posted July 11, 2014 11:31 AM            

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

posted July 21, 2014 12:09 PM            

If we are simply talking, then let's talk simply. Since there is no credit given to a post that has the "Princeton" name on it, how much credit, then, should we afford a simple statement made by you?

The debate over when life begins has lately turned less philosophical and more euphemistic. Its sole aim seems to be to assuage our collective conscience by taking death out of the equation; an argument that is, by all measures of accurate calculations, obtuse.

Take life out of the equation and, magically, death shall disappear. The forces behind this strategy are quite cunning really. They know something that you seem not to know, Acoustic: that life and death are indivisible.

"False starts" occur in nature, surely, though I have no way of validating how often it occurs. A "false start", however, cannot occur without the zygote dying. Namely, "false start" refers to the process of death in a zygote. Now, if death is taking place in "false starts", I wonder what it is that death might be taking? Said in another way, even if a zygote has “falsely” started, what is it that has started nonetheless? Care to guess?

That a zygote has life is so obvious that two new words manifested to address the nature of this issue: viable and nonviable. As far as modern science goes, no, a zygote cannot live on its own if taken from its environment. This makes the organism nonviable. It does not make it lifeless. Let's say a sapling is uprooted by a bird and the wind blows it onto the hood of your car. In all likelihood, that plant will die. Saying that the tree it could have become has had a "false start" does not mean the sapling was not alive.

Before any conclusions are made about me, I just want to reveal that I believe women should have the right to choose to undergo any medical procedures available that may be critical to their health and well-being. I also believe we should speak truthfully and not sweep certain facts under the rug so that we can justify our actions. The process and meaning of an abortion should be fully disclosed before a woman makes her decision; a decision that initiates the process of death. I believe such a decision has consequences that should not be taken lightly.

posted July 23, 2014 02:04 AM            

The vast majority of those who oppose women's right to birth control appear to be men. It also appears that most men have no idea how women's bodies work or how birth control actually works. It seems incredibly unjust and sexist that men (I believe 7 out of the 9 judges presiding over the ruling were men) have so much control over women's bodies and what healthcare options women are able to access.

Birth control actually has many uses outside of preventing pregnancy. Women's bodies are particularly sensitive to hormonal imbalances, which can result in cystic acne, PCOS (polycystic ovary syndrome) endometriosis, amenorrhea, severe PMS symptoms (that can cause depression symptoms, intense cramping and pain, and anemia) and other hormonal-related medical conditions. Hormonal birth control can treat many of these health conditions by balancing the body's estrogen production. A recent study also showed that the majority of American women who take contraceptives use them to treat medical conditions.
(source: http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/11/15/)

Birth control is also used to prevent pregnancy. Many women have health conditions, either physical, mental, or emotional, that would make pregnancy and motherhood incredibly difficult, or result in the child being at high risk of hereditary illnesses. Other women are impoverished or in debt and can not afford to have children. Other women simply don't want to be mothers. It is not fair to force motherhood upon anyone. Forcing motherhood upon women strips them of their basic right to bodily autonomy.

Very few women become pregnant out of simple carelessness. Unplanned pregnancy can result from rape, malfunctioning birth control (no birth control method is 100% effective), and a lack of sex education. For instance, teen pregnancies are highest in areas where sex education isn't taught and abstinence is encouraged. Sex education and easy access to free or inexpensive birth control are essential to prevent unwanted pregnancies and teen pregnancies.

Teens and young, unattached women who become pregnant are at a much greater risk of living in poverty. The number of abortions performed annually substantially decrease when women are given free or inexpensive birth control. Areas with lower birth rates host better educated, higher-achieving women, which results in less poverty and greater affluence, which in turn benefits the economy. Thus, everyone, not just women, benefits when women are able to exercise their right to bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom.

The morning after pill (Plan B) is also not an "abortion pill." Once again, men do not understand how women's bodies work. The egg has not yet been fertilized when Plan B is taken. What Plan B does is it kills the sperm before it can fertilize the egg. Again, this is beneficial because it prevents unwanted pregnancy, which results in fewer abortions. Plan B is also never used as a regular form of birth control, because it is not as effective as traditional birth control and it has side-effects that result in nausea, vomiting, and other flu-like symptoms that result in the pill being a last resort for women who are victims of rape and women who experience traditional birth control failure (i.e. condom breakage). Regarding abortions, it is always a woman's right to choose if she wants to gestate a baby within her body. It's important to note that abortions are incredibly invasive procedures that are painful, both physically and emotionally. That so many men seem to believe that women regularly have abortions and would choose abortion over traditional forms of birth control shows how little understanding they have about women's healthcare and women's bodies. Abortions are chosen by women in emergency situations, and those emergency situations are greatly reduced when women are provided with birth control.

