NationStates Jolt Archive

I often wonder why people start a topic to debate when clearly they have no intention of changing their position, no matter what argument is presented.

and by not making pedophilia legal we are encouraging kidnapping.
Just because there are unwanted circumstances to the illegalization of something doesn't mean it should be legal

your sperm cells are not alive.

# Living things are made of cells.
# Living things obtain and use energy.
# Living things grow and develop.
# Living things reproduce.
# Living things respond to their environment.
# Living things adapt to their environment.

sperm and egg alone do not fit these criteria, together they do.


So for something to be living there must be more than one cell according to your ludicrous hypotheses. This excludes single cell organisms from your definition of alive.

Further this is not a valid anti-choice argument, unless all of the anti-choicers stop eating meat as by your definitions blastocytes are just as a alive as cows

I have heard every ludicrous argument you care to name...

Here I shall dismantle some pro-choice arguments and pro-life arguments...

Q.Toenails have more cells than an early term foetus...am I not allowed to cut them because that would be killing?

A. Toenails rarely if ever turn into people ;P

Q. It can't speak or comunicate or feel pain can it?

A. Well there are many deaf, mute and people without other sensory perception are they no longer people, should we kill all of them.

Q. It's a woman's body she should control it

A. No it's a separate body that resides within the woman

No for the ludicrous pro-life arguments.

Q. It's a soul isn't it?

A. Well, not too sure, when this nebulus soul enters the blastocyst, is there a magic soul portal or is there half a soul in the sperm and the egg, what about the frozen embryos are they soulsickles?

Q. Women who get themselves knocked up should take responsibility.

A. Sorry babs, but immaculate conception doesn't actually happen there is usually cock involved at some point. Secondly it is far more responsible to abort than leave it in a gutter or bring it up in an abusive house.

I am anti-abortion but strongly pro-choice, i.e. I wouldn't have an abortion personally well, I don't have a **** so prolly will never have to but stopping some one else based on my wacky religion and or ridiculous neo-con politics, lordy loo

NEVER

Again, complete lack of understanding of biology. The only reason the mother's body does not attack the emrbyo is that the embryo (and moreso the placenta, once it is formed) gives off chemicals that prevent it from doing so. Interestingly enough, some bacteria do this as well. Anthrax is an example of a bacteria that gives off cytokines so that the body does not attack it at first. It is only when the anthrax have multiplied to the point that, even with their "blockers", the body cannot ignore them that the immune system begins to attack them.

Actually, the first response to a pregancy via hormones is by the mother's body (about three weeks after her last period [if a pregnancy is occurring]) comes at the time of implantation of the cystoblast, the first response to that event is the mother's body releases an immunosuppressant protein called Early Pregnancy Factor (EPF) to prevent her body from seeing the baby as an invader and then her body's hormones goes into full production (thus making urine pregnancy tests possible about a week later) pumping out massive amounts of the pregnancy hormone, hCG, (which shows up in her urine). The baby's system wont take over hormone production for the pregnancy until about the 12th week when the placenta is fully developed.


Obviously you are mistaken and/or overemphasizing the play-on-words usage of the description of 'parasite' to try and gain a point in the debate. The Mother's body most definitely 'tries' to make a place suitable for the child and her body tries to produce what is needed so that the baby develops properly, you disseminate a non-truth to say otherwise, to pretend that the pre-born is like a parasite that simply tries to get the mother’s body to ignore it’s presence. It’s not true, the mother's body a full partner and a compiant participant in the act, thus, the evidence doesn’t serve your suggestion that her body is simply being attacked.

At the end of the day, a choice must still be made and hard questions need to be answered. Can you make it through the pregnancy? Can you give birth to this baby? Can you provide for the child it will become? If not, can you kill this baby?

Having been faced with these questions (due to medical reasons) I can tell you right now, I wouldn't want someone else making the choice for me. I wouldn't want to have to make that choice for someone else. I can't be responsible for someone else's baby, or someone else's murder of that baby. I quite simply do not feel it is my decision to make.

I'm sorry if that's not logical enough, but it's the only argument I have.

Actually, the first response to a pregancy via hormones is by the mother's body (about three weeks after her last period [if a pregnancy is occurring]) comes at the time of implantation of the cystoblast, the first response to that event is the mother's body releases an immunosuppressant protein called Early Pregnancy Factor (EPF) to prevent her body from seeing the baby as an invader and then her body's hormones goes into full production (thus making urine pregnancy tests possible about a week later) pumping out massive amounts of the pregnancy hormone, hCG, (which shows up in her urine). The baby's system wont take over hormone production for the pregnancy until about the 12th week when the placenta is fully developed.


Obviously you are mistaken and/or overemphasizing the play-on-words usage of the description of 'parasite' to try and gain a point in the debate. The Mother's body most definitely 'tries' to make a place suitable for the child and her body tries to produce what is needed so that the baby develops properly, you disseminate a non-truth to say otherwise, to pretend that the pre-born is like a parasite that simply tries to get the mother’s body to ignore it’s presence. It’s not true, the mother's body a full partner and a compiant participant in the act, thus, the evidence doesn’t serve your suggestion that her body is simply being attacked.


The fact that the mother's body needs to react that drastically to suppress its normal reactions in the first place is pretty good evidence that the pre-born would under normal circumstances be regarded as an intruder and a parasite and would be disposed of.

Your link said that the cloned embryo is not a cell line, not that the woman being cloned is not the mother.

You realize what you just said, right? You just said, "This is true because my argument doesn't work otherwise."

No, I said it because it makes sense. If you are thinking about a mother in terms of biology, then it is the entity from which half your DNA comes from. Clearly someone with the same DNA as you is not a mother because that DNA was not created by them. It is their own but they did not create it. If you define your mother as the woman whose egg was fertialised and then created your DNA means that the clone's mother is the same as the mother of the person being cloned.

The clone, on this view, has only one biological parent. On the other hand, from the point of view of genetics, the clone is a sibling, so that cloning is more accurately described as "delayed twinning" rather than as asexual reproduction

The fact that the mother's body needs to react that drastically to suppress its normal reactions in the first place is pretty good evidence that the pre-born would under normal circumstances be regarded as an intruder and a parasite and would be disposed of.

No it isnt. The body reacts with hormones that are specificly designed to deal with the embryo as Ph33rdom points out. Rather than saying "Well it looks like it is so it is" why not actually engage Ph33rdom's point. Which is that the hormones and other conditions specificly generated for the embryo's suvival is indcative that the body does not view it as an intruder.

Hmm, apparently your source is not aware that all twinning does not occur by mitosis. Twinning can occur up to day 12. (It can actually occur after day 12, but conjoined tiwns then usually occur).

And if your source is not aware that twins do not always (or even usually) occur by mitosis, what else is it unaware of?

Could you make it anymore obvious you are making a strawman, one mistake thus the entire thing is mistaken. Please :rolleyes:

Ok, look. These two statements are clearly contradictory. And they are on the same exact page!

You really need to have a clear argument before you start to try.

No it doesnt, look at it in more detail. If the someone is cloned, then they did not create the DNA sequence that is in that nuclus. That DNA sequence was created by the fusion of the person who is being cloned's mother and fathers gammetes.

The fact that the mother's body needs to react that drastically to suppress its normal reactions in the first place is pretty good evidence that the pre-born would under normal circumstances be regarded as an intruder and a parasite and would be disposed of.

The mother's body doesn't 'need' to respond favorably to the implantation of the cystoblast, in fact, if the mother is in too bad a condition her body will reject the pregnancy. However, the mother's body 'normally' does everything it can to accommodate the pregnancy and only terminates the growth of the embryo IF the child dies or is somehow not responding properly to the mother’s impetus (but not even then does the mother’s body always reject it).

The 'invasion' scenario/analogy is misplaced. The Mother's body instinctively acts more like a welcoming parent receiving an unexpected visit from their relative by putting out all their best dishing and doing everything she can to make them welcome...

Usually their own damn fault. Women who get pregnant should take responsibility for their situation instead of killing their unborn child as an easy way out.
Ok Here I go .First of all its not just the woman who needs to be responsible.If men would think about more than just gettin a nut then maybe there would be less unwanted children.Im not for abortion at all i think from the moment of conception there Is LIFE.So on that i must agree,but dont lay all on the woman.

Human's variate a great deal, but they can still be shown to be observably within a single speices. That is what species clasification is for. To take a group of animals which themsleves are varied but share enough simmilaries to warrant being a spieces


The word is 'vary', I think.

If you are going to allow that human DNA has such a wide variation, what is the point of the phrase 'distinctly homosapiens DNA'? Surely, these two conditions cannot both be entirely true.


The clone arguement has already been rebutted. Clones are included because they have distinctly diffrent DNA to the biological mother.


You have yet to successfully rebut ANY arguments, much less the clone one.

And what is this? A clone has a different DNA structure to it's biological mother? What is the biological mother? I assume you mean the one who carried the foetus to term.... but, what if the 'biological' mother IS the 'genetic' mother? Then, both clone and 'mother' will have the same base DNA, no?


The embryo does not have to be indepent to be able to exist of itself. A parasite exists of itself but it still takes benefical nutrients etc from the host organism. By your logic parasites are not organisms when the have a host


Read it again. You are boring me, now.

A foetus cannot exist without the placenta... thus, a foetus is only HALF of an individual 'existing' organism.


The DNA provides the guidelines as to how the life form should develop

And, if it doesn't follow the rigid pattern (as in, for example, a cancer patient) YOUR logic claims 'non-human' status.

No, they would all be humans because they all have diffrent DNA to the biological mother. In the case of parthongenic reprodcution the biological mother is the mother of the woman who has the baby who has been partogenicaly concieved child. The reason being that it is she who gave her half her DNA.

For god's sake, Avalon...

Where are you getting this 'half her DNA' tripe?

Are you ignoring the fact that EVERY daughter the first parthenogenetic 'mother' had, would have her SAME DNA?

And, every daughter THEY had, would have the SAME DNA again?

Are you seriously claiming that, 9000 years later, the great-great-grandaughter 300 times removed, is STILL 'just the daughter' of the first mothers' mother?

Part of the definition of being seperate from the mother is having unique DNA to it. If it has the same DNA as the biological mother it can be regarded as part of the mother. This can be seen not only in the case of humans, but in the case of mitocondria as well


By this logic, since Mitochondrial DNA is identical now, to how it was at the dawn of humanity... we are ALL part of some great pre-Mother?

Which woman? the one having the baby or the one who is the baby?
of the two who is more in need of protection(who is less able to protect themselves) Is it not possible to protect them both?

Not yet.

But, once that technology becomes available, I'd be pretty sure Abortion figures will drop to about zero.

http://www.answers.com/topic/human-1?method=6

a) NOT a medical source, as you had previously claimed.

Again, with the non-Peer Reviewed material...


b) You merely give ONE of two definitions, anyway.

Talk about cherry-picking your argument.

Yes it has. I have shown you a link explaining it. The biological mother of a clone is the same as the biological mother of the person being cloned, since they share the same DNA.

Which is NOT universal... since a parthenogentic offspring could have ALL of it's 'mother's' DNA... and yet be a product of her ovaries....

Thus - merely having the 'same' DNA, cannot be a comprehensive enough definition.

According to the laws of humanity

Curious, not encountered this before...

Do you have a source for this "laws of humanity" you cite?

The mother's body doesn't 'need' to respond favorably to the implantation of the cystoblast, in fact, if the mother is in too bad a condition her body will reject the pregnancy. However, the mother's body 'normally' does everything it can to accommodate the pregnancy and only terminates the growth of the embryo IF the child dies or is somehow not responding properly to the mother’s impetus (but not even then does the mother’s body always reject it).

The 'invasion' scenario/analogy is misplaced. The Mother's body instinctively acts more like a welcoming parent receiving an unexpected visit from their relative by putting out all their best dishing and doing everything she can to make them welcome...


"Unexpected visit by a relative"???
The body is basically shutting down its defense mechanisms, which would otherwise dispose of the fertilised egg and prevent its further development. So, yes it is accepting the pregnancy. If it didn't (and there are a large number of cases where it simply doesn't do so, an aunt of mine has lost every female embryo, her body simply rejected it. The doctors assumed a hormonal problem), the embryo or the foetus would be treated just like every other parasite.

Fair enough

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm

http://www.sidwell.edu/us/science/vlb5/Labs/Classification_Lab/Eukarya/Animalia/Chordata/Vertebrata/Mammalia/Primates/Hominidae/Homo/Sapiens/

Excellent.

You cited a source that proves different species ARE human.

Well done.

You are missing the point I think. Unlike your comparision we are able to save the baby and help the mother. Unlike the chopper accident the baby will survive and we can help both. Murder is never the right answer the child did nothing wrong and yet we think it is ok to kill that child for what purpose protect the most in need.

1) They are not babies.

2) They are not babies.

3) They are not babies.

4) It is not murder.

5) It is not a child.

6) It is not being killed.

7) It is not a child.

8) Congratualtions on a post that consists almost entirely of 'Appeals to Emotion'.

If it's wanted, it's a child, a progeny, a baby and a blessing and privilege, an awesome celebration, an event that forever marks a happy occurrence in our lives that we will remember for the rest of our lives and fondly recall in the waning years of our existence as they again produce their own children, our grand-children and great grand-children and we then will 'remember when' and understand the significance of being…

However, if it's not wanted, apparently, it isn’t worth anything more than the road kill we see on the side of the street as we drive to the clinic...


