Posted on 03/23/2014 8:19:43 PM PDT by Olog-hai
The U.S. Justice Department is telling the Supreme Court that killing a human embryo by preventing the embryo from implanting in his or her mother’s uterus is not an “abortion” and, thus, drugs that kill embryos this way are not “abortion-inducing” drugs.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby. The crux of the administration’s argument in this case is that when Christians form a corporation they give up the right to freely exercise their religion—n.b. live according to their Christian beliefs—in the way they run their business.
It is in the context of this case, that the administration is making its argument that killing an embryo seeking to implant in his or her mother’s womb is not an abortion.
The dispute involves a regulation that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued under the Affordable Care Act. This regulation says that virtually all health insurance plans must cover, without any fees or co-pay, all FDA-approved “contraceptives.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
We knew what? That you didn’t support the Life At Conception Act? I didn’t know it because you hadn’t said so. It is also contradictory to your stated religious beliefs so I couldn’t infer it from that either.
Fair enough. That’s a good, balanced viewpoint. I do not hold to what you call the “libertarian camp” on corporations (they can do no wrong), but it’s a spectrum, and the concept of “corporations” has been badly abused by those on the left. OWSers believe that corporations can do no right.
I’m not sure “crony capitalism” is a proper moniker for the behavior we’ve seen since Obastard came to office. It’s more like “crony socialism.” Calling it any form of “capitalism” is like calling Obastard a “pig-dog.” It’s an insult to pig-dogs.
Wrong, very wrong. The only way it is not an abortion is if, instead of being a life, it is a cancer. The reason is because it is growing.
Your description of it is so deceptive, it is as if you are a pro-abortion advocate. Are you?
I totally agree.
What I was responding to was a liberal’s assertion that human life begins at some vaguely defined point about a month after conception, which is pure bunk.
I'm all for capital punishment of murder, rape, and treason*.
If we were really honest with ourselves we'd probably conclude that 20+ year prison terms are a violation of the 8th amendment (it's depriving of a quarter of a lifetime, with the coy we didn't take your life
false-morality shit that the anti-capital punishment people push.)
* — actual Constitutionally-defined treason, not the crap they spout on tv/movies saying that's treason
for operating against government policy.
There is no indication that a corpse is aware of anything when reflexes are provoked. That is because the corpse is dead and has no functioning central nervous system. Unlike a corpse, a developing embryo past 5 weeks has a functional brain, which receives and processes information from its environment, just like any other living person's brain functions.
That would also be true of the 3 to 5 week old fetus you described. It cannot be proved that it has awareness or consciousness or thought of any kind.
Unlike a corpse, a developing embryo past 5 weeks has a functional brain, which receives and processes information from its environment, just like any other living person's brain functions.
Not every living person's brain as the example of my mother with Alzheimer's addressed. But I don't think brain waves have ever been detected in a five week old fetus. If it has it is still irrelevant. Not all living beings have brains so it isn't a defining characteristic of a living being.
The human person begins when the organism is capable of feeling. Without that ability, it is only a bunch of cells. I guess, having grown and observed countless millions of living human cells, it is not difficult for me to understand that.
That is a subjective philosophical statement not a science based criteria.
Science has never described living beings on the basis of ability or inability to 'feel.'
Unique DNA as a defining characteristic of a human being is meaningless. The trees and grass in my yard all have unique DNA. The cows down the street and the birds flying overhead all have unique DNA. Unique DNA is a pretty universal and unremarkable characteristic. On the other hand, if ten thousand people were all cloned from the same population of stem cells, not a single one would have unique DNA or would have resulted from conception, yet they would each be a distinct individual. That is because they would each have a separate brain--the *only* factor that is demonstrably necessary for a person to exist. The only purpose for the rest of the body is to support the brain. Without the brain, the rest of the body is just meat.
I would go so far as to say that a god who would pop a soul into every product of conception, given that 90% of them are incapable of growing to become a baby, is a cruel god. I do not believe that God is cruel, or that He would inflict unnecessary suffering in that manner. I believe that the soul appears at the same time the brain starts to function, sometime between 3 and 5 weeks post-conception.
And it is incomplete and utterly useless, capable of doing nothing by itself.
The trees and grass in my yard all have unique DNA. The cows down the street and the birds flying overhead all have unique DNA.
Those are all considered living beings aren't they? Each different even from individuals of their own kind.
On the other hand, if ten thousand people were all cloned from the same population of stem cells, not a single one would have unique DNA or would have resulted from conception, yet they would each be a distinct individual.
Based on the other criteria of a living being, able to self-replicate its own cells which would begin as soon as you combined the components present in normal gametes thus artificially mimicking conception.
When you have to grasp at straws stretched so thin as to bring up laboratory manipulations of living organisms you have gone a long way from a simple scientific recognition of what makes a living organism a living organism. Even your manipulated examples have the basic biological processes of self-replication and the potential of species replication inherent in them. They only share the exact DNA of another being through a manipulated process that mimics the natural occurrence of identical twins.
Everything I have explained about the early events following conception is firmly based in science. Being a working scientist, I can give no other account. The fact is that, scientifically, the defining characteristics of a human being are not present at conception. The process of developing as a human being takes years. The only truly defining characteristic of a human being is the ability to think and perceive--an ability that only begins sometime between weeks 3 and 5 after conception.
Your description of it is so deceptive, it is as if you are a pro-abortion advocate. Are you?
Please try to use your God-given ability to think and reason. Do you seriously believe that a ball of 150 or so undifferentiated cells is as aware and capable of feeling pain as a fetus of 6, 10, 24 weeks?
Having grown countless millions of living human cells (all with unique DNA, too), I am extremely aware that human + living =/= human being. As a scientist, I will tell you, as would any physician, that something more than mere cells is required for a human being to exist.
And before accusing me or anyone of being a pro-abortion advocate, you might want to verify their position. You have not seen me insist against all evidence that a living, moving, responsive fetus inside the womb is nothing but an inanimate clump of cells. Nor have I made any of the mind-twistingly illogical claims that pro-aborts typically make in support of their blood sport. I am here to provide the scientific view, because I think that educating people on the facts is the only way to effectively fight abortion.
At the heart of your post is a major deception. You toss the lie of ‘undifferentiated around as if you believe in magic, as in the magic moment when ‘a clump of cells is suddenly a human being’. Sickening bilge you’re spewing here.
And in this post you try to conflate organ and organism. You are spewing the dead soul leftist bilge here. Meh!
??
And when it is used to murder 55+ million unborn Americans, we call it "crimes against humanity" and "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."
Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers...
Then by that logic even a five year old can't definitively be called a living human being. Why else would you make that statement other than to equivocate in defense of your loose statements made about the earliest stages of development?
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.