ok,  I must have reacted to your strong wording when you used "parasite" and "tapeworm." 

You may want to look at what the baby looks like at say 22-23 weeks before you say such a thing. 

Here's a description of exactly the time period you put in for it being a parasite or tapeworm. 

In the fifth month (20 weeks) of the Second Trimester, the baby's eyelids are still fused shut. The internal organs - with the exception of the lungs- are maturing rapidly. The baby will have grown enough now that when it moves the mother may be able to feel it. The baby now has a pattern of waking and sleeping, it can cry, hiccup and starts to do uterine acrobatics (that's what it feels like anyway).

In the sixth month (21-24 weeks) of the Second Trimester, the baby starts accumulating fat and weighs approximately 1 to 1 1/2 pounds now. The expectant mother will surely feel movement if she hasn't already and she may feel the baby hiccuping also. The baby can open its eyes and month and their little eyelashes are visible. The baby's bones start to harden, technically referred to as ossification. At the end of the sixth month, the baby's lungs are still not mature enough for the baby to be born.

http://www.essortment.com/all/developmentstag_rjlp.htm

The primary time period that I use the description of a parasite is in the first trimester, if I was unclear in that I appologize.  As I have said once you enter the second trimester the only reason for an abortion should be in the case of the woman's health being at risk, and once the fetus is able to be put on life support outside the womb that should be attempted rather than abortion (currently it can be attempted as early as 22-23 weeks, but that is extremely rare).

EL-DUDERINO POSTS: 186

TALTIMER POSTS: #187

Yes, absolutely true. He is wrong. Scientific data reveal the dignity of human life from the first moment of fecundation, defined at the moment the sperm and the egg unite...therefore human personhood begins at conception.

So, once and for all, .....life begins at conception has been now scientifically determined.It's not a guess, it's not a wish, it's not an opinion...it's a scientific certainity. The biological facts are absolutely conclusive that the fetus is a living human being. That's a fact that you are going to have to come to grips with El-Duderino.

Now, to recognize a person in the womb is a moral decision and that's the last thing the proponents of abortion want done and that's why they come up with euphemisms like the one you used here..."terminating a fetus"...which really means killing a baby.

Ah, the ol' ploy of linedrawing...proponents of abortion committed to kill the unborn baby in the womb use this kind of arbitrary linedrawing for two reasons...to distract attention from the nature of the moral decision and to deny the fetus is a human being, a person.  There is no line at which abortion should be an option becasue with a fetus from living cell to dying corpse a continuum exists.    

really?

please provide some documentation--like peer-reviewed scientific papers--to back that up.

lula posts:

El-duderino posts #186

Again, what I said is not opinion, but truth. Yes, my religion says life begins at conception and science and the medical field have confirmed this truth. And yes, my religion teaches we must speak up for those (unborn) who have no voice, and also that we are protect, not harm Christ's little ones...the little one in the womb, although a stranger, is nonetheless my neighbor and I am to love my neighbor and at my Judgment, Christ will ask me what did I do to welcome the stranger. 

There  is a saying, "no man is an island"...that's true of the pregnant mother. Abortion is not a private matter and from the getgo, that is at conception, at least two other persons are involved. Actually, it might be better to say abortion is a human matter.    

Alderic posts: 180

Would you be more clear? Are you saying that personally you're against having an abortion, but that you support others who choose to kill their baby by having an abortion?

El duderino,

Gotcha.....Note the highlighted.....You use the word "it's" to describe "baby"....

So, a fetus is a baby, not a parasite. Women don't give birth to parasites...what comes out of the womb at birth was in the womb during pregnancy and that would be a baby.

What you're saying here is that since a fetus doesn't look like a newborn baby, he/she is not worth protecting like a newborn baby.  

Yes, really. And that's why willful abortion--at any stage--amounts to the destruction of human life is murder.

 World renown geneticists and gyneologists of various backgrounds and various religions publically attest that life begins at the moment of conception, that is, at fertilization, when the sperm and the egg unite. That genetically, everything that we will ever be becomes present at conception; that distinct heartbeats can be heard at 4 weeks, that all organs are formed at 6 to 7 weeks, and that a fetus of 10 weeks is not essentially different from one of 20 or 30 weeks.

KINGBEE POSTS:

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

Firstly, STUDY does not apply here, it is impossible to make a STUDY that will determine weather or not a zygote is a human being. Science involves many things, experiments, observation, classification, calculations, studies... and studies are the least valid and most error prone form of science, moreover they are completely impossible to apply to this simple yes no question.