Whose fault is it that it's not wanted? Apparently not being ‘wanted’ has the ability to change the very individual of a pre-born from ‘baby’ to ‘parasite.’

No, my friend... whether or not it is wanted ONLY affects the terminology.

A foetus IS a parasite. But, if you WANT it, you don't mind that.

The NATURE of the thing remains the same, it is only our PERCEPTIONS of it, and how we DESCRIBE it , that differs.

Are fetus's edible?:confused:

Everything in this room is eatable. Even I am eatable, but that's called cannibalism....

I think you should get on the differences between a human and a person.

Good point... the first of the two sources Avalon provided, states that homosapiens are not ALL that counts as human, though....

I congratulate you on your stamina. <bows>

We all love Dempublicents, here... she is one of our best (and, certainly most patient) 'Soldiers for Truth'.

Much as I hate to do this, I'm going to wade into this thread again to give my views on some of the points being argued. The main reason I hate to do it is that I have to concede a point to Avalon and his supporters, however reluctantly.

One of the lines of reasoning being argued by the pro-choicers has been analogies of the embryo with tonsils/livers/cancer/parasites. However, speaking as someone who has had an abortion (see my post on page 46 for full details (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9896200&postcount=681)) there is no question in my mind that the embryo was quite different from anything else in my body.

I recently (last week) had my gall bladder removed. It was diseased and full of gallstones, and the only anxiety I had in regards to the operation was the difference in my life between putting up with regular gall bladder attacks vs how my digestive system would function without one (quite well, as it turns out).

When I had my abortion in January of this year, it was a much, much harder decision. The effect on my life and health of going through with the pregnancy would be much greater than the pain of a diseased gall bladder, but the consequences of removing the cause were also far greater. During the time that my husband and I discussed our options, there was no question in my mind that we were dealing with an unborn human being that could one day be a separate entity. We even talked about what traits it might inherit from each of us, should we take it to term.

That being said, I make no apologies for having the pregnancy terminated. From a legal standpoint, abortion is legal in this country (I live in the US), and from a moral standpoint I have no qualms about maintaining my right to choose whether or not I will bring a new life into this world.

And no, Avalon, I'm not playing God by doing that - I'm just implementing the fail-safe on my failed contraception. It IS my body, and the embryo was simply a manifestation of a biological process that had overcome the barriers we had put in place to prevent it. If you see no problem with contraception (which I have seen you state), then abortion is merely a backup method when something goes wrong.

I will fight tooth and nail to defend my right to do what I choose with my own body. I am not about to listen to some 18-year-old born-again religious fundie telling me that any woman who gets pregnant for any reason MUST try to take the pregancy to term, whatever the cost. Forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term is only going to increase the amount of net suffering in the world - both for the children thus born and for their parents.

Maybe it's time to stop thinking about what YOU want, and start thinking about what's best for everybody concerned.

*clapping*

Amen.

*snip*

If elective abortions weren't legal, and you didn't want to have children, and in your case being a 38 year old married person, one of you (you or your spouse) would have had your tubes tied. Problem solved, no pregnancy, no abortion required.

I hope you've had your tubes tied now (regardless of the abortion issues goes with remaining legal or becoming more restricted) or your husband has had a vasectomy, to ensure that you don't need to do it again.

In any other eventuality, in regards to discussing the removal of the legal non-restrictive elective abortion option, by making them become thing of the past, IF you had been pregnant then, with such laws, instead of discussing whether or not to abort the child with your husband you would have been talking about potential 'names' for the baby and/or which adoption agency to call/use to find a nice home for the offspring you don't want to raise yourself (if you still felt that way)...

In any other eventuality, in regards to discussing the removal of the legal non-restrictive elective abortion option, by making them become thing of the past, IF you had been pregnant then, with such laws, instead of discussing whether or not to abort the child with your husband you would have been talking about potential 'names' for the baby and/or which adoption agency to call/use to find a nice home for the offspring you don't want to raise yourself (if you still felt that way)...

Tell me you don't honestly believe that women only STARTED considering how to rid themselves of unwanted offspring with the advent of surgical abortion?

Tell me you don't honestly believe that women only STARTED considering how to rid themselves of unwanted offspring with the advent of surgical abortion?

Knitting needle. That's always a nice method. Nobody even has to know unless, of course, you DIE!

That being said, I make no apologies for having the pregnancy terminated. From a legal standpoint, abortion is legal in this country (I live in the US), and from a moral standpoint I have no qualms about maintaining my right to choose whether or not I will bring a new life into this world.

You've already created a new human, you dont have a right to end its existance


And no, Avalon, I'm not playing God by doing that - I'm just implementing the fail-safe on my failed contraception. It IS my body, and the embryo was simply a manifestation of a biological process that had overcome the barriers we had put in place to prevent it. If you see no problem with contraception (which I have seen you state), then abortion is merely a backup method when something goes wrong.

There is a significent diffrence between contreception and abortion. Contrception prevents the existance of the embryo, abortion terminates the existance. In the case of abortion you already have the embryo and are destroying it. Describing something in purely functional terms does not negate the moral consequences of it


Maybe it's time to stop thinking about what YOU want, and start thinking about what's best for everybody concerned.

If both the embryo and the woman can live then it is best they do for both concerned.

Excellent.

You cited a source that proves different species ARE human.

Well done.

That doesnt harm my arguement Grave. It would be equally wrong to abort their embryos.

Knitting needle. That's always a nice method. Nobody even has to know unless, of course, you DIE!

I was actually thinking more along the lines that women have been 'herbally' aborting for thousands of years...

I believe drinking a tissane of Pennyroyal was a common method...

That doesnt harm my arguement Grave. It would be equally wrong to abort their embryos.

Actually - since your argument was that a human has homosapiens DNA, it not only 'hurts' your argument, but urinates on the wounds afterwards, then stands back, pointing and laughing at the poor wounded, bleeding argument wriggling around on the floor, in a slowly expanding ring of dampness and despair.

If elective abortions weren't legal, and you didn't want to have children, and in your case being a 38 year old married person, one of you (you or your spouse) would have had your tubes tied. Problem solved, no pregnancy, no abortion required.

I hope you've had your tubes tied now (regardless of the abortion issues goes with remaining legal or becoming more restricted) or your husband has had a vasectomy, to ensure that you don't need to do it again.

In any other eventuality, in regards to discussing the removal of the legal non-restrictive elective abortion option, by making them become thing of the past, IF you had been pregnant then, with such laws, instead of discussing whether or not to abort the child with your husband you would have been talking about potential 'names' for the baby and/or which adoption agency to call/use to find a nice home for the offspring you don't want to raise yourself (if you still felt that way)...

This is both ignorant and offensive.

Ignorant because tubal ligation has a large failure rate (at least if compared with vasectomy), and offensive because you, yes you, are commodifying children. Who on earth do you think you are to tell married people what is acceptable or not? As it happens, should my wife become pregnant again (in spite of my vasectomy) we would not even consider terminating it. But we are a reasonably wealthy, healthy and secure couple.

Your illustration works beautifully to show exactly why abortions are, should be and will remain legal. The fact that you and your "prolife" chums have such limited imagination and compassion for those who could find themselves in the position of carrying an unwanted ball of cells in order to satisfy your definition of what is right and wrong means that this argument is extremely easy to side on.

Tell me you don't honestly believe that women only STARTED considering how to rid themselves of unwanted offspring with the advent of surgical abortion?


We don't need to legalize cheating on our taxes just because lots of people do it.

Actually - since your argument was that a human has homosapiens DNA, it not only 'hurts' your argument, but urinates on the wounds afterwards, then stands back, pointing and laughing at the poor wounded, bleeding argument wriggling around on the floor, in a slowly expanding ring of dampness and despair.

No, it doesnt. Because human is a large species genus. If we are talking (and for the purposes of this arguement we are) within our own species of human then it is humans with homosapien DNA. Equally the same arguement could be applied to the morality of aborting the embryo's of the other species of human.

We don't need to legalize cheating on our taxes just because lots of people do it.

Irrelevent, my friend... your point was that, if there were no elective surgical abortion, people would keep the foetus.

History implies quite a different story.

For god's sake, Avalon...

Where are you getting this 'half her DNA' tripe?

Are you ignoring the fact that EVERY daughter the first parthenogenetic 'mother' had, would have her SAME DNA?

And, every daughter THEY had, would have the SAME DNA again?

Are you seriously claiming that, 9000 years later, the great-great-grandaughter 300 times removed, is STILL 'just the daughter' of the first mothers' mother?

I have already explained this to Dempublicents1 at least twice.

Your link said that the cloned embryo is not a cell line, not that the woman being cloned is not the mother.

You realize what you just said, right? You just said, "This is true because my argument doesn't work otherwise."

No, I said it because it makes sense. If you are thinking about a mother in terms of biology, then it is the entity from which half your DNA comes from. Clearly someone with the same DNA as you is not a mother because that DNA was not created by them. It is their own but they did not create it. If you define your mother as the woman whose egg was fertialised and then created your DNA means that the clone's mother is the same as the mother of the person being cloned.

The clone, on this view, has only one biological parent. On the other hand, from the point of view of genetics, the clone is a sibling, so that cloning is more accurately described as "delayed twinning" rather than as asexual reproduction

I was actually thinking more along the lines that women have been 'herbally' aborting for thousands of years...

I believe drinking a tissane of Pennyroyal was a common method...

Ahhh yes, of course there's that. I was thinking of more modern references that women would be more likely to use nowadays if abortion were made illegal.

No, it doesnt. Because human is a large species genus. If we are talking (and for the purposes of this arguement we are) within our own species of human then it is humans with homosapien DNA. Equally the same arguement could be applied to the morality of aborting the embryo's of the other species of human.

Listen carefully...

You said - a human could be defined by their homosapiens DNA.

The source you provided said not ALL humans have homosapiens DNA.

Thus, your initial argument is false.


You really SHOULD admit you are wrong, when you really ARE wrong!

I have already explained this to Dempublicents1 at least twice.

No, I said it because it makes sense. If you are thinking about a mother in terms of biology, then it is the entity from which half your DNA comes from. Clearly someone with the same DNA as you is not a mother because that DNA was not created by them. It is their own but they did not create it. If you define your mother as the woman whose egg was fertialised and then created your DNA means that the clone's mother is the same as the mother of the person being cloned.

Are you for real?

You still didn't read it, did you?

... Ignorant because tubal ligation has a large failure rate (at least if compared with vasectomy), and offensive because you, yes you, are commodifying children. ...

Since to commodify is to assign commodity/value,' yes. It would be better for society to 'assign value' to our pre-born children rather than to assign the lack of value to them.

Since to commodify is to assign commodity/value,' yes. It would be better for society to 'assign value' to our pre-born children rather than to assign the lack of value to them.

Appeal to Emotion is not a compelling logical tool.

Listen carefully...

You said - a human could be defined by their homosapiens DNA.

The source you provided said not ALL humans have homosapiens DNA.

Thus, your initial argument is false.

You really SHOULD admit you are wrong, when you really ARE wrong!

Fine. Human can be defined as having DNA belonging to the genus homo. Since homosapiens are the only of the genus of homo in existance anymore however the point is moot.

Fine. Human can be defined as having DNA belonging to the genus homo. Since homosapiens are the only of the genus of homo in existance anymore however the point is moot.

What's wrong? Can't just say "I was wrong"?

Are you for real?

You still didn't read it, did you?

I did read it. And you dont understand the biological defintion of mother in this case. The biological mother is someone who creates the new DNA.

Chromosome
Long strands of DNA on which genes are found. Each human cell has 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs. One member of each pair is inherited from the mother, the other from the father.

From this we can see that the genetic definition of mother is the female whose 23 chromosones make up half of the DNA code. IE the female whose egg when fertialised creates new DNA. In the case of parthenogenic reproduction this does not happen. IE What is created is a clone of the woman. Thus she is the mother in the sense she carried it etc but she is not the mother in the genetic sense

What's wrong? Can't just say "I was wrong"?

Can't you? I just said, that was the case. Human DNA is defined as any DNA belonging to the species genus Homo. Since homosapiens are the only one of that species left the only human DNA left can be homosapien. I was wrong previously. However the change to the arguement is almost to insignificent as to be considered, hence the fact you are pointing to it shows you are in serious trouble if all you can point to are tiny flaws in the point

Since to commodify is to assign commodity/value,' yes. It would be better for society to 'assign value' to our pre-born children rather than to assign the lack of value to them.

Assign value based on what? Your definition of what constitutes a human person? Or the demonstrable, agreed and legislated for human rights of a human being to have control of their own body. Take your pick of legislation-

EU Human Rights? Probably not your bag, I would guess.

Roe vs Wade? Maybe not. I can accept that this is a case about privacy and not abortion anyway.

How about absolutely first principles of the laws of medical consent, and what can and can't be done to somebody without it?
I would hold the following to be self evident. Every other medically and legally trained person that I know does. Perhaps you can point out quite what is wrong with this as a principle.

“Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body”
Judge Benjamin Cardozo
Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92 (New York, 1914)

Now unless you are going to argue that his argument applied to only men (which given the sex of the complainant would be pretty pointless), I would just give up right now.

A“Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body”
Judge Benjamin Cardozo
Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92 (New York, 1914)

Now unless you are going to argue that his argument applied to only men (which given the sex of the complainant would be pretty pointless), I would just give up right now.

Are we or are we not arguing for a change in the law. And the problem with this arguement is that the control is not being made in a vaccum. It is being made by the woman but it also affects the existance of the embryo. No one has the right to make an intentional decsion to end someone elses existance.

