SICKENING: Ocasio-Cortez Under Heavy Fire Over ‘Disturbing’ Tweet About Abortion

Oh yeah. I think I read you can get 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine for destroying a bald eagle egg. An *egg*.

But it makes sense, you know, it absolutely makes sense: if a bald eagle is valuable, then the egg is valuable by the same measure.

So the question is, is a human being a valuable as a bald eagle? Less? Or more?

What if the human being in question, was the very image and likeness of God?

(We ponder this, don't we, boatbums!)

When Does a Baby`s Heart Begin to Beat?

The embryonic heart starts to beat 22 days after conception, meaning at about the week 5 of pregnancy. During this stage, the little heart is much too small to be heard, even with a volume amplifier.

One of the first symptoms that a heart starts to beat can sometimes be noticed by ultrasound during the first 4 weeks of pregnancy. It can be noticed at a very close look that there`s a little trembling at the embryo level. This is the developing heart of the future baby which already started to beat. (https://www.pregworld.org/when-does-a-babys-heart-begin-to-beat/)

I agree with you totally on the immorality of abortion. I wonder how long we can keep remnants of civilization alive with the hedonism we live with today. That "rape and incest" exception is a door that maybe can't be completely closed, but can be closed enough to improve the moral climate. As it stands now, it's being used as an excuse to overturn bills that curtail abortion.

Think about it. If there could be no "rape and incest" claim for abortion after the first trimester, those sex crimes would have to be reported. DNA could be used to establish "who's the daddy". Under those circumstances, most guys wouldn't risk the crime and women wouldn't lie or get talked into abortions. (first trimester would not show). If a woman doesn't report a crime within that time limit, there's much too much opportunity for (1) a true aggressor not being punished or (2) fake claims.

I have a suspicion. I'm wondering how many pro-"choice" women are that way because they had abortions and cannot confront the reality of having killed their pre-separation infant.

But here's the problem...if we allow abortion based on anything other than a threat to the life of the mother - which would be really about saving her life since the baby would obviously die if the mother dies - then we are in essence approving taking the baby's life based solely on HOW it was conceived. We would be punishing the child because of the criminal action of the father. We can see how the anti-life, so-called "pro-choice", side has exploited that exception. We are conceding that the unborn child's right to life is relative and not absolute. We can't let our guard down.

I have a suspicion. I'm wondering how many pro-"choice" women are that way because they had abortions and cannot confront the reality of having killed their pre-separation infant.

Your suspicion is correct. Many women who have had abortions WILL try to rationalize or justify their decision often by becoming rabidly pro-choice. They are some of the most vocal and virulent protesters against the prolife cause. Men, too, join them in their battles because of their OWN guilt in abortion decisions. On the flip side, though, there are many post-abortion women who have deep regrets and they become some of the most sincere and ardent pro-life activists. They volunteer as post-abortion counselors, devote time and money to crisis pregnancy ministries, work to change the laws of our land and are on the front lines of defending unborn life and giving compassionate care for those needing healing because of their abortion choices. And all post-abortive women NEED healing - whether they realize it or not - but the blinders have to come off first.

I don't know if we as a nation will get to the point where we won't HAVE to make abortion illegal because it will be UNTHINKABLE, but I pray we do. God's judgment may be delayed but it will happen. The blood of all the innocents cry out to Him for justice and He will not hold back.

Ironic isn't it that a person can be prosecuted for disturbing an endangered species' offspring

(like a condor's nest) but there's no problem with the butchering of an unborn human baby?

I'd like to thank the United States Government for protecting me and my kind.

You see, 40 years ago, my odds of making it out of the egg, alive, were very poor; about 80% of us died.

(http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rachel-carson-silent-spring-1972-ddt-ban-birds-thrive)

But a lady discovered our plight and wrote a book that addressed our problem,

and, in 1972, a law was ammended protecting us even further. (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html)

What I find strange is that the same government passed a law the very next year that allowed for killing

of unborn, and apparently unwanted, humans. Little ones still nestled safely in their Mother's womb.

Around 25% of them are dying before birth - on average nearly 3,300 - every day of the year.

I've heard that by now, somewhere over 60 MILLION of them have perished.

Wouldn't that kind of mess up the humans plans for growth, and welfare, and

retirement?

Strange birds; these Homo Sapiens. Perhaps they'll come to their senses

before they are ALL dead!

It soesn't seem to me that "feeling pain" should be the criterion of when abortion is wrong. If that were the case, anesthesia would give every abortion the greenlight.
The criterion should be species. Is there a human genome? If so, no abortion.