With regard to the idea of "religious freedom," everyone has the right to their personal belief system. That similarly means that one cannot force their beliefs upon others. To deny someone medication or medical care because the medication or procedure they need conflicts with your belief system means that you are forcing your personal views upon that person. If the government, businesses, and medical professionals are allowed to enforce their personal religious beliefs upon others, then the society moves from a true democracy to a non-secular state. America cannot in truth call itself a free country and a democracy while enforcing religious views that result in half the population losing their right to bodily autonomy, a right which under the U.N. Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an essential part of a democratic society.

posted July 23, 2014 11:53 AM            

Only an "extremist" would attempt to insert that nonsense into the Hobby Lobby decision.

The argument that Americans who own businesses must waive their 1st Amendment rights to religious liberty was struck down by the US Supreme Court. The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 were upheld by the Court.

Hmmm, I'm a Scorpio Rising Leo.

shura, perhaps I gave you credit for being intelligent enough to already know the answer to your question. You do like to stir the pot though.

Two simple explanations for Natal charts being based on time of BIRTH as opposed to time of CONCEPTION.

Btw, I'm a seasoned citizen...but not seasoned enough to have been present when the basic concepts of astrology were formulated so these explanations are theoretical.

1. The ancients had no means to determine the exact moment of conception.

2. Immediately at the moment of conception, the life/baby was shielded from the planetary energies by the electrical energy field of the mother. At birth, the baby was exposed for the first time to planetary energies. While they couldn't have proved the existence of energy fields, planetary or human, they could have deduced they existed and extrapolated to the concept the baby was shielded from planetary energies by the mother. What is astrology if it's not the concept planets produce energies which affect humans. Planets, including the sun producing energies which...depending on their position in the heavens and the nature of those energies at the time of birth?

posted July 23, 2014 04:11 PM            

NosiS, while your post is directed at me, I see no real point in answering it. You clearly wanted to opine, and I'll let you. I think we both know the biology involved in sexual reproduction. I don't believe I swept any pertinent facts under the rug. You wish to state that the possibility of viable life constitutes life. Ok, so now let's zoom out on the mother whose life may become less viable with the presence of children (in fact the viability of all lives involved may be threatened). Then what? Force motherhood? Sacrifice one life because the possibility of another exists? Maybe we should create a world that's better designed for life, and in the meantime understand the coping mechanisms in place are in place for a reason.

quote:

---

Birth control actually has many uses outside of preventing pregnancy. Women's bodies are particularly sensitive to hormonal imbalances, which can result in cystic acne, PCOS (polycystic ovary syndrome) endometriosis, amenorrhea, severe PMS symptoms (that can cause depression symptoms, intense cramping and pain, and anemia) and other hormonal-related medical conditions. Hormonal birth control can treat many of these health conditions by balancing the body's estrogen production. A recent study also showed that the majority of American women who take contraceptives use them to treat medical conditions.
(source: ]http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/11/15/)

---

Indeed.

quote:

---

Birth control is also used to prevent pregnancy. Many women have health conditions, either physical, mental, or emotional, that would make pregnancy and motherhood incredibly difficult, or result in the child being at high risk of hereditary illnesses. Other women are impoverished or in debt and can not afford to have children. Other women simply don't want to be mothers. It is not fair to force motherhood upon anyone. Forcing motherhood upon women strips them of their basic right to bodily autonomy.

---

Perhaps I didn't need to respond at all.

quote:

---

The morning after pill (Plan B) is also not an "abortion pill." Once again, men do not understand how women's bodies work. The egg has not yet been fertilized when Plan B is taken. What Plan B does is it kills the sperm before it can fertilize the egg. Again, this is beneficial because it prevents unwanted pregnancy, which results in fewer abortions.

---

A truth that is completely lost on people that supported the Supreme Court decision. If the egg is implanted (which is the moment of legal impregnation in our country), Plan B won't dislodge it.

quote:

---

That similarly means that one cannot force their beliefs upon others. To deny someone medication or medical care because the medication or procedure they need conflicts with your belief system means that you are forcing your personal views upon that person. If the government, businesses, and medical professionals are allowed to make their religious beliefs law, then the society moves from a true democracy to a non-secularist state.

---

posted July 28, 2014 04:00 PM            

Before you smear the intellectual abilities of millions of people . . .

Before you accuse an entire country of injustice and sexist behavior . . .

Before you speak about forcing others to our personal views while spewing out what is none other than a dogmatic, aberrant interpretation of certain data from scientific research . . .

You might want to make sure that your horse is actually high enough to be a horse and not an a$$.