I often wonder why people start a topic to debate when clearly they have no intention of changing their position, no matter what argument is presented.

In hopes that the other side's arguments are so weak that they become stronger in their own position. I think.

Are we or are we not arguing for a change in the law. And the problem with this arguement is that the control is not being made in a vaccum. It is being made by the woman but it also affects the existance of the embryo. No one has the right to make an intentional decsion to end someone elses existance.

You, my friend, are arguing about ignoring accepted science, laws of consent, basic human rights and the observable versus the utterly speculative, and proposing that that speculation and potential has the same "right to life" as the woman who carries it.

Except you're not are you? If she is raped, or her life is endangered, this embryo suddenly isn't as important and can be terminated. So, in fact, what you are saying is that you will change the law to effectively take away the decision making process from a woman who has had the temerity to willingly have sex without wanting to carry and deliver a child.

So what you are really trying to do is to put caveats into accepted legal principles such as consent, privacy, self determination, the right to family life (bizarrely and ironically enough), and that is before we even start on the utter illogicality of your attitude to the embryo or foetus itself.

I swore I wasn't going to post on this thread again, but this is one last try. Please try and see that the value of an embryo is not the same as the value of a human person. If you can't, I seriously worry for your humanity-your values and compassion are so misplaced.

We all love Dempublicents, here... she is one of our best (and, certainly most patient) 'Soldiers for Truth'.

Definitely :D

If elective abortions weren't legal, and you didn't want to have children, and in your case being a 38 year old married person, one of you (you or your spouse) would have had your tubes tied. Problem solved, no pregnancy, no abortion required.

I hope you've had your tubes tied now (regardless of the abortion issues goes with remaining legal or becoming more restricted) or your husband has had a vasectomy, to ensure that you don't need to do it again.

In any other eventuality, in regards to discussing the removal of the legal non-restrictive elective abortion option, by making them become thing of the past, IF you had been pregnant then, with such laws, instead of discussing whether or not to abort the child with your husband you would have been talking about potential 'names' for the baby and/or which adoption agency to call/use to find a nice home for the offspring you don't want to raise yourself (if you still felt that way)...

You do know that even tubal ligations and vasectomies aren't 100% safe, right?

Knitting needle. That's always a nice method. Nobody even has to know unless, of course, you DIE!

Plenty of herbal teas out there, too.

Appeal to Emotion is not a compelling logical tool.

If so, then tell the pro-choice side to stop using it...

I did read it. And you dont understand the biological defintion of mother in this case. The biological mother is someone who creates the new DNA.



From this we can see that the genetic definition of mother is the female whose 23 chromosones make up half of the DNA code. IE the female whose egg when fertialised creates new DNA. In the case of parthenogenic reproduction this does not happen. IE What is created is a clone of the woman. Thus she is the mother in the sense she carried it etc but she is not the mother in the genetic sense

The thing is, when you first said that the embryo's DNA was unique to its mother's, you were refering to the woman carrying the embryo. You meant that the embryo's DNA is different from the DNA of the body it's in, therefore it's a separate entity. But in the case of cloning, the embryo's DNA is not different from the DNA of the body it's in. That's where your argument fails. If the embryo has the same DNA as the body, then it's part of the body, and can be removed without any legal problems.

Actually, the first response to a pregancy via hormones is by the mother's body (about three weeks after her last period [if a pregnancy is occurring]) comes at the time of implantation of the cystoblast,

Incorrect. Even before implantation, the embryo is sending signals that make implantation possible - by making the mother's body more hospitable to it.

the first response to that event is the mother's body releases an immunosuppressant protein called Early Pregnancy Factor (EPF) to prevent her body from seeing the baby as an invader and then her body's hormones goes into full production (thus making urine pregnancy tests possible about a week later) pumping out massive amounts of the pregnancy hormone, hCG, (which shows up in her urine).

All of these things are in response to signals sent by the developing embryo itself. The mother's body doesn't automagically know it is pregnant, it needs signals from the embryo.

The baby's system wont take over hormone production for the pregnancy until about the 12th week when the placenta is fully developed.

Who said anything about "taking over"? The placenta gives off hormones of its own, as well as other signals that cause the mother's body to make certain hormones. Even before the placenta is formed, the embryo is sending signals that cause hormone levels in the mother's body to change.

Obviously you are mistaken and/or overemphasizing the play-on-words usage of the description of 'parasite' to try and gain a point in the debate.

Obviously, you have created a strawman to try and argue against me, since I am doing no such thing. The immune suppression response of the mother's body is a result of the signals being sent by the embryo. Thus, the embryo causes the response. It isn't a logical leap, and has nothing to do with the debate at hand except where Avalon brings it in.

If you will notice, I have yet to bring my own views into this, or attempt to debate them. All I am doing is showing Avalon the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in his own views. It isn't my fault if his views are based on inaccurate biology. I get along just fine being anti-abortion without having to make up new biology to do so.

The Mother's body most definitely 'tries' to make a place suitable for the child and her body tries to produce what is needed so that the baby develops properly, you disseminate a non-truth to say otherwise, to pretend that the pre-born is like a parasite that simply tries to get the mother’s body to ignore it’s presence.

The mother's body "tries" to do this in response to signals given off by the embryo. There are bacteria and such that send off similar (although not identical) signals to make the body more hospitable to them as well. Without these signals, the embryo would be attacked by the immune system as "non-self".

It’s not true, the mother's body a full partner and a compiant participant in the act, thus, the evidence doesn’t serve your suggestion that her body is simply being attacked.

I have never made any such suggestion. Please try again.

Could you make it anymore obvious you are making a strawman, one mistake thus the entire thing is mistaken. Please :rolleyes:

Could you make it any more obvious that you don't even know what a strawman is? A strawman argument is one in which you alter your oponents arguments such that they seem ridiculous and you can argue against them.

Pointing out that your geocities (ie. not peer-reviewed and probably at least 10 years old) source was inaccurate is in no way a strawman. Their entire argument was based upon twinning being a process of mitosis, when it almost never is. Therefore, their argument is based on a premise that doesn't work.

No it doesnt, look at it in more detail. If the someone is cloned, then they did not create the DNA sequence that is in that nuclus. That DNA sequence was created by the fusion of the person who is being cloned's mother and fathers gammetes.

Actually, they did. Their cells did. Their own cells replicated and produced the somatic cell used to get the DNA for the clone. Thus, it is completely the person being cloned that provides the DNA.

No, I said it because it makes sense. If you are thinking about a mother in terms of biology, then it is the entity from which half your DNA comes from.

As a biologist, I can pretty much categorically state that you are wrong here. For one thing, there are creatures which get *all* of their DNA from a single source, but still have mothers. Take, for instance, whiptail lizards. All whiptail lizards are female. Two females simulate copulation (with one acting as the "male" and the other as the "female"). The female acting as the female in the copulation then self-fertilizes her own eggs and lays them. She is the mother in that case, but all of the DNA in the offspring came directly from her.

The same is true in single-celled organisms. When such an organism divides, we refer to a "mother" cell and two "daughter" cells. Both daughter cells get all of their genetic information from the mother cell. Thus, the mother gives *all* of the genetic information.

A clone or parthogenesis would be similar to either of these cases, in that the mother would give all of the DNA to the offspring.

Clearly someone with the same DNA as you is not a mother because that DNA was not created by them.

In all of the cases listed above, the mother clearly creates all of the DNA. Her cells replicate it and it is implanted directly into the egg. Thus, the only person who can possibly be said to have created the DNA is the person being cloned.

Wow, I can't believe you guys are still hanging in there, I lost patience ages ago.

I'll satisfy myself with hanging around on the sidelines and occaisonally redefining words to irritate Avalon.;)

Wow, I can't believe you guys are still hanging in there, I lost patience ages ago.

I'll satisfy myself with hanging around on the sidelines and occaisonally redefining words to irritate Avalon.;)

Redefice "mother". :D

Ooh! Redefine "DNA"! And "egg"!

Redefice "mother". :D

Ooh! Redefine "DNA"! And "egg"!

You do realise that when I said 'redefine' I meant 'anally penetrate' and when I said 'words' I meant 'chocolate sculptures of George W. Bush' don't you?;)

Still, since you asked so nicely:

I hereby redefine 'mother' to mean 'a small newt, commonly found in bottles of orange squash'

'DNA' clearly stands for 'Destitute Nano-Aardvarks' so no refinition is needed.

'Egg' will hence forth mean 'the act of being an Australian midget, sitting on a space hopper while farting "Bohemian Rhapsody"'. As you've probably guesed it is a very specialised verb so I doubt it'll be used to much.

Incorrect. Even before implantation, the embryo is sending signals that make implantation possible - by making the mother's body more hospitable to it.

All of these things are in response to signals sent by the developing embryo itself. The mother's body doesn't automagically know it is pregnant, it needs signals from the embryo.

Who said anything about "taking over"? The placenta gives off hormones of its own, as well as other signals that cause the mother's body to make certain hormones. Even before the placenta is formed, the embryo is sending signals that cause hormone levels in the mother's body to change.

Obviously, you have created a strawman to try and argue against me, since I am doing no such thing. The immune suppression response of the mother's body is a result of the signals being sent by the embryo. Thus, the embryo causes the response. It isn't a logical leap, and has nothing to do with the debate at hand except where Avalon brings it in.
...

The problem is, apparently, that you are supposing to have answers that we don't know yet. There is more than one theory involved with why the uterus prepares itself for implantation and what signals are used, but what IS known is that the two forces have to work together and in precise synchronization. If they are out of synch, the blastocyst will either not stick or not implant.
(As many things are discussed here, there is some unanswered questions still, http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/410894_print )


But in the end, the communication between the unattached but hatched blastocyst and the uterine wall is nothing but a phone call between mother and child, telling the mother that the guest (s) are on the way and she then starts setting the table before they even get there (or, to put it another way, mere detection of the fertilized egg does NOT mandate a response from the mother, but her body 'chooses' to accept it)...

Again though, the mother is receptive, not forced by, nor mandated and controlled to, respond favorably to the blastocyst. The mother's body is 'trying' to get pregnant, unlike a parasite scenario where one's efforts are misdirected for another’s good, the host organism in a pregnancy scenario 'intends' and even 'desires' the implantation event. Human biology and all that, designed by Evolution or God (it makes no difference in this case), desires to reproduce. It is not captured and held hostage to do so...

The thing is, when you first said that the embryo's DNA was unique to its mother's, you were refering to the woman carrying the embryo. You meant that the embryo's DNA is different from the DNA of the body it's in, therefore it's a separate entity. But in the case of cloning, the embryo's DNA is not different from the DNA of the body it's in. That's where your argument fails. If the embryo has the same DNA as the body, then it's part of the body, and can be removed without any legal problems.

Now your just moving the arguement to context. Originally you said it is part of the mother, I said not it isnt as it has its own DNA, you said what about clones, I said unique to the genetic mother. You are now bringing the arguement back ciruclar, that is poor debating technique. It is clearly a seperate entity if it is a clone and implanted into the mother, and it is clearly also a sperate entity through pathogenic reproduction. The only reason the DNA is not unique to the mother in those circumstances is that abonormal reproduction methods have occured. However no one would deny that reproductive methods have occured in the cases of cloning and parthongenic reproduction. Having the same DNA does not mean nessecarly that it is part of the body as the embryo is developing in a completely diffrent fahsion and manner to indvidual cells. Before you say "that means its not human as it should be developing in the way of all other cells" I am talking about the embryo as a whole, not the cells it is made up of. You as a whole are developing and growing in a very diffrent way to that of your indvidual cells.

As a biologist, I can pretty much categorically state that you are wrong here. For one thing, there are creatures which get *all* of their DNA from a single source, but still have mothers. Take, for instance, whiptail lizards. All whiptail lizards are female. Two females simulate copulation (with one acting as the "male" and the other as the "female"). The female acting as the female in the copulation then self-fertilizes her own eggs and lays them. She is the mother in that case, but all of the DNA in the offspring came directly from her.

The same is true in single-celled organisms. When such an organism divides, we refer to a "mother" cell and two "daughter" cells. Both daughter cells get all of their genetic information from the mother cell. Thus, the mother gives *all* of the genetic information.

A clone or parthogenesis would be similar to either of these cases, in that the mother would give all of the DNA to the offspring.


In all of the cases listed above, the mother clearly creates all of the DNA. Her cells replicate it and it is implanted directly into the egg. Thus, the only person who can possibly be said to have created the DNA is the person being cloned.

Did you notice when I said HUMAN DNA. We are talking about humans and human reproduction. Appealing to other animals to make the case is pointless. The genetic defintion of the mother in the case of humans is that where it gets half of her own DNA from

Did you notice when I said HUMAN DNA. We are talking about humans and human reproduction. Appealing to other animals to make the case is pointless. The genetic defintion of the mother in the case of humans is that where it gets half of her own DNA from

Looks like somebody hasn't been paying attention to the current definitions.:rolleyes:

I hereby redefine 'mother' to mean 'a small newt, commonly found in bottles of orange squash'

I fail to see the relevance of newts, your argument falls part.

Did you notice when I said HUMAN DNA. We are talking about humans and human reproduction. Appealing to other animals to make the case is pointless.

Hardly. Normal human reproducation does not proceed by cloning. Thus, in order to discuss cloning in humans, we have to look to natural instances of cloning. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a standard definition for all cases. See, in biology, we try to standardize things so everyone knows what you are talking about.