The reason I do not use the presence of a human genome as sufficient to establishing that a human being is present is that almost every single human cell has a genome (red blood cells do not), but is not a human being. If the presence of a human genome is equivalent to the existence of a human being, then I am a mass murderer of astounding proportions since I've grown and killed billions of human cells for research. I've also bled, another activity which ends up killing millions of human cells. Furthermore, I have never seen a human cell exhibit any behavior that one would consider consistent with the behavior of a human being. Likewise, a zygote does not exhibit behavior consistent with that of a human being; most zygotes do not even have the capability to develop into an organism with human traits. DNA is only a blueprint; in large part, I do not understand the mystical properties some people want to confer on it.

This is why I consider objectively measurable physical traits as important when determining if a human being exists. The capability to feel, to sense one's environment, is a function of the nervous system; the existence of the nervous system is a very objective, physically verifiable property. The fact that the embryo can (in theory, since abortionists never administer anesthetic to the baby) be rendered unconscious to make abortion painless does not make abortion moral or ethical, any more than a physician would be acting in a moral or ethical manner by anesthetizing adult patients and then killing them. Murder is murder.

Thanks!

I remember a pamphlet several years back that showed the same unborn child with wording that went something like:

If it’s not alive, why is it growing?

If it’s not a human being, what kind of being is it?

If it’s not a baby, why is it sucking its thumb?

If it’s a living, human baby, why is it okay to kill it?

Thought provoking for anyone with a heart.

A human genome alone does not establish the presence of a human being, in the sense of an identifiable entity. It has to be a cell that has the power to replicate and diversify into a whole organism. If it cannot (if it is a sperm cell or a blood or skin cell or a damaged, non-growing zygote) there is no human "beginning" to protect. But a normal zygote has full potential --- dynamically, it is not just a "potential human," it is a human... with potential. It is the same as you were at that age.

Sound bioethicists have this all worked out.

When you say "I have never seen a human cell exhibit any behavior that one would consider consistent with the behavior of a human being," you must mean any somatic cell --- other than a live zygote. Because a live zygote is just what you were. It looks like you did. It act like you did at that age and developmental stage.

It is not a blueprint. You cannot plant a blueprint in a nurturant environment and have it grow into a house. But you can plant a zygote in a nurturant environment and have it grow from within as your newest neighbor.

The zygote has its own nature, it grows by unfolding and differentiating according to its own plan. This is why a zygote is different from, say, a merely pluripotent stem cell. It has its total personal nature present needing no manipulation but only a suitable environment, namely the gestating womb, and time.

This is all quite objective. And any lab tech who can't tell the difference between a diploid live zygote and a haploid sperm or egg --- or even a dead zygote --- needs remedial training.

People sometimes say they don't know when human life begins

Human life began a million-seven-hundred-fifty-thousand years ago, or even earlier. Since then, we do know that human life is transmitted and a new generation launched, every time human fertilization successfully occurs.

Likewise, a zygote does not exhibit behavior consistent with that of a human being; most zygotes do not even have the capability to develop into an organism with human traits. DNA is only a blueprint; in large part, I do not understand the mystical properties some people want to confer on it. This is why I consider objectively measurable physical traits as important when determining if a human being exists. The capability to feel, to sense one's environment, is a function of the nervous system; the existence of the nervous system is a very objective, physically verifiable property.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote:

A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zygōtos "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν zygoun "to join" or "to yoke")[1] is a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes. The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. In multicellular organisms, the zygote is the earliest developmental stage.

I'm not sure. Are you are defending abortion as long as the developing life is undeveloped enough? We know that scientifically we can differentiate between a human zygote and, say, another type of mammal by looking at the genetics of the cells. We can even identify species using tissue fragments (anti-human precipitant test, I think it's called). There is an intrinsic/inherent value to human life regardless of whether it has developed to the point of "exhibiting behavior consistent with that of a human being" - whatever that actually means. One could argue a newborn baby lacks the awareness or feelings to sense her/his environment. We have a newborn little girl in my family and as adorable and sweet as she is, she could not survive on her own nor could she tell that the hand waving around her face was her OWN hand. They must learn all those things. Certainly we know there are limits WRT the survival rate based on the gestational age of the baby. Because of advances in neonatal care, preemies as young as 22 weeks can survive. Sadly, abortions up to that age are advertised regularly. We know that a baby can be legally aborted as late as the ninth month for any reason.

So, when you say "most zygotes do not even have the capability to develop into an organism with human traits", I have to disagree since ALL human life starts out as zygote and left undisturbed within the mother's womb WILL develop into a unique and irreplaceable human being. The "mystical properties" conferred are justified. The wanton destruction of it are certainly not.

Please keep in mind that I am a scientist, so the way I see human life is very much rooted in the observations I have made for several years. Human cells are very much alive. They grow. They crawl around and exhibit stereotypic behaviors, depending on the cell type. For example, human heart cells beat; human muscle cells form muscle fibers that contract. While those cells are human, none of them are human beings.