Lula is saying "I don't care about science, religiously I think it is a human being because of the nature of soul as i interpert form the bible", I disagree with his interpretation

Scientifically, this would be a matter of looking and understanding WHAT a human is, and then looking at the various stages of development and deciding "does this qualify". The most obvious options are: sperm/eggs, fertalized egg, implanted egg, moment of development of organ X (typically brian), birth, moment of development of conscious thought (which occurs after birth). So looking at it from a biological perspective a human is a colony of genetically identical cells which are each alive, they require each other for continued survival, but can survive removed from the body in the right conditions (replicated in a lab usually). Those cells form a colony, that is a multicellular organism, which has been named "human" and all the creatures it can cross breed with are considered to be of the same species.

A new human thus forms when a zygote forms... the call of when that human gets rights is completely arbitrary though, because even though a new human forms in conception, MANY do not even make it to birth (not due to abortion mind you, I mean failed pregnancies), and they only develop sentience a few years after being born.

That bundle of cells "no different than a tapeworm" as you call it is a genetically unique individual with human DNA, it is genetically different then the host, and it will grow until it is given the legal rights of a human unless it dies or is killed.

Question is, is it moral to kill it... answer is, depends. Let me give you an example, ancephelus is a condition when a fetus develops with no brain. If born, it will immediately die because without a brain the lungs dont work, if kept on life support it will never be an individual because it has no brain.

It is a genetically unique individual, but it is not and never going to be a person because it has no brain.

Secondly (in regards to the quote asking for a peer reviewed study prooving that a fertalized egg is a human), publishing such a study is as much of a career suicide as doing a study about the difference in intellgience between <insert group here> and <insert group here>

Not to mention that peer review is the least important bit about science, its a combination of three notions: "all ideas are public domain", and "if everyone beleives it, it must be true" and most importantly, for there to be progress you must share your knowledge, otherwise it will be lost. As a society we advance because we scientists share their knowledge instead of hoarding it and calling themselves alchemists and wizards. But if an alchemist invented a weapon (say, greek fire) it works just as well, and is as true, as one invented by a person who later published it for all to know.

When the galileo said the world was round, none of his peers agreed, didn't change the fact that the world was indeed round. More recently, when a team of 3 doctors said that ulcers were caused by a bacteria and not by stress, none of their peers agreed, they had to heal hundreds of people using antibiotics, as well as infect themselves with the bacteria in question, get ulcers, and then heal themselves with it before someone even started to take them seriously. On many issue scientists disagree. The point of it all is, science is about not taking things by faith, but instead looking only at the data, facts, and experiments.

This is one of the most bothersome things, men have been such second class citizens that they have absolutely no right anymore to their children. be it in terms of abortion, or in terms of courts automatically awarding custody to the mother in devorce, and so on.

Basically, lula correctly identifies a zygote as a human life, he just does so based on his interpretation of the bible (which I think is a wrong interpretation) instead of any scientific reason. While scientifically speaking, I would contend that human life starts at conception, but that early conception human life is not a person yet, and does not carry the same full rights as a person, despite being a living human. Your contention that scientifically speaking life begins at birth or an arbitrary "trimester" period (rather then, say, formation of the brain, or formation of independant organ system, or some actual developmental checkpoint) is based solely on the desire to justify killing such a being because you cannot accept that it is possible for it to be a human, and yet not have the same rights as a person does.

How am I not understanding you? I'm interpreting you as saying you wouldn't have one, but support other people's right to have an abortion (and hence are pro-abortion, since you're supporting people using in some cases outside of where the mothers life is in danger). If I have somehow misunderstood this and you're saying something different then please correct me.

I guess another way of interpreting it is that you're saying you wouldn't have an abortion, and don't think anyone else should have an abortion, and disagree with people who do have abortion, but don't think it should be banned, but the result of not banning it is that you are in effect supporting it being used by other people.

Then that's a terrible reason to keep abortion legal in my opinion. There are many rare medical conditions out there ,and there are specialists able to deal with them. Conducting an abortion when the mothers life is in danger wouldn't be that rare (~23k abortions in the US are carried out when the mother's life is in danger a year I think, although I didn't bother checking more deeply into those statistics to see what sorts of things qualified), and hence you will have some specialists able to perform the procedure. It could also simply be made a requirement of being a qualified doctor that you are able to perform one properly, meaning that every doctor will have the basic training and know-how to perform one for the event that a specialist for some reason isn't available.