The problem is, apparently, that you are supposing to have answers that we don't know yet.

Hardly. We know that the signals given off by the embryo cause changes in the mother's physiology. That is all that I said - and we know that as well as we know that any signals cause any physiological changes. I didn't claim to know all of the signals, or all of the changes. I didn't claim to know all of the processes involved. I simply pointed out that the embryo sends signals to the woman's body in order to make it more hospitable to implantation and continued pregnancy. This is not disputed at all among biologists.

Your problem is that you try assigning a negative connotation to everything I say. If I use the word parasite, you assume there is a negative connotation there. There is not. If I point out that the embryo actively alters the woman's physiology to make her womb more hospitable, you think I'm calling it an invasion. I am not. There are no connotations in biology. What it does is what it does. Its classification is what it is. Individuals may think that one or the other is a "bad" thing, and that's why some people want to be pregnant and others don't.

Personally, believe it or not, I'm on the "wants to be pregnant" side. Even as I take precautions to make sure I don't get pregnant, I want to be pregnant. Even as I look for my period every month, part of me hopes it doesn't come. The term parasite doesn't bother me. I want a parasite. The fact that the embryo, when I do get pregnant, will suppress my immune system so that it won't be destroyed doesn't bother me. I want it to do so. Your wife presumably wanted the same thing, as did Grave's wife. I simply don't let my own views of these things get in the way of recognizing how very differently they could be viewed.

Actually, they did. Their cells did. Their own cells replicated and produced the somatic cell used to get the DNA for the clone. Thus, it is completely the person being cloned that provides the DNA.

Provides, but not creates. The creation of your DNA happened when the egg cell of your mother was fertialised by the sperm cell of your father. Then your DNA was created. Since when your body has constructed itself on the basis of that DNA and you yourself have changed since you have had experances. The DNA for the clone is not created by the person being cloned.

...
Your problem is that you try assigning a negative connotation to everything I say. If I use the word parasite, you assume there is a negative connotation there. There is not. If I point out that the embryo actively alters the woman's physiology to make her womb more hospitable, you think I'm calling it an invasion. I am not. There are no connotations in biology. What it does is what it does. Its classification is what it is. Individuals may think that one or the other is a "bad" thing, and that's why some people want to be pregnant and others don't.
...

Fair enough. I've been reading your descriptions as seemingly intentionally negative connotations, via the words you've chosen to describe the events and occurrence of a woman's pregnancy.

In my defense though, I’ll bet the other readers here have as well, in the aspect that they re-stress the words you've chosen (such as parasite) to use for the their posts simply for the intended negative impact.

Provides, but not creates. The creation of your DNA happened when the egg cell of your mother was fertialised by the sperm cell of your father. Then your DNA was created. Since when your body has constructed itself on the basis of that DNA and you yourself have changed since you have had experances. The DNA for the clone is not created by the person being cloned.

Actually the DNA isn't technically created when the egg cell is fertalized it is more like the DNA from the egg is combined with the DNA from the sperm. You get a pair of chromosomes 1 from the mother and 1 from the father which combine to make your DNA. Its not like the egg and the sperm meet and poof the DNA magically appears.

Hardly. Normal human reproducation does not proceed by cloning. Thus, in order to discuss cloning in humans, we have to look to natural instances of cloning. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a standard definition for all cases. See, in biology, we try to standardize things so everyone knows what you are talking about.

Since I have already proven the point about the gentic defintion of mother, the point is moot.

The clone, on this view, has only one biological parent. On the other hand, from the point of view of genetics, the clone is a sibling, so that cloning is more accurately described as "delayed twinning" rather than as asexual reproduction

And again here

Chromosome
Long strands of DNA on which genes are found. Each human cell has 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs. One member of each pair is inherited from the mother, the other from the father.

From which it can be infered that the genetic definiton of mother in the case of humas is the female entity from whom 23 chromosones can be seen to be inherited from. This can be demonstrated from sources all over the web

The 46 chromosomes come in 23 matching pairs. We inherit one chromosome in each pair from our mother and one from our father

Is another example

Actually the DNA isn't technically created when the egg cell is fertalized it is more like the DNA from the egg is combined with the DNA from the sperm. You get a pair of chromosomes 1 from the mother and 1 from the father which combine to make your DNA. Its not like the egg and the sperm meet and poof the DNA magically appears.

Well yes, that is more accurate. That is what my point is however. DNA is created when the egg is fertalised and the DNA from the egg is combined with the DNA from the sperm. Thus if you clone yourself, you did not create the DNA of the clone. You are providing it but you did not create it.

I did read it. And you dont understand the biological defintion of mother in this case. The biological mother is someone who creates the new DNA.

From this we can see that the genetic definition of mother is the female whose 23 chromosones make up half of the DNA code. IE the female whose egg when fertialised creates new DNA. In the case of parthenogenic reproduction this does not happen. IE What is created is a clone of the woman. Thus she is the mother in the sense she carried it etc but she is not the mother in the genetic sense

The 'new' DNA that is created, is a copy of old DNA - created from pairing two 'halves', if you will, in the form of an egg.

The 'new' DNA is produced in the same way as normal DNA - it just 'happens' to be identical to the mother's DNA.

Think about it for a second - we aren't taking a sample, then injecting it into an egg... this is an egg splitting into two (effectively an 'egg' half, and a 'sperm' half) and combining as normal genetic material does during sexual reproduction.

I had gone into a five minute analysis, showing how we could track the genetic code, but, I really can't be bothered.

Jocabia was right... you will not listen to any points made, and have already made your decision about any given matter, even before you see the material.

I'm bored now.

If you have anything new, I'll possibly reply... but, until then I'll be in this thread only to respond to people who have an approach OTHER than "If I repeat it 10 times it magically becomes true".

Well yes, that is more accurate. That is what my point is however. DNA is created when the egg is fertalised and the DNA from the egg is combined with the DNA from the sperm. Thus if you clone yourself, you did not create the DNA of the clone. You are providing it but you did not create it.

And I'm saying the DNA that results from the from the fertalized egg is not something new that was created out of nothing rather the combination of DNA from the mother and father. No DNA is created when the egg is fertalized only combined.

Can't you? I just said, that was the case. Human DNA is defined as any DNA belonging to the species genus Homo. Since homosapiens are the only one of that species left the only human DNA left can be homosapien. I was wrong previously. However the change to the arguement is almost to insignificent as to be considered, hence the fact you are pointing to it shows you are in serious trouble if all you can point to are tiny flaws in the point

Can you actually prove there are no other homo classifications walking the earth today?

If you can't - your argument rests on speculation.

The little 'hobbits' they found recently are a recent extinction, if they ARE extinct, for example.

You have stated SPECIFICALLY, that homosapient DNA maketh a human. Your site says otherwise.

I don't want to 'finesse' with you about it - I want you to admit that your FOOLPROOF filtering mechanism is faulty.

Provides, but not creates. The creation of your DNA happened when the egg cell of your mother was fertialised by the sperm cell of your father. Then your DNA was created. Since when your body has constructed itself on the basis of that DNA and you yourself have changed since you have had experances. The DNA for the clone is not created by the person being cloned.

No, one copy of my DNA was created that way. The rest of it has been created by replication over and over and over and over again.


Since I have already proven the point about the gentic defintion of mother, the point is moot.

You haven't proven anything. You have pulled a bunch of quotes out of context and said, "See! It proves my point! This book says that, in normal human replication, the zygote gets 23 chromosomes from the mother! Obviously that means that all mosthers must give 23 chromosomes!"

Of course, that isn't how logic works. Here's an example of the same thing:
I'm going to randomly open one of my biology textbooks to a page in the middle of the reprodroduction section and I see:
"During the second trimester, the fetus grows rapidly to about 30 cm and is very active."

By your logic, I would then say, "The second trimester is defined as the time where the fetus grows rapidly to about 30 cm and is vey active."

Of course, that isn't how the the second trimester is defined, it is what happens during the second trimester. The second trimester is defined as the "second 3 month-period", ie. months 4-6 of pregnancy. If, for some reason, development was slower or quicker in a given fetus so that it did not get that large or was not all that responsive, it would still be the second trimester


Meanwhile, the "genetic definition of mother", in biology, would apply to all creatures which have genetic information. Thus, since most creatures do not have mothers that provide 23 chromosomes, the definition would not be suitable.



Fair enough. I've been reading your descriptions as seemingly intentionally negative connotations, via the words you've chosen to describe the events and occurrence of a woman's pregnancy.

In my defense though, I’ll bet the other readers here have as well, in the aspect that they re-stress the words you've chosen (such as parasite) to use for the their posts simply for the intended negative impact.

I don't think it works that way. I think that the readers in question already see pregnancy as a "bad" thing, as an occurance with a negative connotation. For that reason, the words used to describe a pregnancy will have a negative connotation to them. Like you, the people that disagree with you will sometimes see their way of looking at it (ie. parasite = bad) as the only way of looking at it, and will thus use it to try and convince others.

Fair enough. I've been reading your descriptions as seemingly intentionally negative connotations, via the words you've chosen to describe the events and occurrence of a woman's pregnancy.

In my defense though, I’ll bet the other readers here have as well, in the aspect that they re-stress the words you've chosen (such as parasite) to use for the their posts simply for the intended negative impact.

Parasite is not an appeal to emotion. It is a description of the relationship.

A foetus is not a saprophyte, for example... but it IS a parasite.

If so, then tell the pro-choice side to stop using it...

What am I, their king?

I haven't seen any compelling evidence of 'appeals to emotion' from the average-joe-pro-choice, anyway.

Certainly not on a 'baby-killer', 'abortion is murder' scale.

Did you notice when I said HUMAN DNA. We are talking about humans and human reproduction. Appealing to other animals to make the case is pointless. The genetic defintion of the mother in the case of humans is that where it gets half of her own DNA from

Parthenogenesis is a mechanism... it is the same basic process whether it is rabbits, mice, lizards, humans or aliens doing it.

Parthenogenesis is a mechanism... it is the same basic process whether it is rabbits, mice, lizards, humans or aliens doing it.

Avalon seems to think we redefine all words in biology as different things when they apply to human beings. It seems to be hard for him to understand that the same mechanisms are at play in other species too, and are already defined. It also seems rather difficult for him to understand that certain biological words may apply to both humans, and other species....

Avalon seems to think we redefine all words in biology as different things when they apply to human beings. It seems to be hard for him to understand that the same mechanisms are at play in other species too, and are already defined. It also seems rather difficult for him to understand that certain biological words may apply to both humans, and other species....
Heresy!

Avalon seems to think we redefine all words in biology as different things when they apply to human beings. It seems to be hard for him to understand that the same mechanisms are at play in other species too, and are already defined. It also seems rather difficult for him to understand that certain biological words may apply to both humans, and other species....

We are discusing human beings and human reproduction and human biology. In human biology the definition of the mother is the entity which provides 23 chromosones to the embryo.


No, one copy of my DNA was created that way. The rest of it has been created by replication over and over and over and over again.

That is like saying if I photo copy a book then I wrote it. The DNA orginated (was created) by the fusion of the mothers 23 chromosones and the fathers 23 chromosones. After that it is copied.

Meanwhile, the "genetic definition of mother", in biology, would apply to all creatures which have genetic information. Thus, since most creatures do not have mothers that provide 23 chromosomes, the definition would not be suitable

We are not talking about all creatures, we are talking about humans. I have already specified that my definition here is refering to a definition of humans. Thus it is logical to use the definition of mother in terms of human biology to prove my point. Expanding your definition to animals serves no purpose in the debate other than for you to attempt (wrongly) to falisfy my argument. In the debate about what defines a human, there is little point refering to animal definitions of a mother.

Avalon seems to think we redefine all words in biology as different things when they apply to human beings. It seems to be hard for him to understand that the same mechanisms are at play in other species too, and are already defined. It also seems rather difficult for him to understand that certain biological words may apply to both humans, and other species....

It certainly is interesting debating with someone who finds it perfectly acceptable to redefine a phrase, word, concept, on a moments notice.

The infamous 'three states of being'... the 'defintion of human'... Avalon's 'rules about what makes you human'...

I've never before played a sport where they moved the goalposts AND the field...

That is like saying if I photo copy a book then I wrote it. The DNA orginated (was created) by the fusion of the mothers 23 chromosones and the fathers 23 chromosones. After that it is copied.


No - it's like saying that someone gives you HALF of a book.

Left alone, that half of a book manages to duplicate itself... then glues itself to the other half of the book - and manages to create a copy of the original book (which must OBVIOUSLY have been one hell of a read... I mean, the whole thing would have had to be palindromic....)

I have to admit, I'm finding it hard to argue genetics with someone who keeps talking about 'chromosones'.

By this logic, since Mitochondrial DNA is identical now, to how it was at the dawn of humanity... we are ALL part of some great pre-Mother?
Her name was Eve, she'd like flowers and chocolate on Mother's day :p


Nobody thinks that all humans deserve the same legal status. After all, we don't allow infants to vote. We don't pay out social security to 20-somethings. We don't let you drink before 21. Minors are charged with crimes differently, if at all. And so on....

And then there is the fact that one can believe that something is a human person, but not be able to objectively prove it. For instance, if one believes that a human person is a being with human DNA that has a soul, one may believe that the embryo/fetus is a human person. However, the existence of the soul, much less when it is formed, is completely faith-based. Thus, one cannot empirically prove it to others and thus has no basis with which to legislate it....

