Not every abortion kills a baby.
It's possible to abort a zygote.
A zygote is not a baby; for a human baby is a multi-cellular organism.
A zygote is but a single cell; and is thus not a baby.

Two statements of fact.
Two factual errors.

Goin' for a record here Jefferson?

Gulp, Gulp, Gulp...


Tell me, how does the Planned Parenthood & NARAL Propaganda taste - as you gulp it down?

You want proof that an unborn baby exists from conception. Okay folks, time for some Biology 101.

The accepted scientific theory regarding DNA is that every individual's DNA is unique, except in cases for identical twins. DNA is comprised of the 23 chromosome pairs that make up a persons genetic information. In other words there are 46 chromosomes.

Now in vitro how does a person get these 46 chromosomes. Well a female ovum (egg) contains 23 chromosomes. The male sperm contains 23 chromosomes. These chromosomes join together to form the 23 pair of chromosomes. Thus a fertilized egg or embryo now has 46 chromosomes. While these chromosomes contain elements that have been contributed by both the mother and the father, they are unique from both parents. Ahgast.....we have genetic information that is different from both the mother and father, something that is unique. A new human life.

The first thing you learn in biology is what is life. The most simple definition is life is that which we recognize as such. Well an embryo consist of unique genetic information that makes it different from the mother and father. It contains the very building blocks the will make the person a person.

A far as the debate about dandruff. Well dandruff is dead skin cells. The key word being dead. Is is human, yes and no. It is a skin cell from a human, but it is not recognized as a human. An embryo is human. The word embryo means an organism in its earliest stage of development and life. Damn there is that word again, LIFE.

Time and time again we hear a call for a rationale argument opposing abortion that is not based upon beliefs. Since no one wants anyone to impose their "religious beliefs" on someone else.

So......how does one argue that abortion is unconsitutional.

Our government is a republic, formed for the people, by the people and of the people. That is perhaps our most basic governmental premise. Individuals who form governments do so by accepting a belief in a social contract. The social contract accepted by our government in our founding was influence by John Locke and Edmund Burke. Both believed that the basic premise of the social contract was established between the living, the dead, and the yet-to-be born. In accepting a social contract, individuals sacrifice true liberty, for liberty that secures the most. Meaning, that we sacrifice the right to do certain things so that we can have a society that is safe and secure and provides the most freedom to the most people.

Our constitution is the law of the land. All other laws that are enacted by the legislative branch or by the people must be in accords with the constitution. Those laws that are not, are thus null and void. This is the social contract that we as citizens of the United States accept.

Current law concerning abortion relies upon the interpretation of the constitution that under the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause, that under liberty exists the right of privacy. Under that right the decision for a woman to have an abortion is secured. While no right to privacy is explicit in the constitution, under the penumbras that exist the right is implied. Whether this interpretation is correct is for legal scholars to decide. For an originalist interpretation of the consitution it is not, for a proponent of a living consitution this interpretation is correct. But again this is a debate for scholars.....

However, my goal is to establish a constitutional argument against abortion that is not based upon religious beliefs and instead on the constitution.

Since the New Deal and the Great Society programs of the 1930's and 1960's respectively we have seen the legislative branch of government enact programs to promote the general welfare. After some resistance by the Court, this practice has become accepted policy and a function of government. So where does the idea of the general welfare come from??? Well it is in the constitution. Since it is, therefore it is part of the law of the land, that has been accepted by the social contract. Since, the courts have upheld programs and laws enacted under this philosophy therefore it must be constitutional. Since the promoting of the general welfare is constitutional, therefore we must assume where it is explicit in our consititution must be the law of the land.

So where do we find the general welfare??? In the preamble of the Consitution.

The preamble clearly provides that it is our responsibility to secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity. Posterity means future generations, in other words, those yet to be born. Clearly if promoting the general welfare is established law of the land, then, liberty must also apply to those yet to be born. The most fundamental of all liberties is the right to life. Therefore, under the Constitution of the United States abortion should be prohibited.

Now I have provided a rationale argument against abortion that is not based upon my personal beliefs, nor my religious beliefs, but rather on the Constitution.

dmk

Actually, there is no such thing as "unique" DNA for the vast majority of muti-celled organisms...at least not in the sense that you use this word to (supposedly) defend your implied conclusion that, because of this DNA (or genetic) uniqueness, the unborn aught to be legally protected. And, the reasoning behind there being a lack of uniqueness of DNA, for an organism as a whole, is based on some very well established biological observations.

As a matter of fact, there are numerous external mechanisms and some imperfect biological processes that can-and really always do-lead to mutations in every single multi-celled organism's genetic code during an organism's existence. And, a combination of genetic mutations that occur in a particular cell lineage in one part of an organism's body might not be-and usually isn't-the same as the combination of genetic mutations that occur in another particular cell lineage in another part of that same organism's body. So, even within a single multi-celled organism's body, it is, quite literally, impossible for there to be a "unique" genetic code for that organism as a whole…at least not in the sense that you use this term.

