That, too, would gain them a bit of appalled respect, since we all know that’s where the abortion movement is likely headed.

From that point onward, this new human being, first referred to, clinically, as a human embryo, contains all the genetic information, material, and instructions and programing she or he requires, to develop into adulthood. No other incident or event is required for him or her to complete her journey throughout the continuum of overlapping developmental changes that take place witting the womb, and which do not end at birth, but which continue into adulthood.

William2006 on February 19, 2008 at 7:46 AM

Are you saying that a human being is created at conception or at the formation of an embryo? Since a zygote may split into twins before forming embryos, is it possible to say that a fertilized egg, within a day of conception, is a unique human being? Wouldn’t that be arguing that twins are the same person?

dedalus on February 19, 2008 at 9:44 AM

1) Are you saying that a human being is created at conception or at the formation of an embryo? – “dedalus”

There are two main forms of human reproduction: sexual reproduction, which involves sexual intercourse between a man and a woman and the fertilization of the woman’s oocyte by the man’s sperm, resulting in a new, genetically unique human being, and asexual reproduction, which occurs naturally occasionally in human beings in which, during cell division in the early stage of embryonic development, some cell or cells might separate from the rest, and, if they are still capable at that time, may become another human embryo, or more. This results in monozygotic twinning, triplets, etc. This results in identical twins (triplets, etc.)

Occasionally more than one oocyte might have been released into the fallopian tube and each might be fertilized by a sperm. This second oocyte could also be fertilized, causing fraternal twins, rather than identical twins, triplets, etc., as occurs with asexual, monozygotic twinning.

With modern reproductive technologies reproduction also takes place outside the womb, or ex-vivo. These are artificial reproduction methods which occur outside of the womb. These often occur in IVF processes and therapies and include blastomere separation, blastocyst splitting – resulting in twinning, and cloning techniques, such as Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) and Germ Line Cell Nuclear Transfer (GLCNT), etc.

In your question you ask if the human being is created at conception or at the formation of the embryo.

In Human Embryology, in sexual reproduction, the embryonic stages begins at conception-fertilization and continues till the end of the eighth week, Post Fertilization. That means that fertilization begins the embryonic stage and that marks the beginning of the new human being’s life. The single celled human embryonic zygote is the human embryo, the new human being. She or he does not become an human embryo at some time later, and she does not become a human being later, for she is a human embryo and a human being from the beginning. In other words, there is not a “precursor” or “pre-embryo” stage, no pre-embryo. There is the new human being who begins his or her life as a human embryonic zygote and continues to grow and develop in overlapping stages throughout the continuum of his or her life, with development which does not end at birth, but continues into adulthood, provided nothing and no one interferes with his or her life, provided no one kills him or her.

To reiterate, in asexual reproduction, in vivo, “twinning”, inside the mother’s body, during cell division some cells may separate from the rest of the embryo, and if they still have the potential, they could become another human embryo, the first embryo is a separate human being from the second. In other words, they are both separate human beings, they are not the same person.

By the way, I think Clinton’s an idiot most of the time, but in the last few weeks he decimated the “9/11 Truth” morons, AND he’s delivered a logical critique of these rabbit anti-choice protesters. So he’s certainly grown on me. I still think he’s a dishonest ass, and have nothing but animosity for his troll of a wife, but he’s certainly sounding a lot more logical these days than some of you are.

….well, you better hope that you’re better armed than me.

c6gunner on February 19, 2008 at 12:19 PM

Not really, we just need enough votes. . . . and that time is approaching.
Anyway, I have to say that watching that video and hearing the cheers of the crowd make me ashamed to be an Ohioan, but I’m sure they’re all Northern Ohioans and not Southern, or even Southeastern Ohioans like myself, who actually have some moral fortitude and don’t cave in to the socialist, child murdering left.

From that point onward, this new human being, first referred to, clinically, as a human embryo, contains all the genetic information, material, and instructions and programing she or he requires, to develop into adulthood. No other incident or event is required for him or her to complete her journey throughout the continuum of overlapping developmental changes that take place witting the womb, and which do not end at birth, but which continue into adulthood.

Are you saying that a human being is created at conception or at the formation of an embryo? Since a zygote may split into twins before forming embryos, is it possible to say that a fertilized egg, within a day of conception, is a unique human being? Wouldn’t that be arguing that twins are the same person?

Why is it that so many conservatives think it’s appropriate to force women to have children they may not be prepared for? I thought conservatives were supposed to believe in individual rights…

Enrique on February 18, 2008 at 3:53 PM

Where are you from that forces conception?

Wade on February 19, 2008 at 9:07 AM

That is an excellent question, “Wade!”

“Forces conception?”

Who does that, and where?