And then there is the fact that one does not have to think that the embryo/fetus is a human person to be anti-abortion. One can attach a value to its potential.


Why can't infants vote? Too impressionable a age? What age isn't? (I mean look at those AD's they use, they must think someone is impressionable).

Why can't I get Social security yet? Well, I haven't worked for it I can understand that argument at least.

I'm kinda against drinking on principle anyway, but eh.

I still think we should let Infants vote: can't hurt the system, that bad. For that matter why do criminals lose rights to vote?

No - it's like saying that someone gives you HALF of a book.

Left alone, that half of a book manages to duplicate itself... then glues itself to the other half of the book - and manages to create a copy of the original book (which must OBVIOUSLY have been one hell of a read... I mean, the whole thing would have had to be palindromic....)

I have to admit, I'm finding it hard to argue genetics with someone who keeps talking about 'chromosones'.

No it isnt. The DNA (IE the complete sequence belonging to the embryo) first exists when the Chromosones of the mother and the father fuse. Before that that DNA never existed as a complete set. In much the same way that the elements of the story ideas existed before the author wrote them down, so the individual chromosones of the embryo's new DNA existed but not all in one human. Then the ideas are put down into an original story (the fusion of the mothers chromosones with the fathers chromosones) and then the book is published (the cells within the embryo dividing to make the embryo grow/develop)

The 'new' DNA that is created, is a copy of old DNA - created from pairing two 'halves', if you will, in the form of an egg.

The 'new' DNA is produced in the same way as normal DNA - it just 'happens' to be identical to the mother's DNA.

You are redefining old and new for your purposes and you have misunderstood what I meant. A copy of Issac Aissmov's reason that has just come out of the factory is new in the sense that it has just been created, but the stories in it are old, aproximately 60 or so years I believe. In the same way a strand of DNA produced by cloning/parthagensis is new in the sense that it hasnt existed for very long, but the DNA itself is not original. Perhaps original would have been a better word for what I wanted to express.

Are we or are we not arguing for a change in the law. And the problem with this arguement is that the control is not being made in a vaccum. It is being made by the woman but it also affects the existance of the embryo. No one has the right to make an intentional decsion to end someone elses existance.
This thread is like one of those old fashioned soap operas. I come back after 2 days, and I find the same characters are still having the same conversation in the same scene. (Except that I have finally learned how to break up a quote within my replies. Thanks.)

Avalon, you are advocating a change in the law. You have not articulated what you would like the law to be, but based on your arguments, I think it would be that all abortions would be illegal under any circumstances, unless the mother's life is in danger.

In practical terms, can you tell me how you think such a law should be enforced?

How would you actually stop women from getting abortions? You may outlaw them in your country, but how will you stop women from traveling to another country to get an abortion? Will you place travel restrictions on pregnant women? How will you know they are pregnant if they have only just become pregnant and aren't showing yet? Will you require pregnancy tests before women are allowed to travel in order to stop them getting abortions overseas?

Or will you try to get other countries to agree not to give abortions to women from your country? What if they refuse to comply? How will you stop women from your country getting abortions in other countries?

Within your own country, how will you enforce the abortion ban? What will be the punishment for ending a pregnancy? Who will get punished, the woman or the doctor, or both? If you keep the "mother's life" exception, how will you make sure that any abortions are in fact medically necessary. Maybe doctors will falsify records in order to give elective abortions. Or will you cut off this problem by outlawing all abortions under all circumstances? Maybe doctors will just start calling them "miscarriages" then. Should every interrupted pregnancy be investigated to see if it was really an abortion in disguise? How will you gather evidence in such cases? Or will you try to cut off that problem by only allowing people who hold your religious beliefs to become doctors? But we've seen here that many Christians who are against abortion are still pro-choice. Can you really trust them? Perhaps you could cut off that problem by putting government inspectors in every examination room to listen to everything that happens between doctor and patient.

If the woman is legally obligated to carry every pregnancy to term, how will you make sure she carries out that obligation? Should pregnant women be forbidden from doing things that might be dangerous to a fetus, such as drink, smoke, do strenuous exercise, engage in sports, work long hours, etc.? Again, since it's hard to tell by sight if a woman is pregnant in the first few weeks, should all women of child-bearing age be stopped from doing things that are dangerous to pregnancies, just in case?

Another point: Your argument requires pregnant women to make being pregnant their primary obligation during the pregnancy. What about any other children they may already have? If the cost of maintaining the pregnancy would mean taking food, clothing or medecine away from an existing child, should the existing child be made to do without? Or should the existing child be taken away from the mother who cannot care for it and maintain a pregnancy at the same time? Do women have the right to be mothers, or is that another right they must give up in favor of being life-support machines?

Laws are not opinions or beliefs, Avalon. Laws are rules that must be followed, and in order for them to be followed, they give instructions as to how to follow them. Laws are complicated and full of exceptions and answers to exceptions, and rules/instructions for various circumstances, and punishments for not following them, etc. If you want to make a law, then tell me how you imagine it working.

You do realise that when I said 'redefine' I meant 'anally penetrate' and when I said 'words' I meant 'chocolate sculptures of George W. Bush' don't you?;)

Still, since you asked so nicely:

I hereby redefine 'mother' to mean 'a small newt, commonly found in bottles of orange squash'

'DNA' clearly stands for 'Destitute Nano-Aardvarks' so no refinition is needed.

'Egg' will hence forth mean 'the act of being an Australian midget, sitting on a space hopper while farting "Bohemian Rhapsody"'. As you've probably guesed it is a very specialised verb so I doubt it'll be used to much.

Thank you! :D

Now your just moving the arguement to context. Originally you said it is part of the mother, I said not it isnt as it has its own DNA, you said what about clones, I said unique to the genetic mother. You are now bringing the arguement back ciruclar, that is poor debating technique. It is clearly a seperate entity if it is a clone and implanted into the mother, and it is clearly also a sperate entity through pathogenic reproduction. The only reason the DNA is not unique to the mother in those circumstances is that abonormal reproduction methods have occured. However no one would deny that reproductive methods have occured in the cases of cloning and parthongenic reproduction. Having the same DNA does not mean nessecarly that it is part of the body as the embryo is developing in a completely diffrent fahsion and manner to indvidual cells. Before you say "that means its not human as it should be developing in the way of all other cells" I am talking about the embryo as a whole, not the cells it is made up of. You as a whole are developing and growing in a very diffrent way to that of your indvidual cells.

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Let me clarify again.

1- Pro-choice people said the woman can abort because it's her body.
2- You said it's not her body, it's the embryo's too.
3- Pro-choice said the embryo is part of her body.
4- You said the embryo is not part of the woman's body because its DNA is different.
5- Pro-choice said cloned embryos can have the same DNA as the woman they're in.
6- You said the cloned embryo's DNA is still different from the DNA of the pregnant woman's mother.

What does (6) have to do with anything?? You were supposed to be refuting (3), proving that the embryo is not part of the woman's body. The fact that the half of embryo's DNA is equal to half of somebody else's DNA doesn't have anything to do with it. Who you call "mother" doesn't have anything to do with it. It's between the embryo and the body it's growing in.

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Let me clarify again.

1- Pro-choice people said the woman can abort because it's her body.
2- You said it's not her body, it's the embryo's too.
3- Pro-choice said the embryo is part of her body.
4- You said the embryo is not part of the woman's body because its DNA is different.
5- Pro-choice said cloned embryos can have the same DNA as the woman they're in.
6- You said the cloned embryo's DNA is still different from the DNA of the pregnant woman's mother.

What does (6) have to do with anything?? You were supposed to be refuting (3), proving that the embryo is not part of the woman's body. The fact that the half of embryo's DNA is equal to half of somebody else's DNA doesn't have anything to do with it. Who you call "mother" doesn't have anything to do with it. It's between the embryo and the body it's growing in.

My point is that even if the DNA is the same as the mothers body (IE clone, parthogeneic reproduction etc) the embryo exists and is developing in the same way as it would do if it were diffrent. Thus your arguement that it must be part of the womans body if it has the same DNA is flawed.

Provides, but not creates. The creation of your DNA happened when the egg cell of your mother was fertialised by the sperm cell of your father. Then your DNA was created. Since when your body has constructed itself on the basis of that DNA and you yourself have changed since you have had experances. The DNA for the clone is not created by the person being cloned.

Are you actively trying to piss people off so they'll leave the thread? Where do you think this "created" DNA comes from? Thin air? This "created" DNA of the zigotes comes from regular, 46 chromosome cells, which came from zigotes, which came from regular cells, which came from zigotes and so on going back billions (trillions? who knows?) of generations. All of this DNA was copied, fragmented, slightly mutated, copied again, mixed and matched, copied again and again. It isn't magically "created" by the zigotes in a way different from the rest of the cells.

Fair enough. I've been reading your descriptions as seemingly intentionally negative connotations, via the words you've chosen to describe the events and occurrence of a woman's pregnancy.

In my defense though, I’ll bet the other readers here have as well, in the aspect that they re-stress the words you've chosen (such as parasite) to use for the their posts simply for the intended negative impact.

I think it was me who started using the word parasite, when I compared pregnancy to other STDs. Yeah, I did put a negative connotation on it, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Since I have already proven the point about the gentic defintion of mother, the point is moot.

Only the so-called "genetic mother" doesn't have anything to do with the story. You were supposed to prove that the embryo's DNA is different from the DNA of the woman it's living in. Which you can't do.

We are discusing human beings and human reproduction and human biology. In human biology the definition the mother is the entity which provides 23 chromosones to the embryo.

No, that is the definition you have made up. In biology, we don't define words differently for one species than for another. If the word applies to both species, it applies in the same way. There is no separate field of "human biology". There is simply biology that applies to humans.

That is like saying if I photo copy a book then I wrote it. The DNA orginated (was created) by the fusion of the mothers 23 chromosones and the fathers 23 chromosones. After that it is copied.

The book thing is nice. According to you, if I take two short stories (ie. the mother's and father's contribution to DNA) and then put them together in one book (the zygote's DNA), I have written a new book.

As has already been explained to you, the mother's and father's contributions do not "fuse". They remain as separate chromosomes. Thus, calling the combination a new creation is exactly like calling a collection of short stories a new novel.

We are not talking about all creatures, we are talking about humans.

We are talking about biology, which encompasses all creatures. We are not talking about Avalonology.

I have already specified that my definition here is refering to a definition of humans.

You can make up a definition for anything you like, it doesn't mean that anyone else will use it.

Thus it is logical to use the definition of mother in terms of human biology to prove my point.

You haven't done that. You have used the "mother according to Avalon" definition. The definition of mother in terms of human biology is the same as it is in other creatures that have mothers.

Expanding your definition to animals serves no purpose in the debate other than for you to attempt (wrongly) to falisfy my argument. In the debate about what defines a human, there is little point refering to animal definitions of a mother.

I am not "expanding" any definition. I am using the definition established by biology. It is the same for animals and humans (since humans are animals, after all). It is you who are trying to make up a definition to prove your point.

No it isnt. The DNA (IE the complete sequence belonging to the embryo) first exists when the Chromosones of the mother and the father fuse. Before that that DNA never existed as a complete set. In much the same way that the elements of the story ideas existed before the author wrote them down, so the individual chromosones of the embryo's new DNA existed but not all in one human. Then the ideas are put down into an original story (the fusion of the mothers chromosones with the fathers chromosones) and then the book is published (the cells within the embryo dividing to make the embryo grow/develop)

And the DNA belonging to our parthenogentic individual is formed IN THE SAME WAY... that is: a 'mother' (the undivided ovum) cell combines with a 'father' (the 'new' cell, formed FROM the original) cell - EXACTLY the same as in regular sexual reproduction... at least, on a mechanism level.

The individual components existed in each of the 'cells' - just as they would in one sperm and one ovum. The ONLY reason that this 'daughter' conceptus is the mirror of the original - is that her parents were identical.

By the way - do you realise you are now arguing against your own earlier point? If each of these parthenogentic versions mirrors the original, they are living evidence that a foetus doesn't need to have unique DNA.

My point is that even if the DNA is the same as the mothers body (IE clone, parthogeneic reproduction etc) the embryo exists and is developing in the same way as it would do if it were diffrent. Thus your arguement that it must be part of the womans body if it has the same DNA is flawed.

That's funny... it was you claiming that the cells HAD TO BE unique to be human - nobody was saying that a body has to contain all-similar DNA.

(Quite the opposite, in fact... the pro-choice crowd were arguing that chimera WILL have 'different' DNA. You are now arguing with your own first arguments. Well done.)

In practical terms, can you tell me how you think such a law should be enforced?

How would you actually stop women from getting abortions? You may outlaw them in your country, but how will you stop women from traveling to another country to get an abortion? Will you place travel restrictions on pregnant women? How will you know they are pregnant if they have only just become pregnant and aren't showing yet? Will you require pregnancy tests before women are allowed to travel in order to stop them getting abortions overseas?

Or will you try to get other countries to agree not to give abortions to women from your country? What if they refuse to comply? How will you stop women from your country getting abortions in other countries?

A law can only apply to the country it is promolgated in. I would encourage other countries to stop people having abortions but you can only legislate in one country. Frankly though in my view every country should go the same way.


Within your own country, how will you enforce the abortion ban?

The same way any law is enforced. By the police. However given how specialised this law is a special department of the police will proberbly have to be created. Women would have to regiseter with the government when they have discovered they are pregnant.


What will be the punishment for ending a pregnancy? Who will get punished, the woman or the doctor, or both?