The DNA is a blueprint, nothing more. A human cell is a packet of proteins, lipids, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, water, and various other molecules. Some proteins read the instructions in the DNA and use them to make RNA, other proteins, copies of the DNA, etc. This happens in all living cells.

Other than the fact that a zygote is a diploid cell formed from the fusion of two haploid cells, what is special about it? Cells fuse all the time, so that isn’t it. It has DNA, but so does every other cell (except red blood cells). A minority of zygotes contain growth factors and replicate in an ordered fashion which leads to the formation of actual human form and function within a few weeks. But *any* cell will undergo the same process if it is epigenetically “reset” and subjected to the correct growth factors. Dolly the sheep was created by injecting a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated ovum, which contained growth factors and acted on the nucleus to reset it sufficiently to cause it to embark on the development pathway.

So my issue is that from a completely objective viewpoint, I want some way to determine humanity that is more objective and measurable than the simple “well, it has human DNA and it is a living cell” which leaves a LOT to be desired as a scientific criterion. When human form and function exist, which is a much higher level of organization than a simple cell, then there is a very objective scientific standard. And when talking to someone who is “pro-choice”, I don’t think that the argument that a fertilized ovum is a human being holds much water. Why would it—they rationalize abortion at any stage of pregnancy as being nothing more than getting rid of a fertilized egg. But if you show them the physical form and function of, for example, a four week old embryo and point out that at that age, it has a functional nervous system and beating heart (and arms and legs), meaning that it is able to sense its environment—then you have a much better chance of cracking that pro-abortion belief system.

The difference between the llve human zygote and the live human blood cell is that, in the correct environment, the live human zygote will grow its own differentiated cells, tissues, organs and systems, and a live human blood cell will not.

The difference between a live human zygote and a live sheep zygote is that, while each one in its correct environment will develop its own cells, tissues, organs and systems, complete in very detail, the human one at every stage will be a human, and the sheep one at every stage will be a sheep.

That is why, at relevant points, the live human zygote is different both from a human red blood cell and a sheep zygote. It has within itself the power to generate ITSELF into a multi-celled, multi-organed human. This human will be called by different names at different developmental stages --- zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, neonate, , toddler, adolescent, and cranky old lady like myself --- but it's the same living system it was at the zygote stage.

All the developmental stages will reach the next ones with time, in the proper environment, unless death intervenes.

This is why, objectively, the zygote is recognized as the human being in his or her earliest stages.

This is why the day of fertilization is counted as Day One.

From thence you continue into Day 25,000 or 30,000 or however long you live until you take your last breath and your body goes to room temperature.

Incidentally, if you have a cell with those properties (growing its own differentiated cells and systems) that didn't start of from a fertilization event, but rather from cloning or from tweaking a stem cell or even a somatic cell, it will *also* have the objective characteristics, and thus the moral status, of a live human being at the zygote stage, which was produced by fertilization.

Incidentally, if you have a cell with those properties (growing its own differentiated cells and systems) that didn't start of from a fertilization event, but rather from cloning or from tweaking a stem cell or even a somatic cell, it will *also* have the objective characteristics, and thus the moral status, of a live human being at the zygote stage, which was produced by fertilization.

Even when the genome's epigenetic status has been reset and the growth factors are present, the chance that a zygote will result in a live birth is fairly low, about 10%. Most of them do not implant; of those that implant, many end up in miscarriage, often without the woman ever being aware of their existence. For a reprogrammed somatic cell used in cloning, the chance of developing until live birth is even lower. This is partly why it is premature to consider a zygote the equivalent of a human being; the other part, of course, is that (like any other isolated diploid cell) the zygote has and can have absolutely no awareness of existing.

In practical terms, when a young woman is planning abortion, and the abortionist is telling her that her 7 month old fetus is no more than a fertilized ovum, how does insisting that a newly fertilized ovum is actually a human being convince her that killing the 7 month old fetus is wrong? From my point of view, you are more likely to reach her by demonstrating that the 7 month old fetus is scientifically and morally equivalent to a newborn baby, in that its neurological development makes it aware of its environment, it possesses all organs, and that they are functional; there is no magic "on" switch that activates upon birth, which is another favorite lie of the abortion industry. To me, this is far more convincing than insisting that a single diploid cell is equivalent to a fully developed human being because it has the blueprint and growth factors that (might) set it on that course of development.

Don't get me wrong. There is still a discussion to be had on whether intentionally stopping the growth of zygotes is moral, given that some of them do have the capacity to develop into a human being. This is an issue I prefer to leave to God.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

AMEN! and Hallelujah; too!