Why is it that so many conservatives think it’s appropriate to force women to have children they may not be prepared for? I thought conservatives were supposed to believe in individual rights…

Enrique on February 18, 2008 at 3:53 PM

Where are you from that forces conception?

Once a child is conceived, I believe wholeheartedly that regardless of the circumstances of the conception, the child is innocent and has a right to live. It deserves a chance

Wanderlust on February 19, 2008 at 2:58 AM

Yes, but why stop there? I’ve got plenty of sperm which are innocent and have a right to live! Don’t they deserve a chance? So if I go rape someone, well, that’s ok, I’m just giving my unborn children a chance to live!

c6gunner on February 19, 2008 at 6:45 AM

“c6gunner,”

Is that comment supposed to be funny?

Are you equating sperm with a living human organism, which is the human being, the human person, the human embryo and human fetus, which is living and developing inside his or her mother’s womb?

Sperm are not living human organisms. They are human, and they are human sex cells, but they are not an individual human organism.

If you take a sperm cell and place it inside a woman’s uterus, the sperm will deteriorate and be ejected from the womb. They won’t grow into another living human being and not continue to adulthood.

Also, the new human being inside the womb, the embryo – the stage (embryonic stages) which extends from conception-fertilization till the end of the eighth week, Post fertilization (PF), is a blend of the genetic material of the mother and fathers sperm and oocyte after the sperm has penetrated the zona pellucida of the woman’s oocyte and fertilization has taken place.

Human body cells, or Somatic Cells, are diploid cells, normally contain 46 chromosomes, as well as produce only human proteins, human enzymes, etc., (exceptions exists, such as 47 in cases of Downs Syndrome, and 45 in cases such as Turners Syndrome). The sperm, after undergoing gametogenesis, will contain 22 _ X or Y, a total of 23 Chromosomes, which means they are haploid cells, containing 1/2 the total number of chromosomes of the normal human being (46).

The woman’s oocyte, which have existed inside the female fetus as early as 1/2 way through her development inside the womb, at which point there are millions of oocyte, has also been undergoing gametogenesis, via oogenesis, which continues for decades, into adulthood. The oocytes, reduced to a few hundred thousand by the time a woman is able to reproduce, undergoes different stages of meiosis.

At the point that the sperm penetrates the zona pellucida, the protective “jacket” so to speak, on the outside of the oocyte, meiosis 2 is completed and the female’s sex gamete, her oocyte, like the sperm cell, is now a haploid cell as well. That means, the oocyte contains 23 chromosomes, 22 + X (X is the chromosome which produces a female baby, provided the male’s sperm delivers another X chromosome (undamaged). If the male delivers an intact, not damaged Y chromosome, the baby will be a boy).

Of we place the oocyte into the womb, or uterus, by itself, as the sperm, the oocyte will deteriorate and be ejected from the woman’s uterus and not develop into an adult human being.

Under the circumstances of sexual reproduction, which requires sexual intercourse and the fertilization of the female’s oocyte in the woman’s fallopian tube by the males sperm – compared to asexual reproduction, which does not require the sperm and ooctye, or sexual intercourse, as in monozygotic twinning, triplets, etc., in vivo, and artificial asexual reproduction, ex vivo (outside the womb), reproduction takes place, and a new human being’s life begins. From that point onward, this new human being, first referred to, clinically, as a human embryo, contains all the genetic information, material, and instructions and programing she or he requires, to develop into adulthood. No other incident or event is required for him or her to complete her journey throughout the continuum of overlapping developmental changes that take place witting the womb, and which do not end at birth, but which continue into adulthood.

The 23 (22 + X or Y) chromosomes of the male, and the 23 (22 + X) chromosome of the female unite, their genetic material fuses, and the new human being, now comprised of all 46 chromosomes, replete with DNA, RNA, human proteins, human enzymes, instructions, the works, now forms the new human being.

The sperm and the oocyte are not the same as the new human embryo, or the human fetus – the fetal stage extending from the ninth week, PF, till term/birth.

One, the human embryo and fetus, are living human organisms, fully members of the human race, while sperm and oocyte are human, but not living human organisms, not living human beings, not an embryo, not a fetus, not an infant, but human sex cells, or sex gametes, part of a human being.

An organism is a living thing which grows and develops, reacts and responds to stimuli, reproduces its own kind, and dies. The sperm does not do these things; the human being, the embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, adult, etc., do these things, and hence, there is a clear, discernible difference between sperm, oocyte, and a living human organism, a living human being.

Bottom line, sperm is not a living person, whereas a human embryo, a human fetus, and human infant, etc., are living human persons, living human beings.

Regarding your rape statement, that is crude, rude, and despicable!

If you rape someone, then you should be arrested, tried, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and, if and when found guilty, you should be sentenced with the most severe sentence the law provides!