Both, and to equal ammounts. Imprisonment because the death penalty is abhorent in my opinion. A comparable sentance to a leniant charge on murder or manslaughter.


If you keep the "mother's life" exception, how will you make sure that any abortions are in fact medically necessary. Maybe doctors will falsify records in order to give elective abortions. Or will you cut off this problem by outlawing all abortions under all circumstances?

If doctors falsify records they are commiting another offence


Maybe doctors will just start calling them "miscarriages" then. Should every interrupted pregnancy be investigated to see if it was really an abortion in disguise?

There should be more than one doctor to decide if an abortion is nessecary (at least 3) and they must report their findings on every abortion to the government


How will you gather evidence in such cases? Or will you try to cut off that problem by only allowing people who hold your religious beliefs to become doctors??

This isnt about religious beliefs. Its about ethics and politics


But we've seen here that many Christians who are against abortion are still pro-choice. Can you really trust them? Perhaps you could cut off that problem by putting government inspectors in every examination room to listen to everything that happens between doctor and patient.

If your about to launch into the "what your proposing would be a great freedom curtailment" then you should be aware that the police already have considerable powers to gather evidence.


If the woman is legally obligated to carry every pregnancy to term, how will you make sure she carries out that obligation? Should pregnant women be forbidden from doing things that might be dangerous to a fetus, such as drink, smoke, do strenuous exercise, engage in sports, work long hours, etc.? Again, since it's hard to tell by sight if a woman is pregnant in the first few weeks, should all women of child-bearing age be stopped from doing things that are dangerous to pregnancies, just in case?

The things your suggesting here would be dangerous to the embyro, but to stop them would be restricting the woman too greatly. If the embryo's death was caused by them it would be an accident and not an intentional killing the way abortion is. And before you launch into the "what if she intentionally had an accidnet to try to end the life of the baby" then this would be detectable by medical evidence and the woman would be arrested for a diffrent offence.


Another point: Your argument requires pregnant women to make being pregnant their primary obligation during the pregnancy. What about any other children they may already have? If the cost of maintaining the pregnancy would mean taking food, clothing or medecine away from an existing child, should the existing child be made to do without? Or should the existing child be taken away from the mother who cannot care for it and maintain a pregnancy at the same time? Do women have the right to be mothers, or is that another right they must give up in favor of being life-support machines?

The government should give money and other resorces to the mother to ensure that she does not need to go without just because she is pregnant/has children.

My point is that even if the DNA is the same as the mothers body (IE clone, parthogeneic reproduction etc) the embryo exists and is developing in the same way as it would do if it were diffrent. Thus your arguement that it must be part of the womans body if it has the same DNA is flawed.

Yes, growing, developing, much like every other cell in her body. That's what was said over a hundred pages ago. Then you said it's not like every other cell in her body because it has a different DNA. Someone brought up cloning... and, oops, you still have no way of proving that the embryo is a different entity from the woman carrying it.

This thread is like one of those old fashioned soap operas. I come back after 2 days, and I find the same characters are still having the same conversation in the same scene. (Except that I have finally learned how to break up a quote within my replies. Thanks.)

Avalon, you are advocating a change in the law. You have not articulated what you would like the law to be, but based on your arguments, I think it would be that all abortions would be illegal under any circumstances, unless the mother's life is in danger.

In practical terms, can you tell me how you think such a law should be enforced?

How would you actually stop women from getting abortions? You may outlaw them in your country, but how will you stop women from traveling to another country to get an abortion? Will you place travel restrictions on pregnant women? How will you know they are pregnant if they have only just become pregnant and aren't showing yet? Will you require pregnancy tests before women are allowed to travel in order to stop them getting abortions overseas?

Or will you try to get other countries to agree not to give abortions to women from your country? What if they refuse to comply? How will you stop women from your country getting abortions in other countries?

Within your own country, how will you enforce the abortion ban? What will be the punishment for ending a pregnancy? Who will get punished, the woman or the doctor, or both? If you keep the "mother's life" exception, how will you make sure that any abortions are in fact medically necessary. Maybe doctors will falsify records in order to give elective abortions. Or will you cut off this problem by outlawing all abortions under all circumstances? Maybe doctors will just start calling them "miscarriages" then. Should every interrupted pregnancy be investigated to see if it was really an abortion in disguise? How will you gather evidence in such cases? Or will you try to cut off that problem by only allowing people who hold your religious beliefs to become doctors? But we've seen here that many Christians who are against abortion are still pro-choice. Can you really trust them? Perhaps you could cut off that problem by putting government inspectors in every examination room to listen to everything that happens between doctor and patient.

If the woman is legally obligated to carry every pregnancy to term, how will you make sure she carries out that obligation? Should pregnant women be forbidden from doing things that might be dangerous to a fetus, such as drink, smoke, do strenuous exercise, engage in sports, work long hours, etc.? Again, since it's hard to tell by sight if a woman is pregnant in the first few weeks, should all women of child-bearing age be stopped from doing things that are dangerous to pregnancies, just in case?

Another point: Your argument requires pregnant women to make being pregnant their primary obligation during the pregnancy. What about any other children they may already have? If the cost of maintaining the pregnancy would mean taking food, clothing or medecine away from an existing child, should the existing child be made to do without? Or should the existing child be taken away from the mother who cannot care for it and maintain a pregnancy at the same time? Do women have the right to be mothers, or is that another right they must give up in favor of being life-support machines?

Laws are not opinions or beliefs, Avalon. Laws are rules that must be followed, and in order for them to be followed, they give instructions as to how to follow them. Laws are complicated and full of exceptions and answers to exceptions, and rules/instructions for various circumstances, and punishments for not following them, etc. If you want to make a law, then tell me how you imagine it working.

Great point. Avalon will thoroughly ignore it.

The same way any law is enforced. By the police. However given how specialised this law is a special department of the police will proberbly have to be created. Women would have to regiseter with the government when they have discovered they are pregnant.

This is like saying, "Someone who wants to rob a bank will first have to register with the police that they need money." In your system, a woman who wants an abortion will not register with the police, and will just go get one anyways.

If your about to launch into the "what your proposing would be a great freedom curtailment" then you should be aware that the police already have considerable powers to gather evidence.

They do not have the power to be present at a medical examination, unless the patient gives consent or is already an inmate.

The things your suggesting here would be dangerous to the embyro, but to stop them would be restricting the woman too greatly. If the embryo's death was caused by them it would be an accident and not an intentional killing the way abortion is.

So you think the embryo should get all of the protections of a born human being *except* protection against manslaughter?

Yes, growing, developing, much like every other cell in her body. That's what was said over a hundred pages ago. Then you said it's not like every other cell in her body because it has a different DNA. Someone brought up cloning... and, oops, you still have no way of proving that the embryo is a different entity from the woman carrying it.

It is not growing and developing like every other cell in her body. If it were, the end result wouldnt produce a seperate entity. Again we are seeing an example of taking an arguement in isolation. You are only attacking the point about DNA when actually the point about DNA in combination with the points about develoment and growth deal withit.

Lets go through this point again.

PC = Pro choice
PL = Pro life

PC = An embryo is part of a womans body
PL = No it doesnt, it has diffrent DNA
PC = What about clones
PL = Diffrent DNA from its biological mother

You have yet to answer. If it is a clone it develops no diffrently from a non clone. And both have seperate DNA from the biological mother.

No question about it. Not a sausage. Killing is just plain downright totally WRONG no matter what perapective you take. It's just immoral.

YOU'RE ALL STINKING MURDERERS!!!!

Unless, of course, you're not.

I've got nothing against cloning, and don't kill the clonies either. here's a random thing I thought might be funny:

GULF WARS

Episode II

CLONE OF THE ATTACK

Starring Tony Blair, George Bush, and even Saddam Hussein

A law can only apply to the country it is promolgated in. I would encourage other countries to stop people having abortions but you can only legislate in one country. Frankly though in my view every country should go the same way.



The same way any law is enforced. By the police. However given how specialised this law is a special department of the police will proberbly have to be created. Women would have to regiseter with the government when they have discovered they are pregnant.



Both, and to equal ammounts. Imprisonment because the death penalty is abhorent in my opinion. A comparable sentance to a leniant charge on murder or manslaughter.



If doctors falsify records they are commiting another offence



There should be more than one doctor to decide if an abortion is nessecary (at least 3) and they must report their findings on every abortion to the government



This isnt about religious beliefs. Its about ethics and politics



If your about to launch into the "what your proposing would be a great freedom curtailment" then you should be aware that the police already have considerable powers to gather evidence.



The things your suggesting here would be dangerous to the embyro, but to stop them would be restricting the woman too greatly. If the embryo's death was caused by them it would be an accident and not an intentional killing the way abortion is. And before you launch into the "what if she intentionally had an accidnet to try to end the life of the baby" then this would be detectable by medical evidence and the woman would be arrested for a diffrent offence.



The government should give money and other resorces to the mother to ensure that she does not need to go without just because she is pregnant/has children.

Now you want women to register when they get pregnant? How exactly are you gonna make them do that? Obligatory monthly pregnancy tests?

It is not growing and developing like every other cell in her body. If it were, the end result wouldnt produce a seperate entity. Also lets go through this point again.

PC = Pro choice
PL = Pro life

PC = An embryo is part of a womans body
PL = No it doesnt, it has diffrent DNA
PC = What about clones
PL = (makes up random definition of mother so that it fits the argument) Diffrent DNA from its biological mother

PC = Irrelevant, it may still have the same DNA as the mother carrying it.

You have yet to answer. If it is a clone it develops no diffrently from a non clone. And both have seperate DNA from the biological mother.

Corrections in bold.

Now you want women to register when they get pregnant? How exactly are you gonna make them do that? Obligatory monthly pregnancy tests?

Put it simpley if they then enter a hospital in labour and dont have a pregancy registration on file then they will be asked why not. The baby will still be delivered but a fine will be charged.

could a pro-life peron please explain the logic behind that using concrete facts , none of this its a seperate life rubbish , cold hard facts not beliefs

It is not growing and developing like every other cell in her body. If it were, the end result wouldnt produce a seperate entity. Again we are seeing an example of taking an arguement in isolation. You are only attacking the point about DNA when actually the point about DNA in combination with the points about develoment and growth deal withit.

Lets go through this point again.

PC = Pro choice
PL = Pro life

PC = An embryo is part of a womans body
PL = No it doesnt, it has diffrent DNA
PC = What about clones
PL = Diffrent DNA from its biological mother

You have yet to answer. If it is a clone it develops no diffrently from a non clone. And both have seperate DNA from the biological mother.

It's different from its "biological mother". Fine. It's not part of the body of the "biological mother". But it is part of the body of the woman carrying it, as the DNA is exactly the same.

Corrections in bold.

Firstly, it is not a random defintion of a mother. It is the defintion of a mother in terms of human biology.

Secondly, it is not irrelevent. It can be applied to non clones in the same way it can be to clones. Thus it is a universal arguement and it works

Thirdly, a cloned is still developing and growing in a completely seperate way to the body of the mother. If it was not then it would not produce an indivudal living human being at the end. How would it be able to produce a child if it was not seperate?

could a pro-life peron please explain the logic behind that using concrete facts , none of this its a seperate life rubbish , cold hard facts not beliefs

No, they can't.

No, they can't.


thought as much

It's different from its "biological mother". Fine. It's not part of the body of the "biological mother". But it is part of the body of the woman carrying it, as the DNA is exactly the same.

No it isn't. It is developing and growing as part of itself, not part of the mother. Clones develop and grow in the same way as non clones. The way you are twisting my logic means that non clones are humans, and clones are not. However both develop in the same way in the womb.

Put it simpley if they then enter a hospital in labour and dont have a pregancy registration on file then they will be asked why not. The baby will still be delivered but a fine will be charged.

<dumbfounded>

If that's not totalitarism, I don't know what is.

Firstly, it is not a random defintion of a mother. It is the defintion of a mother in terms of human biology.

No, it really isn't. It is exactly like the example I gave, which would be to try and define 2nd trimester as "when the fetus grows to 30 cm and becomes very active." This is not, of course, how it is defined. The 2nd trimester is defined as months 4-6 of pregnancy, whether the fetus gets that big and gets active at all.

And again, there is no separate field known as "human biology". There is "biology".

Thirdly, a cloned is still developing and growing in a completely seperate way to the body of the mother. If it was not then it would not produce an indivudal living human being at the end. How would it be able to produce a child if it was not seperate?

How does my body produce stomach cells if my stomach is not separate? How does my body produce a liver if the liver is not separate? How does my body create eggs if they are not separate?

Firstly, it is not a random defintion of a mother. It is the defintion of a mother in terms of human biology.

Secondly, it is not irrelevent. It can be applied to non clones in the same way it can be to clones. Thus it is a universal arguement and it works

Thirdly, a cloned is still developing and growing in a completely seperate way to the body of the mother. If it was not then it would not produce an indivudal living human being at the end. How would it be able to produce a child if it was not seperate?

How is it separate from the body of the woman carrying it? The DNA difference was your argument, but you've clearly thrown that out the window. So how are you gonna prove now that it's not part of the body of the woman carrying it?

No it isn't. It is developing and growing as part of itself, not part of the mother. Clones develop and grow in the same way as non clones. The way you are twisting my logic means that non clones are humans, and clones are not. However both develop in the same way in the womb.

It's impossible to twist your logic, Avalon, it doesn't get any more twisted than it already is. Still waiting for proof that that particular clump of cells in my uterus isn't part of me, even though it has the same DNA as the rest of me.

