. You claim things as fact when they are simply not relevant. Ok. One last try. Some cells are organisms in their own right. Bacteria for example. Some cells capable of independent existance are not independent organisms such as sperm. The definition of life that you are clinging to for legitimacy is actually far from as defined as you state. Currently the ability to grow, feed itself and reproduce are the key concepts that define life, but there are many things that are alive that don’t quite fit that definition. Viruses, don’t feed or grow for example, and a sterile person is not considered to not be alive. If life is your defining characteristic, then individual cells of an organism can be considered alive and worthy of the term human life. Every time someone ejaculates it’s a holocaust, every time you scratch your head is a massacre. And that is obviously stupid. The point of conception is not a valid line to draw as the point you grant the right afforded to an individual human being because while it has biological life, and is genetically distinct, so are sperm, and the embryo has no more independent existence than the gut cells you poop out after your morning coffee. Instead, humans must choose an arbitrary line somewhere along the gradual process of building a human being at which to grant it the rights of an independent human being.
Hanover Fiste
Liberal: a fetus isn't a life Pro life: it is a life Me: it's a life, but I understand that people will still have an illegal abortion, so I'm ok with the first trimester. Later the same day: News: scientists may have found a bacteria on Mars Liberal: did you hear, they found life on Mars Pro lifer: that's not really life Me: a fetus isn't life, but bacteria is? 🤔
1
HydeAuthor
Be more specific please.
1
HydeAuthor
Spock, ok. You made me think i had overlooked something.
1
José Zueco...™
Is it live or isn't live, the woman has the last word on it...
Farmer Jeff
No, biology does actually.
José Zueco...™
Farmer Jeff, woman is biology, she and alone she is the one who decides if she keeps it or not...
Farmer Jeff
José Zueco...™, perhaps you should edit your comment to be less ambiguous? In context as you used the word ‘live’ it could be replaced with the synonyms ‘living’ or ‘alive’ without changing the meaning. Biology clearly defines the state of live/living/alive. If by ‘it’ you are referring to the organism growing within a woman’s body, then by definition that organism is live (or living, or alive).
1
José Zueco...™
Farmer Jeff, I don't care how you want to call it, it's the decision of the women...
HydeAuthor
José Zueco...™, what if the woman has tried being a mother, and the child is 1 month old. The struggle has proven to be too difficult, and she cannot be a mother anymore. Can she still legally "abort" the child?
José Zueco...™
Hyde, no, but she can cowardly run away like men do...
Farmer Jeff
José Zueco...™, I think we are experiencing a language barrier here. The topic you are speaking about now, weather a mother chooses to abort a baby or not, is different from the topic of your initial comment, which in English appears to state, incorrectly, that a mother somehow dictates weather ‘it’ (I’m assuming ‘it’ is an unborn baby) is alive or not. This is why I suggested you rephrase what you wrote. Your initial comment doesn’t mean the same thing in English compared to what you’re saying now.
José Zueco...™
Farmer Jeff, I voted at conception, when the cells are multiplying, but an appendix is also life without a heartbeat, if it's inconvenient remove it...
Farmer Jeff
José Zueco...™, there is a very distinct difference between an organism and an organ.
HydeAuthor
Why at 40 days?
Obtiks
Hyde, you can get a babies fingerprints after 40 days
José Zueco...™
Obtiks, Why, what has it done..?
Obtiks
José Zueco...™, i havent done anything as well, they took my fingerprints...
HydeAuthor
I did not know that about fingerprints.
Obtiks
Hyde, 👍🏼
Bravefoot
Personally believe life starts after birth. I am uncomfortable with this new law - it is a TAD late - but again, I wouldn’t go against it.
Farmer Jeff
Sure, because until then the biological processes that are occurring throughout the development process involve all dead cells, organs, and systems.
1
Bravefoot
Farmer Jeff, they don’t, but it doesn’t mean that the baby has a ‘life’ 🤷🏻♀️ I mean, what is life? Is it simply being alive, e.g: having a heartbeat, senses, etc... or is a life all about life experiences such as memories, thoughts, relationships, etc... I believe in the latter. I believe if a foetus is terminated it’s... well, not fine, but also not bad. Because they would have nothing to lose. They won’t feel anything (or at least I hope they don’t) when they get terminated. Obviously if the reason to stop the pregnancy is stupid, then I’m against it. But if there’s a good reason, then I don’t object.
Farmer Jeff
Bravefoot, the biological definition of life is well defined. To say that the unborn at any stage of development is anything but alive is absurd.
Bravefoot
Farmer Jeff, well, plants are also alive, but since people don’t think they can feel pain, then we do with plants what we want: we cut them down, tear them, eat them, etc... I mean, I still think the foetus would have nothing to lose if it was terminated... just like what we think with plants 😅
Farmer Jeff
Bravefoot, that’s a seperate philosophical/religious/moral discussion. I was addressing your absurd statement that life begins after birth.
Bravefoot
Farmer Jeff, ok, cheers for calling it absurd 😂 I just wanted to use a comparison since we’re talking about life/what it’s life... I don’t know how else to bring my point forth to you? 🤷🏻♀️ As it stands, I still think life starts at birth
Farmer Jeff
Bravefoot, Life - noun - the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death So are you suggesting that a fetus doesn’t undergo growth, functional activity, or continual change prior to birth? Like I said, the statement that life begins after birth is absurd.
1
Bravefoot
Farmer Jeff, no, I’m not suggesting that. I’m just saying that for my own philosophy on it, life starts at birth. I mean, the foetus is alive, but it doesn’t have a life... if that makes sense 👀
1
Farmer Jeff
Bravefoot, but the definition of the word life is unambiguous. Perhaps what you are trying to say is that a living human organism has zero value prior to birth so terminating its life prior to then is of no consequence?
Bravefoot
Farmer Jeff, not zero value, but personally for me they can be aborted. There’s no consequence because as I’ve said before, that foetus has nothing to lose
Farmer Jeff
Bravefoot, except it’s life.
José Zueco...™
Life begins when the umbilical cord is removed...
Farmer Jeff
See my reply to Bravefoot above.
HydeAuthor
Jose, what if birth is safer than an abortion? "C-section is quicker and safer than partial birth abortion for the mother." ~Lawrence K. Koning, MD, FACOG The entire quote: "as an OB/GYN physician for 31 years there is no medical situation that requires aborting/killing the baby in the third trimester to save the mother's life. Just deliver the baby by C-section and the baby has a 95+% chance of survival with readily available NICU care even at 28 weeks. C-section is quicker and safer than partial birth abortion for the mother." ~Lawrence K. Koning, MD, FACOG
rico
Technically a fetus can be classified as a parasitic organism up until the point of the umbilical cord being removed. It provides no benefit to the host organism.
10
Farmer Jeff
rico, false. parasite - noun - an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense Fetus and mother are the same species. A quick google search on the ‘benefits of pregnancy’ also completely obliterates your last statement.
rico
Farmer Jeff, yeah, I looked at those benefits, most are after 4-5 pregnancies. Hell, no more complaints about welfare women having multiple children to scam the system, the health benefits far out weigh the amount of food stamps given out, with the high cost of healthcare and all.
Farmer Jeff
rico, where did I launch into any of that? I was simply refuting your false statement, “It provides no benefit to the host organism.”
HydeAuthor
rico, after being born that statement, regarding being parasitic, still holds true. *none of my children were born with jobs* For many adults unable to support themselves that statement remains true.
rico
rico, Jeff, you didn't need to go there, that was my conjecture after reading four articles found about benefits of pregnancy that included absolutely no information about specific scientific studies just blanket statements of studies.
Write something...
Send