They are making that choice though - that is, they choose to end the life of their child, break the law, and endanger their own life, because they want to avoid the inconvenience of a baby. It's regrettable, but I don't believe it justifies letting people legally end the life of their child. Ultimately though I guess it hinges on how many babies/unborn children's lives the mothers is worth if justifying it for the backstreet abortion reason - if making abortion illegal means that you'd have say 600k fewer abortions a year, but you'd also have say 500 mothers die from backstreet abortions, then you'd be saying that you'd consider the life of the mother that chooses to break the law and use a backstreet abortionist despite being aware of the risks as more valuable than roughly 1,200 unborn children.

Taltimer posts:

Actually that study that you describe as impossible has already been done.

C. Ward Kischer, a human embryologist, explains it all very well ....He essentially says that not only science, but reason and common sense tells us that life begins with fertilization.

The case for fertilization of the human sperm/egg was made intuitively by observing the process in mammals more than 100 years ago. And direct observation of the process in the human was made in about 1968. The significance of this was resolved experimentally with subsequent growth of the new individual and successful implantation with completion of development to birth. This was accomplished with the birth of baby Louise Brown in England in July, 1978. Other successes soon followed.

The facts above,along with the constancy of the time of gestation, approx. 38 weeks, reasonably declare that the life of the new individual human being begins with fertilization. Virtually every human empbryologist and ever major textbook of Human Embryology state that fertilization marks the beginning of the life of the new individual human being.

The reason why this is true is the following:

from the moment when the sperm makes contact with the oocyte, under conditions we have come to understand and describe as normal, all subsequent development to birth of a living newborn is a fait accompli. That is to say, after that initial contact of spermatozoon and oocyte there is no subsequent moment or stage which is held in arbitration or abeyance by the mother, or the embryo or fetus. Nor is a second contribution, a signal or trigger, needed from the male in order to continue and complete development to birth. Human development is a continuum in which so - called stages overlap and blend one into another. Indeed, all of life is contained within a time continuum. Thus, the beginning of a new life is exacted by the beginning of fertilization, the reproductive event which is the essence of life.

Herein lies the importance of distinguishing between the science of developmental biology and the science of Human Embryology. Within the science of Human Embryology, the continuum of life is more fully appreciated. The fact that development and developmental principles do not cease with birth becomes more fully realized. So, the continuum of human development does not cease until death, whenever that may occur, in utero or at 100 years of age.

For the lay person it is not important to remember embryological terms, ....it is the continuum of life which is important as a biological fact......

When the sperm fuses with the secondary oocyte fertilization takes place. The fusion is referred to as a zygote, a single cell but with two pronuclei, each one containing either the maternal or the paternal chromosomes. The former are provided by the oocyte and the latter by the sperm. These pronuclei come together to reconstitute the proper number of chromosomes for our specie (called diploid), which is 46 chromosomes, including 2 sex chromosomes. From this coming together the single cell divides into two cells, and division continues until a cluster or ball of cells is formed called the morula. Soon thereafter, the cells in the morula divide and cluster so that a small cavity is formed, above which is a mass of cells. This is called the blastula, and when the cavity becomes larger the embryo is called the blastocyst and the mass of cells above it is called the inner cell mass or the ICM. Other events have taken place since fertilization, especially movement of the embryo down the fallopian tube, assumming fertilization has taken place in the upper third of the tube, which is optimal, so that the embryo is positioned properly within the uterus and ready for implantation. This takes 5 to 6 days. The outer rim of cells of the embryo has special properties allowing it to "invade" the lining of the uterus. Among the many simultaneous events occurring are changes in the cells of the embryo which "regulate" its destiny. Such regulation actually began at probably the first cell division of the embryo when an unusual but significant production of an immunosuppresant takes place, the early pregnancy factor. This prevents rejection of the "foreign" embryo by the mother.

In addition, the "regulation" taking place among the cells of the early embryo has to do with communications between the cells, which allow for movement of materials, providing signals or directions to a cell or cells prompting them to divide or not to divide, or to respond in general or specific ways which can direct their destiny or potentials.

One often hears the rallying cry from prochoice advocates: "my body, my choice". Certainly, they exercise a choice, but, it is not just "my body". There are two bodies, each genetically distinct, and each "foreign" to the other. It should be recognized that the body of the early embryo is very active in its daily rituals of survival.