No, it really isn't. It is exactly like the example I gave, which would be to try and define 2nd trimester as "when the fetus grows to 30 cm and becomes very active." This is not, of course, how it is defined. The 2nd trimester is defined as months 4-6 of pregnancy, whether the fetus gets that big and gets active at all.

No, because the words "2nd Trimester" already mean second period of 13 weeks. However the defintion should say "during the second trimester the the fetus grows to 30 cm and becomes very active" not "the second Trimester is when" becaus then the definiton of second Trimester is purely considered as a period of biologiucal activity and not a time. Where as in my defintion there is no such confusion.


And again, there is no separate field known as "human biology". There is "biology".

Since there is a seperate degree in it various universitys I have seen your arguement is surious at best.


How does my body produce stomach cells if my stomach is not separate? How does my body produce a liver if the liver is not separate? How does my body create eggs if they are not separate?

Your body creates its indivdual cells through cell division. The embryo is created by cell fusion

It's impossible to twist your logic, Avalon, it doesn't get any more twisted than it already is. Still waiting for proof that that particular clump of cells in my uterus isn't part of me, even though it has the same DNA as the rest of me.

It was created by cellular fusion where as the indvidual cells that make you up were created by cellular division.

How is it separate from the body of the woman carrying it? The DNA difference was your argument, but you've clearly thrown that out the window. So how are you gonna prove now that it's not part of the body of the woman carrying it?

I see I havent made it clear enough.

The embryo is its own entity

The embryo has DNA unique from its biological mother

The embryo was created through a process of cellular fusion and now develops along its own path as a result of that cellular fusion

No, because the words "2nd Trimester" already mean second period of 13 weeks. However the defintion should say "during the second trimester the the fetus grows to 30 cm and becomes very active" not "the second Trimester is when" becaus then the definiton of second Trimester is purely considered as a period of biologiucal activity and not a time. Where as in my defintion there is no such confusion.

And "mother" already means the female who gives birth to the infant.

It was created by cellular fusion where as the indvidual cells that make you up were created by cellular division.

I was talking about a cloned embryo. It was made by replacing the nucleus of one of my eggs with the nucleus of another cell of mine. Then implanted in my uterus. Now there's no way to prove that it's not a part of me.

I see I havent made it clear enough.

The embryo is its own entity

Not proven.

The embryo has DNA unique from its biological mother

There's no such thing as "biological mother" in the sense you're using it.

The embryo was created through a process of cellular fusion and now develops along its own path as a result of that cellular fusion

Again, not true in the case of clones.

Put it simpley if they then enter a hospital in labour and dont have a pregancy registration on file then they will be asked why not. The baby will still be delivered but a fine will be charged.

I thought you were the person talking about how barbaric the American system was, and lauding how much better the NHS model is?

And yet, now, you are talking about a situation where treatment can be 'decided' by incorrect paperwork? And - paying for it, no less?

Put it simpley if they then enter a hospital in labour and dont have a pregancy registration on file then they will be asked why not. The baby will still be delivered but a fine will be charged.

You do realise that sometimes the woman doesn't even realise she's pregnant until very late in the pregnancy? When we were debating abortion in RS one time my teacher told us about a friend of hers who only realised they were pregnant when they went into labour. How do you plan to deal with this?

And "mother" already means the female who gives birth to the infant.

Are you sure? Avalon's definitions change so frequently...

My definitions may be moronic but at least I'm consistant.;)

I thought you were the person talking about how barbaric the American system was, and lauding how much better the NHS model is?

And yet, now, you are talking about a situation where treatment can be 'decided' by incorrect paperwork? And - paying for it, no less?

He's really painted himself into a corner...

You do realise that sometimes the woman doesn't even realise she's pregnant until very late in the pregnancy? When we were debating abortion in RS one time my teacher told us about a friend of hers who only realised they were pregnant when they went into labour. How do you plan to deal with this?

That is reduclous. How could anyone not realise they were pregnant till they went into labour. What about the bump, the kicking, the morning sickness etc.

I see I havent made it clear enough.

The embryo is its own entity

The embryo has DNA unique from its biological mother

The embryo was created through a process of cellular fusion and now develops along its own path as a result of that cellular fusion

Okay - this is the last time I'm responding to this particular iteration.

You have made yourself perfectly clear, my friend... but you have not PROVED any of your points. You are waving your own PERSONAL opinions at us, as though they had some real-world significance.

How can you not see that parthenogenesis creates an embryo in direct contravention of your second and third 'laws'?

I think you know it, really... but are choosing to ignore mere 'facts', because they get in the way of a good rant.

I was talking about a cloned embryo. It was made by replacing the nucleus of one of my eggs with the nucleus of another cell of mine. Then implanted in my uterus. Now there's no way to prove that it's not a part of me.

Well then it is not created by cellular mitosis (IE the process of cell division). That is it a better way of difining it then, I can now see that my original defintion was not complete as it did not contain that. Thank you.

1. An entity with DNA of the genus homo
2. An entity with DNA that is unique from either of its biological parents*
3. An entity that exists of itself (IE is not part of anothers body)
4. An entity that is growing and developing in the pattern that its DNA accords it to
5. An entity not created by cellular mitosis

*Biological parents are defined as those parenst whom 23 chromosones of each were fused to create the DNA of an individual human

Are you sure? Avalon's definitions change so frequently...

My definitions may be moronic but at least I'm consistant.;)

I was talking about the non-Avalonic definition of the word...

That is reduclous. How could anyone not realise they were pregnant till they went into labour. What about the bump, the kicking, the morning sickness etc.

Happens all the time, my friend.

Not every labour is the same, not every pregnancy is the same.

I've heard people tell of how they delivered a baby with no warning except for stomach pains... the first inkling they had of pregnancy, was as the baby slid into the toilet bowl.

(Plus, of course, especially in the rural areas of Bible Belt America... there are a fair number of people who wouldn't know HOW to recognise their pregnancy).

The embryo is its own entity

No it isn't, if you remove it from the mother it'll die.

No it isn't, if you remove it from the mother it'll die.

If you remove someone from a life support machine they will die, does that mean that a person on a life supprot machine is somehow less human?

That is reduclous. How could anyone not realise they were pregnant till they went into labour. What about the bump, the kicking, the morning sickness etc.

It is pretty sad, yes, but it has happened.

If you remove someone from a life support machine they will die, does that mean that a person on a life supprot machine is somehow less human?

Nope, but the lack of a functioning brain or any other internal organs does.

It is pretty sad, yes, but it has happened.

Presumably under Avalon's system the mothers would be classed as 'dirty whores' anyway so they probably don't count.

Well then it is not created by cellular mitosis (IE the process of cell division). That is it a better way of difining it then, I can now see that my original defintion was not complete as it did not contain that. Thank you.

1. An entity with DNA of the genus homo
2. An entity with DNA that is unique from either of its biological parents*
3. An entity that exists of itself (IE is not part of anothers body)
4. An entity that is growing and developing in the pattern that its DNA accords it to
5. An entity not created by cellular mitosis

*Biological parents are defined as those parenst whom 23 chromosones of each were fused to create the DNA of an individual human

Prove #3. You've forgotten that the whole "its DNA is different from the mother!!" thing started for that purpose. You've invalidated it, so now you must provide arguments to back up #3.

A law can only apply to the country it is promolgated in. I would encourage other countries to stop people having abortions but you can only legislate in one country. Frankly though in my view every country should go the same way.

And what if they don't go along with you? How will you stop women who are citizens of your country from getting abortions simply by going to other countries to get them? This was my very first question. Please address it.



[/QUOTE]The same way any law is enforced. By the police. However given how specialised this law is a special department of the police will proberbly have to be created. Women would have to regiseter with the government when they have discovered they are pregnant. [/QUOTE]

And what if they don't? What if they simply choose not to go to a hospital and instead seek out a sympathetic doctor for an office procedure, or if they go to a midwife, or if they go to another country?



[/QUOTE]Both, and to equal ammounts. Imprisonment because the death penalty is abhorent in my opinion. A comparable sentance to a leniant charge on murder or manslaughter.[/QUOTE]

So, if a woman has been raped and doesn't want to carry her rapist's child she gets to go to prison for that.



[/QUOTE]If doctors falsify records they are commiting another offence[/QUOTE]
Yes, obviously. How will you stop them?



[/QUOTE]There should be more than one doctor to decide if an abortion is nessecary (at least 3) and they must report their findings on every abortion to the government[/QUOTE]

Are they allowed to do the abortion with 3 medical opinions, or do they have to wait for the government to give permission? How long should they wait? What if the woman dies in the meantime?



[/QUOTE]This isnt about religious beliefs. Its about ethics and politics[/QUOTE]

It most certainly is about religious beliefs. All of your sources regarding ethics and most of your sources regarding science, too, have been religious organizations. You, yourself, have been invoking your religion throughout this thread. Your entire position is based on your religious beliefs. You have offered no secular back up for your arguments at all -- beyond your own speculations, that is.



[/QUOTE]If your about to launch into the "what your proposing would be a great freedom curtailment" then you should be aware that the police already have considerable powers to gather evidence.[/QUOTE]

There are rules of evidence that limit the powers of the police. What you are suggesting would go far beyond any I have ever heard of in any country. I would appreciate any historical examples of a country, with any kind of government, that has done what you propose. China, maybe? I don't think even they went so far. Of course, they were doing it in favor of abortion, not against it.



[/QUOTE]The things your suggesting here would be dangerous to the embyro, but to stop them would be restricting the woman too greatly. If the embryo's death was caused by them it would be an accident and not an intentional killing the way abortion is. And before you launch into the "what if she intentionally had an accidnet to try to end the life of the baby" then this would be detectable by medical evidence and the woman would be arrested for a diffrent offence.[/QUOTE]

What medical evidence are you talking about? Are you now suggesting that any time a pregnant woman falls down stairs or gets into a car accident she should be investigated for abortion-manslaughter?



[/QUOTE]The government should give money and other resorces to the mother to ensure that she does not need to go without just because she is pregnant/has children. [/QUOTE]

And who is going to pay for that, then?

Nope, but the lack of a functioning brain or any other internal organs does.

What you are now refering to is the human being dead, which the embryo demonstratably is not. It is not alive either but that is not what I am arguing it is. I am arguing that it is human.

Prove #3. You've forgotten that the whole "its DNA is different from the mother!!" thing started for that purpose. You've invalidated it, so now you must provide arguments to back up #3.

3# is proven by 4# and 5#

What you are now refering to is the human being dead, which the embryo demonstratably is not. It is not alive either but that is not what I am arguing it is. I am arguing that it is human.

But you've refered to abortion as 'killing' the fetus. You can't kill things which aren't properly alive.

*demonstrates by shotgunning a semi-sentient shrubery*

So, if a woman has been raped and doesn't want to carry her rapist's child she gets to go to prison for that.

More to the point she'd get a longer sentence than the rapist (about 10-15years compared to 5-10 years). Justice huh?

But you've refered to abortion as 'killing' the fetus. You can't kill things which aren't properly alive.

*demonstrates by shotgunning a semi-sentient shrubery*
*Shrubbery Squeals in pain*

Why?!? What did I ever do to you?!?

But you've refered to abortion as 'killing' the fetus. You can't kill things which aren't properly alive.

*demonstrates by shotgunning a semi-sentient shrubery*

No, my arguement is that it is destroying a human, which is unacceptable

Another point: Your argument requires pregnant women to make being pregnant their primary obligation during the pregnancy. What about any other children they may already have? If the cost of maintaining the pregnancy would mean taking food, clothing or medecine away from an existing child, should the existing child be made to do without? Or should the existing child be taken away from the mother who cannot care for it and maintain a pregnancy at the same time? Do women have the right to be mothers, or is that another right they must give up in favor of being life-support machines?

You failed to respond to this point. Please address it.

*Shrubbery Squeals in pain*

Why?!? What did I ever do to you?!?

You see!!! He isn't dead!!! I AM VINDICATED!!!

*shotguns semi-sentient shrubbery again in celebration*

You failed to respond to this point. Please address it.

No, I didnt fail to respond to it.

The government should give money and other resorces to the mother to ensure that she does not need to go without just because she is pregnant/has children

Kindly read all of my post next time

No, my arguement is that it is destroying a human, which is unacceptable

Destroying a non-alive human. Like cremation you mean?

Destroying a non-alive human. Like cremation you mean?

A cremation destroys a dead human. An embryo is not dead. Nor is it alive however.

More to the point she'd get a longer sentence than the rapist (about 10-15years compared to 5-10 years). Justice huh?
Good point.

Say, Avalon, under the heading of "would you rather be dead or pregnant?" -- if a woman gets raped and commits suicide to avoid having the rapist's baby, does that count as an abortion and who is to blame for it?

No, I didnt fail to respond to it.



Kindly read all of my post next time
My bad. I was blinded by the incredibly unrealistic idea of the government paying to support all these babies.

So who IS going to pay for that, then?

My bad. I was blinded by the incredibly unrealistic idea of the government paying to support all these babies.

So who IS going to pay for that, then?

The government. The government already pays in the UK to help support children through tax credits. It just needs to be more effective/efficent

Good point.

Say, Avalon, under the heading of "would you rather be dead or pregnant?" -- if a woman gets raped and commits suicide to avoid having the rapist's baby, does that count as an abortion and who is to blame for it?

She is, since it was her choice to commit suicide. The rapeist should be indirectly blamed and should have his sentence extended.