In case you are going to bring it up, the baby should NOT be aborted. It was YOU who did the crime, not the baby. The baby should not be punished for your violence and abuse You aggressed against the woman, the mother, not the baby. If baby is killed by an abortionist, she becomes the second victim and the mother has extended your violent act upon an innocent victim, compounding your crime of violence and violation and abuse, upon an innocent.

c6gunner on February 19, 2008 at 6:45 AM

Call me when you find a sperm that develops into a human child on its own and bursts through your testicles.

As to your rape comment, that’s the kind of low-brow vileness that I expect from abortion supporters. It isn’t a big jump from destroying defenseless human lives for cash and a sense of power to wanting to inflict damage on those currently around you.

Pro-choicers: “Science? What is Science? Why should we worry about Science when we’re making so much f*^%ing money ignoring it?”

Once a child is conceived, I believe wholeheartedly that regardless of the circumstances of the conception, the child is innocent and has a right to live. It deserves a chance.

Yes, but why stop there? I’ve got plenty of sperm which are innocent and have a right to live! Don’t they deserve a chance? So if I go rape someone, well, that’s ok, I’m just giving my unborn children a chance to live!

Stop the murderous abortions and there will be no one to arrest.
40+ million murderous abortions since 1973, and the pedophile’s bloodlust is still not sated.

I’m glad my parents were pro-life when they had me. That’s all I have to say.

fourstringfuror on February 18, 2008 at 1:26 PM

Personally, I wish I could say the same thing as fourstringfuror said, but knowing the facts, I don’t believe I can.

I was born several years before, according to NARAL, abortion was “safe and legal”.

My father forced my mother to marry her, and (literally) threatened to kill anyone who intervened. She was 18, and he was 45. No one in her family knew her plight because he shadowed her every move, and they feared him.

As for birth control? He convinced her that if they had sex while standing up, she wouldn’t get pregnant. So you could say that I was the sperm that swam uphill.

Having become pregnant, she was tied to him more than ever, not having a way to support herself and a child on her own.

Can I honestly say that, if abortion were legal, she would have chose to abort me? No, but she would have had every incentive to want to do it, were it a choice she could have made.

So yes, this background and context colors my thinking. I have a daughter who is now 12. If she were raped, while I wouldn’t force her to keep the baby, I would get down on my knees and beg for her to give the innocent child in her womb a chance to live, and give a childless couple who want a baby a chance to have a family of their own.

Once a child is conceived, I believe wholeheartedly that regardless of the circumstances of the conception, the child is innocent and has a right to live. It deserves a chance.

For those who want to get wrapped up in “choices”, well, a woman chooses to recognize that she is fertile and if she has sex, she can conceive a new life inside her body. If she chooses to ignore that possibility, she has still made a “choice”.

And if she chooses to snuff out that innocent life growing inside of her body for whatever reason, she will one day have to stand before her Creator and deal with the consequences of that choice, and what comes of it.

Finally, I have to wonder: since 1973, how many people have been snuffed out of existence from sheer avoidance of inconvenience, who, had they been allowed to live, might have been the next Tesla, Einstein, Salk, Watson or Crick, Carver, Anthony, Armstrong, or Patton? How many gifted people have been sacrificed on the alter of convenience, whose lives could have made ours better, had they been afforded the chance to live?

Answer: Death.

If you think drugs only affect the user then I submit to you, you don’t know a single addict or spent a second of your life in the inner city.

TheBigOldDog on February 18, 2008 at 9:22 PM

Wrong on both counts. I’ve spent most of the last 20 years in Manhattan. Also, a few years ago I had a long-time friend, from high school, die from years of daily drug abuse. Over two decades friends and family intervened. He was in and out of rehab, but in the end he was pretty candid about what he was doing with his life and where it would lead.

He made choices. Those choices killed him. Steve Fossett made choices that were going to catch up and kill him. The decisions everyone makes affect their family and loved ones, but they, not the government, are the best to exercise that judgment.

Why is it that so many conservatives think it’s appropriate to force women to have children they may not be prepared for? I thought conservatives were supposed to believe in individual rights…

Enrique on February 18, 2008 at 3:53 PM

That is a flat out distortion of the facts!!!!!

Pro-life advocates do not force women to have babies, nor do pro-lifers/life choicers force women to have sex and become pregnant.

Pro-life advocates, or, more accurately “Life Choicers” or “Advocates for the end of butchering of innocent human babies as human embryos and human fetuses from being ripped and cut to pieces, or killed by other means by abortionists” don’t force women to have babies. Women willingly engage in sexual relations, which results in pregnancy. Men and women who procreate should protect and care for their baby, not kill her. They are responsible for the new human being’s life, and killing baby by abortion is not taking responsibility for their child, but it is the avoidance of responsibility, as well as lack of respect for the child’s life and rights and liberties.