Have you ever even read one study involving the use of Plan B/Levenorgestrel? If you had, I don’t think you would be touting Plan B as a spermicide. When administered continuously, levenorgestrel can negatively affect the conditions in which larger numbers of spermatozoa can survive, but enough of them can still live to cause fertilization.
No, the drug is not a spermicide. The consensus of the medical community at the moment is that it inhibits or delays ovulation, but it must be admitted that this is all based purely on a hypothesis supported by inconclusive evidence and insufficient studies. In other words, anyone stating that Plan B is not an abortifacient is only placing their thinking at the feet of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics when it stated that inhibiting or delaying ovulation is most likely the only mechanism of action of Plan B.

Someone’s forcing their personal views all right, but it ain’t me!

posted July 28, 2014 07:08 PM            

Seems its all a matter of whom you believe ie where you put your faIth.

Which is the real issue. How far can the govt/boss/neighbour go in exercising their beliefs when those beliefs affect others?

posted July 29, 2014 10:45 AM            

quote:

---

A truth that is completely lost on people that supported the Supreme Court decision. If the egg is implanted (which is the moment of legal impregnation in our country), Plan B won't dislodge it.

---

It is true! Thou art a god!
Or you pretend to be one, at least. Please, tell me more about this smoking gun truth that is completely lost on me. Where did it come from and how has it not been blaring from the minarets of orthodox science?

Let me guess . . . are you referring to the two studies involving artificial endometrial constructs that have left some serious questions unanswered? The Lalitkumar study has raised considerable objections about not being adequately designed to show the effects of Plan B in vivo. Both the Lalitkumar study and the Meng study on the effects of Plan B on endometrial receptivity administer the drug after ovulation, when it causes little to no endometrial changes. Plenty of data exists, on the other hand, showing significant endometrial effects when Plan B is administered before ovulation, specifically in regards to the suppression and even premature deterioration of the corpus luteum.

Like I said before, if you want to tout the “conclusive” lack of abortifacient mechanisms in Plan B, at least have the capacity to acknowledge those driving the bandwagon: The International Consortium for Emergency Contraceptives and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
It’s funny that with all the complaints liberals have about religious people and their organizations, an unbiased observation shows that they exhibit the exact behavior which so disgusts them. At least with the ICEC and IFGO, they acknowledge certain limitations in their statement:

quote:

---

A number of studies provide strong direct evidence that LNG ECPs prevent or delay ovulation. If taken before ovulation, LNG ECPs inhibit the pre-ovulatory luteinizing hormone (LH) surge, impeding follicular development and maturation and/or the release of the egg itself. This is the primary and possibly the only mechanism of action for LNG ECPs.

---

quote:

---

EC cannot interrupt an established pregnancy or harm a developing embryo.

---

As you've mentioned, yeah, they get away with that one because the legal definition of pregnancy starts at the implantation of the blastocyst. A fertilized ovum that has not implanted yet? Well, the woman isn’t technically pregnant, of course!

Can you actually look at what's going on and not be, at the least, somewhat curious at the tenacious nature of the forces involved in this philosophical war, specifically those unrelenting forces aimed at redefining the concept of abortion?

There is some serious cunning at work here setting up a massive operation, that is certain.

posted July 29, 2014 08:43 PM            

I guess I have been letting out a little steam lately.

I try to stay out of things but sometimes you just gotta take the camel to the chiropractor.

posted July 30, 2014 02:34 PM            

Life begins when__.

That is very subjective and each individual needs to define that moment for themselves. It is not dictated by any religion, political party or ones peers.

That said off the rail, birth control should never be a political issue , period.
It should be treated as any prescription and left to the individual, not their Company or insurance. Use it or not but leave it out of big brothers pocket.

Obamacare sucks either way you cut it and instead of getting better....it just gets worse and worse

posted August 04, 2014 02:50 PM            

Hi, Randall! Good to see you too, bud. I should confess that it was a relief to see that I am not listed as a moderator anymore. I've become a father since late last year and my world has been turned upside down. Any responsibilities taken off my plate are most welcome!

Hi, juni!

It's good to see you, too. You are so sweet to think of us.

I believe an objective truth exists to the question of life's initiation, but that can often turn into a different conversation altogether.

I do agree that this needs to stop being a political issue and that the decision should be left to the individual. I guess the point I get so worked up about is that, in regards to abortifacients in particular, the issues involved seem to be glossed over or under-emphasized by a sizeable portion of our population and create a social current. This social current is the spiritual mechanism by which we find over a million abortions performed every year in our country, ever since 1975.

I believe there are things that can be done to fight against the inimical forces involved in this spiritual current, manifesting from what I believe to be spiritual warfare. I sincerely hope that by addressing ignorance, the kind that exists in regards to the issues involved in abortifacient methods, one might actually allow a fair amount of women to see things differently. Let me clarify that I don't believe every woman who has an abortion is ignorant of the issues. But even if one woman is impacted by the existing knowledge, then the effort is well worth it.

Just typing out my thoughts . . .