Read on:

“An estimated 10^16 cell divisions take place in a normal human body in the course of a lifetime… Even in the environment that is free of mutagens, mutations will occur spontaneously at an estimated rate of about 10^-6 mutations per gene per cell division-a value set by fundamental limitations on the accuracy of DNA replication and repair. Thus, in a lifetime, every single gene is likely to have undergone mutation on about 10^10 separate occasions in any individual human being…”

In fact, “in a human body with more than 10^14 cells, billions of cells experience mutations every day…”

“Molecular Biology of the Cell”, Alberts et al.

Mutations can even occur-and at a higher frequency than for adult humans they are likely *to* occur-during the first few mitotic divisions of a just-fertilized human egg. So, even within a two-celled human zygote there is a possibility that those two cells do not have identical DNA…and, therefore, there would not be a “unique” DNA for that zygote as a whole.

(Even single human germ cells are all, genetically speaking, unique…much like a single fertilized egg. But, of course, that uniqueness is ultimately lost due to mutations after divisions begin to occur after fertilization.)

So, since DNA is pretty much always different throughout the bodies of the vast majority of muticelled organisms (include humans), I’d say that your (supposedly) “unique DNA (or genetic) conclusion” for an organism as a whole as being an implied reason for legally protecting the unborn really doesn’t hold up very well when it’s confronted with actual biological observations. In essence, it's a very weak argument, in my opinion.

(Any definition of “life” is ultimately bound to be subjective since humans must decide which characteristics must exist in something in question in order for it to be called “life.” “Defining” life, and then using that definition in order to see of something *is* life, is the subjective equivalent of saying X equals Y and Z…so, if we find Y and Z, it must equal X. But, an unbiased observer would, in order to remain objective, have question why Y and Z were chosen to equal X in the first place. Why shouldn’t A and B equal X, instead? And, scientists really don’t care what some term just happens to mean in our language. They care about observing and understanding the nature of things.)


Ok. But then, why stop there…at the yet to be born (and already born)?

There is substantial evidence to support the hypothesis that unfertilized human eggs can hold just as much potential for viable human life as fertilized eggs do…through induced parthenogenesis. And, there is even more evidence to support the hypothesis that humans can be cloned. Once these techniques progress to the point where we can realize the potential of unfertilized human eggs and the genetic code within undifferentiated cells, and I don’t think we are very far off from doing either, I think both of these precursors of potentially viable human life would have to be legally protected, in order to remain consistent, if a just-fertilized human egg is to be protected based solely on its potential.

(And, similarly, just like with the term “life,” the terms “human” and “human being”-and even the term “person”-are ultimately subjective for the same reason that the term “life” is ultimately subjective.)

In what the poster had said I was wondering if one gets a blood transfusion or a transplant does that make them into another person or at the very least a hybrid of presons? After personhood in his argument is pruely based on self contained DNA.

Please show me where 1 human who has ever asked to be born.

I don't understand how someone can make this assertion. Abortion is no more strictly a "gender issue" than murder of one's wife is a "spousal issue."

I actually believe it is and issue of choice. The choice begins when one copulates. One decides to use a condom or birth control or one does not. If pregnancy occurs one has a choice to abort the pregnancy right away, or wait until it's become a living baby.

I don't have the all answers on this issue. My personal opinion is that a women should have the choice to abort within the first trimester. Is this a magical threshold? Maybe it is, maybe not....but it's some logical place to draw a line. When you go past that line, you get into a living human being and, then, it's no longer just about you. It's then about another life. Why would that be a big problem?

We, as a society, have made these kinds judgments for many years. We make these judgments to protect those who cannot protect themselves. This is not just a gender issue, or an issue of "choice" as the so-called progressives so eloquently try to argue. This is an issue that affects society as a whole and it goes to how we decide to live our lives and maintain our culture.

I'm disgusted that so-called pro-choice groups have evolved to a point where they place most of their effort and energy toward telling the world that abortion is nobody's business but the pregnant women's, and less and less energy toward promoting preventing pregnancy in the first place.... and offering support to women who do get pregnant in making other healthier choices, like adoption. These so-called feminists are nothing but Nazi's in my opinion, who are more concerned with bullying the world into accepting their position than they are in actually doing what's right and moral.

1) You proved my point by simply responding to my post. Abortion is an issue in the U.S.A. 2) Then you spew your own opinion and personal judgement that nobody really cares about.

Uh... Billy, that is what people generally do in a political debate forum.

If you don't like it, I suggest you find something else to do with your time.

Here's a novel idea, if you don't care about other people's opinion and personal judgement, then don't post........

By posting you provide us with your opinion and personal judgement, either welcome others, or just sit there and keep you mouth shut.

dmk