You said “I thought conservatives were supposed to believe in individual rights… ”

Not all abortion opponents consider themselves “conservative.” Nevertheless, opposition to abortion IS the CLEAR, DEFINITIVE respect for individual rights.

In abortion, the killing of innocent human beings, a human being, the baby inside the womb, is killed. Both the mother and baby are living human beings. Mother, and society, should respect the life of the baby, not just her own life.

1) You are correct. Abortion should be illegal

2) Once abortion is illegal, abortionists who DO continue to perform abortions should be prosecuted, tried, and sentenced, but not just to jail. Time in jail for first degree murder varies from state to state. The sentence for first degree murder, which abortion would be if-when illegal – intentional, premeditated murder of innocent, defenseless human beings, are either life imprisonment or death. I agree with those sentences 100%, but I prefer the death penalty for abortionists once abortion is illegal, rather than life imprisonment.

Why do I prefer the death penalty for abortionists rather than life imprisonment once abortion is illegal? Because as long as they live, the stand a chance of being released from prison. If they are released they will most likely continue to commit the slaughter or human beings via abortion. They are already serial killers, hence it is not as if they commit one or two and that’s it. They commit hundreds to thousands of abortions.

In order to protect babies inside the womb, and society as a whole, from the bane which is abortion – the wanton killing of innocent, defenseless human beings, it is necessary to remove from society any and all those who would perpetrate such a barbaric practice.

Also, the women who hire the abortionist should also be tried, sentenced, and prosecuted. Before sentence should be handed down, such concerns as mens rea, and scienter must be decided.

3) William the thug-liar-woman abusers-rapist-civil rights violator-perjuror Jefferson Clinton is probably correct in his claim that there would be little to no political-legal support for illegalizing abortion and prosecuting abortionists and women who hire abortionists as assassins-hit men to slaughter their own babies, although all legal and political influence SHOULD agree to illegalizing and prosecute abortionists and the women who hire them as killers of their offspring.

Politicians, etc., tend to be weak willed and will favor their own personal, selfish concerns, and the baby inside the womb of a woman is “out of site; out of mind” and is not afforded or considered seriously deserving of the same rights as a person like themselves. Furthermore, with a skewed, distorted sense of value, euthanasia, “personhood,” abortion, HESCR (Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research), Cloning, etc., are all issues which many self absorbed individuals think favors THEM. They don’t want to admit, and live by, criteria that would see them siding with respect for living human beings, even those inside the womb, when they can benefit from exploiting them and making life more “convenient” for themselves.

4) And this could actually be listed as Number 1: A living human being is killed via abortion, not some nonliving, non-human piece of tissue, or item that just “happens” to be inside mother’s womb. That alone should be something our entire society respects and protects, but our society has distorted ideas and practices which contribute to ignorance and abuses perpetrated on our weak, our small, our handicapped, our injured, our elderly, which results in millions of abortions, euthanasia, exploitation in experiments in the lab, and so on.

5) William Jefferson Clinton has proven himself to be devoid of values, ethics, and concern for respect for human life, hence, although people listen to him, it says more about their own lack of ethics, respect for living human beings, mores, etc., than it says about Clinton’s authenticity as an advocate for abortion of innocent human beings.

As to all the discussion about jailing women, I just wonder how we handled it when abortions were actually illegal prior to Roe v. Wade. Abortions have only been legally and socially permissible for a short time in the history of the US. Were there significant numbers of women jailed?

You can have as much freedom as you want as long as you don’t sell illegal drugs.

You can have as much freedom as you want as long as you don’t read illegal books. In some circumstances the laws are not on the side of freedom.

Your other examples address a case where rights are in conflict (including abortion). In the case of drugs the government is telling people what to do with their body & mind. Might be good public policy but it isn’t freedom.

dedalus on February 18, 2008 at 6:00 PM

If you think drugs only affect the user then I submit to you, you don’t know a single addict or spent a second of your life in the inner city.

Who cares what economic “conservatives” think. These are the same people that tell us to forget our values.
kongzilla on February 18, 2008 at 7:13 PM

Regan cared, and they were an important part of his coalition. Before that, free market conservatism was important to William F. Buckley. My point above was in response to the assertion that life beginning at conception is fundamental to conservative thinking.

At least he did, until he decided to kill more babies ……

He’s just losing it because he had to lockup the Clenis for the campaign.

ronsfi on February 18, 2008 at 1:25 PM

Last one to see Billy Jeff this testy was Monica..

Wade on February 18, 2008 at 4:51 PM

Heh. Yeah, BJ is suffering from SOS (Semen Overload Syndrome).