Every moment of development blends into the next succeeding moment. But, even common sense tells one that this so-called development does not cease at birth. It continues until death. At any point in time, during the continuum of life, there exists a whole, integrated human being. This is because over time from fertilization to a 100 year old senior, all of the characteristics of life change, albeit at different rates at different times: size, form, content, function, appearance, etc.

Pregnancy

Human embryologist Bruce Carlson, in his 1994 textbook: "Human Embryology and Developmental Biology", states in his opening sentence: "Human pregnancy begins with the fusion of the egg and the sperm. . ."[2]. This is so because the concern of Human Embryology is the human embryo whether it be in the fallopian tube, uterus, ectopically placed or in a petri dish. Additionally, for a pregnant woman, the expected time of delivery, fertilization age, time of gestation, or, the period of confinement is always calculated so that the time of pregnancy begins at fertilization.

-----------------------------

Scientists in the fields of genetics, biology and human embryology have done their jobs well. It's just that some have turned science into political correctness and human life and all its elements have been/is being  manipulated by those with the attitude that "abortion on demand" must be kept "legalized" at all costs.   

Taltimir you have no idea who you are dealing with.  This is Lula's domain and she's very good at it. 

exactly.  Where did Galileo get his information? Are you sure Galileo had nobody that believed him?  Did you know that the round earth theory was well known before Galileo?  Did you know the bible all along said the earth was round?  Or that Aristoltle believed it was round way before Galileo?   Too bad those ignorant religious leaders didn't know their own book (bible).   It was in there the whole time.   

The Early Theory of a Round Earth

The truth of the matter is that ever since Pythagoras first postulated that the Earth must be a sphere way back in 570 BC, the theory has been quite alive among scientists, and not nearly as taboo as we may have been led to believe. There were surely some holdouts whose superstitions led them to believe otherwise, but to the scientific elite, there was very little question.

Such famed thinkers as Plato and Aristotle (both performing their work in the third and fourth centuries B.C.) agreed with the Pythagorian theory regarding the shape of the Earth (not to be confused with the Pythagorian theorem regarding right triangles, which is a different story altogether), based on observations of the curved horizon at sea as well as the shape of the Earth when seen casting a shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse.

In the third century B.C., the Greek mathematician Eratosthenes even measured the circumference of the Earth using the shadows cast by the sun during the summer solstice at different locations and performing a bit of clever geometry. His estimate is thought to be within 10% of today’s value, which is truly remarkable for the time.

From this point on, the shape of the Earth was in constant debate among philosophers, astronomers, Mathematicians and general thinkers alike (during the middle ages, many people fell back into a belief in a flat Earth). While it took Columbus' voyage to finally allow the divergent opinions to mesh together into a unified whole, he wasn't exactly breaking any new ground, scientifically – just proving what had already been theorized for more than two thousand years.

It should also be noted that at this point in history, the size of the Earth was thought to be much smaller than it actually is. This is why Columbus erroneously thought that he could sail all the way to India in order to open up a new shipping lane for the valuable spices and goods from the East. Had he not “accidentally” come across the new world, he surely would have died at sea after such a miscalculation.

Apart from a few ignorant holdouts (for an amusing example of this, click here) who have for one reason or another continued to assert, despite the obvious proofs, that the Earth continues to be flat, after the time of Columbus it was pretty well accepted by all that the Earth was, indeed, round.

Read more: "From a Flat to a Round Earth: The History behind the Determination of the Shape of the Planet" - http://ancienthistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/from_a_flat_to_a_round_earth#ixzz0APrAoZPv

So let's just change what you said a bit.

Lula and I say that there is a personal God,  most of their JU peers do not agree, doesn't change the fact that there is indeed a God! 

mmm... it MIGHT be an observational study, since you observe to understand. I only looked at the interventional study definition when stating that you cannot have a study to determine conception.

And KFC, why is an 8 1/2 month old fetus entitled to legal protection?

The thing is, it is obviously a human the moment an egg is fertalized, but when does it get legal protection? When SHOULD it get legal protection? the laws are very iffy about this whole issue, as are peoples personal and moral beleifs. It requires so much effort to explain the full system of beleifs (which vary between people who agree on the outcome) needed to reach the conclusion of why it is ok not to extend such legal protection to very early fetuses that it is easier to simply hide behind the claim "it is not a human yet"