The same way any law is enforced. By the police. However given how specialised this law is a special department of the police will proberbly have to be created...

The scene: A secret abortion clinic near Area 51

Evil abortionist: Zo, here is ze injection ve vill use to painfully kill the fetus!!!

Bad Mother: Wow doctor, we're so evil you have a german accent! Now kill the little bugger! Muhahahahah!!!!

[anti-abortion squad kick down the door in slow motion, two squad members crash through the window]

Squad Leader: Freeze scumbags!

BM: Never! You can't stop my despicable plot to murder my child!
[snatches up needle]

[AAS shotgun her repeatedly in the head and upper torso]

SL: Another innocent life saved, now to rescue the fetus! [pulls on rubber glove while the rest of the squad concentrate on tasering the doctor in the testicals]

In cinemas, April 1st

3# is proven by 4# and 5#

1. An entity with DNA of the genus homo
2. An entity with DNA that is unique from either of its biological parents*
3. An entity that exists of itself (IE is not part of anothers body)
4. An entity that is growing and developing in the pattern that its DNA accords it to
5. An entity not created by cellular mitosis

#4 includes every cell in my body. #5 indicates that my eggs are entities of their own because they weren't "created" by mitosis.

No, my arguement is that it is destroying a human, which is unacceptable
But it's not a Person. You can go on about how human it is all you like, but unless it actually attains person status, that's not really any more relevant than saying it's immoral to pull the plug on a completely braindead person due to the chance they might "get better".

Sure, it's a potential person. So is a sperm cell. But until it actually attains wakefulness, it's not actually a person; DNA constructs be damned. And that is ultimately what defines the issue. A child needs to have a sense of self to respond to its surroundings in order to be granted personhood. Until it does, its spiritual existence is negligible.

Aborting a rape-child is no more immoral than masturbation. And I'd like to see you try to ban that. No, really, I would. It'd be a laugh. ^^

But you've refered to abortion as 'killing' the fetus. You can't kill things which aren't properly alive.

*demonstrates by shotgunning a semi-sentient shrubery*

OMG you have semi-sentient shrubery?? Where did you get it? :eek:

Aborting a rape-child is no more immoral than masturbation. And I'd like to see you try to ban that. No, really, I would. It'd be a laugh. ^^

*eats popcorn and watches with interest*

More to the point she'd get a longer sentence than the rapist (about 10-15years compared to 5-10 years). Justice huh?

Do not question the ways of Avalon the Wise. For only He knows what's best.

The scene: A secret abortion clinic near Area 51

Evil abortionist: Zo, here is ze injection ve vill use to painfully kill the fetus!!!

Bad Mother: Wow doctor, we're so evil you have a german accent! Now kill the little bugger! Muhahahahah!!!!

[anti-abortion squad kick down the door in slow motion, two squad members crash through the window]

Squad Leader: Freeze scumbags!

BM: Never! You can't stop my despicable plot to murder my child!
[snatches up needle]

[AAS shotgun her repeatedly in the head and upper torso]

SL: Another innocent life saved, now to rescue the fetus! [pulls on rubber glove while the rest of the squad concentrate on tasering the doctor in the testicals]

In cinemas, April 1st

:D


You see!!! He isn't dead!!! I AM VINDICATED!!!

*shotguns semi-sentient shrubbery again in celebration*

Just because he didn't die doesn't mean it isn't mean!
Would you like it if I shiot your leg beacuse it didn't kill you? :p

Well, I admit it. Avalon II has more stamina than me. I can't see the point anymore of arguing with someone who makes up 'scientific' definitions but ignores it when people tell him the actual scientific definitions (like not alive or the actually aspects of a living organism), makes up 'legal' definitions but says you're not allowed to appeal to the law if you correct him, makes up arguments by other posters, drops any arguments that he doesn't have a way to dismiss and declares victories on various arguments or all arguments every 20 or so pages. If Avalon II spent as much time studying as he does posting nonsensical definitions (usually including several spelling and grammar errors) and arguing about things he doesn't understand, his stamina would be impressive and this thread would still be interesting. But I've ceased learning anything and A II certainly isn't absorbing our arguments or attempts to educate him at least about the terms and laws he is using in his arguments, so I really can't waste my time anymore. Enjoy.

What I meant to say was, "I entered this thread without an open mind and did not listen to your arguments no matter how much knowledge you have on subject and how little I have. Because of this, you have been unable to change my mind or any of my arguments even if they are based on definitions that have no basis in science, law, linguistics or human interaction, so I declare myself the winner of this thread and there is no point in continuing. LALALALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

OMG you have semi-sentient shrubery?? Where did you get it? :eek:

I constructed it from the piles of aborted fetuses that all we pro-choice people have lying around the house. Neat huh?

Destroying a non-alive human. Like cremation you mean?

cremation is teh ev0l!! ur destroyng cellz! burn in hell, u fag!!1eleventy!

The government. The government already pays in the UK to help support children through tax credits. It just needs to be more effective/efficent

Pshaw, Muravyets! Don't you know in Avalonland the government collects the money that rains from the sky and pays for everything you'll ever need and nobody has to pay taxes ever?? Duh!

The scene: A secret abortion clinic near Area 51

Evil abortionist: Zo, here is ze injection ve vill use to painfully kill the fetus!!!

Bad Mother: Wow doctor, we're so evil you have a german accent! Now kill the little bugger! Muhahahahah!!!!

[anti-abortion squad kick down the door in slow motion, two squad members crash through the window]

Squad Leader: Freeze scumbags!

BM: Never! You can't stop my despicable plot to murder my child!
[snatches up needle]

[AAS shotgun her repeatedly in the head and upper torso]

SL: Another innocent life saved, now to rescue the fetus! [pulls on rubber glove while the rest of the squad concentrate on tasering the doctor in the testicals]

In cinemas, April 1st

LMAO! :D

I constructed it from the piles of aborted fetuses that all we pro-choice people have lying around the house. Neat huh?

Oh, I usually just stew my aborted fetuses for soup! How do you make this shrubery thing? Sounds nifty. :D

What I meant to say was, "I entered this thread without an open mind and did not listen to your arguments no matter how much knowledge you have on subject and how little I have. Because of this, you have been unable to change my mind or any of my arguments even if they are based on definitions that have no basis in science, law, linguistics or human interaction, so I declare myself the winner of this thread and there is no point in continuing. LALALALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

I've adapted my postion several times in the thread. I originally said the embryo was alive from conception but Demrepublicans showed me how scientifcly it cannot be considered alive. I have adapted my definition of human a number of times due to points various people have raised. And as for your point on legal defintions in your earlier post, let me make myself clear. What we cant do is say "the current laws make what you say illegal therefore you cant do it" because all the time laws are created that make old laws obselete. What we can do is say "the current law suggests this therefore this change to the law would be within the tollerance of the current law more than another change"

But it's not a Person.

I didnt say it was


You can go on about how human it is all you like, but unless it actually attains person status, that's not really any more relevant than saying it's immoral to pull the plug on a completely braindead person due to the chance they might "get better".

Firstly, I believe euthinasia to be wrong also, but that is a diffrent matter.

Secondly, unlike a brain dead person, we know that the embryo will live (Bar natural causes and accidents, but that is true of all humans anyway)


Sure, it's a potential person. So is a sperm cell.

No it isnt. A sperm is a part of another human. It is not a human of itself, nor a potential person. Only when it is fused with an egg is it human and a potential person. However as I have argued here, it is the fact that it is human that is important


But until it actually attains wakefulness, it's not actually a person

The idea that wakefullness makes a person is a non objective decision. And again it is not being a person that I am arguing for.


DNA constructs be damned. And that is ultimately what defines the issue. A child needs to have a sense of self to respond to its surroundings in order to be granted personhood. Until it does, its spiritual existence is negligible.

I am not arguing about its spirtual existance. I am arguing about its human existance


Aborting a rape-child is no more immoral than masturbation. And I'd like to see you try to ban that. No, really, I would. It'd be a laugh.

Sperm are not humans. They are human sperm but they themselves are not individual humans

#4 includes every cell in my body.

Embryos as a whole entity clearly develop in a very diffrent way than your indivudal cells do as parts of your body. Since when can you show me an individual cell that shows brainwave activity after six weeks or so of its existance. Furthermore, each cell in your body contain all the DNA of your body. Your body is constructed, grows and develops along the lines that all your DNA shows it. Your indivudal cells are growing and developing along the DNA's own path for them, not along the path that the DNA gives to your entire body.


#5 indicates that my eggs are entities of their own because they weren't "created" by mitosis.

But they do not meet the peramiters of point 4 or any of the other points. Again, you have to consider these points in tandum with one another

1. An entity with DNA of the genus homo
2. An entity with DNA that is unique from either of its biological parents*
3. An entity that exists of itself (IE is not part of anothers body)
4. An entity that is growing and developing in the pattern that its DNA accords it to
5. An entity not created by cellular mitosis

Embryos as a whole entity clearly develop in a very diffrent way than your indivudal cells do as parts of your body. Since when can you show me an individual cell that shows brainwave activity after six weeks or so of its existance. Furthermore, each cell in your body contain all the DNA of your body. Your body is constructed, grows and develops along the lines that all your DNA shows it. Your indivudal cells are growing and developing along the DNA's own path for them, not along the path that the DNA gives to your entire body.

#4 doesn't say that it's an entity because it's developing brainwave activity, it clearly says "developing in the pattern that its DNA accords it to". This includes every cell that has DNA. If you want to rephrase your 5 requirements, go right ahead.

But they do not meet the peramiters of point 4 or any of the other points. Again, you have to consider these points in tandum with one another

But see, all of us humans do quite a bit of mitosis. We do some meiosis too, but I'd guess that over 99% of our cells are "created" through mitosis. If you have one single-cell organism formed through combining 2 cells, those previous cells are destroyed. Then, if this single-cell organism splits in 2 through mitosis, the single-cell organism no longer exists. What exists now is a 2-cell organism formed through mitosis. So #5 states that the fertilized egg is an entity, but once it starts splitting through mitosis, it stops being an entity? I think you need to make your Avalonology clearer...

I've adapted my postion several times in the thread. I originally said the embryo was alive from conception but Demrepublicans showed me how scientifcly it cannot be considered alive. I have adapted my definition of human a number of times due to points various people have raised. And as for your point on legal defintions in your earlier post, let me make myself clear. What we cant do is say "the current laws make what you say illegal therefore you cant do it" because all the time laws are created that make old laws obselete. What we can do is say "the current law suggests this therefore this change to the law would be within the tollerance of the current law more than another change"

How about the legal definition of self-defense, of murder, etc., which you claimed to know but is not, in fact, correct at even a basic level? You aren't trying to change murder laws and self-defense laws as far as I know, are you? You've changed your definition of human? Your definition isn't correct. You made it up. You found a definition but it's expects people to realize it has to be a living organism before you attach homo sapien to it. You ignore this, because it doesn't fit your argument. You ignored several of my posts because if you were to address them they would show you just how silly your arguments about self-defense and murder are. I don't blame you. It would be difficult to pretend like your positioni isn't that woman should not be consider and non-persons should, that women have LESS VALUE than a non-person.

Alright, so if you admit that it is not alive from conception then at what point are you arguing that abortion should be illegal, just so we're all clear? What is your definition of human, just so we're clear?

Have you conceded that it is self-defense does not require intent on the part of the 'attacker', only that the 'attacker' put the individual in a position where of defending themselves from harm or accepting the harm? Have you conceded that self-defense can absolutely be a long, thoughtful process, not a sudden one (I think you were confusing temporary insanity)? In other words have you conceded all points that are born of your ignorance of law and biology or only those ones that don't hurt your argument too much?

What am I, their king?

I haven't seen any compelling evidence of 'appeals to emotion' from the average-joe-pro-choice, anyway.

Certainly not on a 'baby-killer', 'abortion is murder' scale.

Sure you have... Try a little harder.

Parasite is not an appeal to emotion. It is a description of the relationship.

A foetus is not a saprophyte, for example... but it IS a parasite.

The fetus is an internally incubated offspring of a species that develops it's young in the womb of it’s mother rather than in an egg or in a marsupial pouch, offering it the highest level of protection possible.

We protect the eggs of birds of prey (for example), we penalize the killing of wild animals during the times that they carry their young (spring and summer) and yet, here, in this thread, we cannot name an embryo/fetus as even an entity of it's own species, nor allow it any protections whatsoever? Absurd.

A Parasite temporarily or permanently exploits the energy of a host, i.e., it 'steals' it's sustenance. An embryo/fetus relationship with it’s mother cannot 'steal' anything because everything it needs is freely 'given' by the mother’s own body.

However as I have argued here, it is the fact that it is human that is important
The point I have been making throughout is that it isn't. Being human doesn't mean anything. Would the issue be nulled if somehow you were impregnated by another kind of being? (Let's not delve into the details of that scenario) I wouldn't say so; the same rules would apply in both cases. The only criterion that matters is whether or not something is person. Sentient. Interactable. Self-aware. Wakeful. Considering the humanity of something as the primary basis when considering the status of its life is not just utterly irrelevant, but flat out speciest!

The issue that makes or breaks the whole thing is to what degree we consider the embryo/child a person - a "spirit", if you prefer - regardless of its genetic lineage. When a child is completely incapable of even detecting its existence, it cannot be so considered. When it fulfils the following criteria:

a) Sensory capacity to perceive and physically interact with an environment,
b) Intellectual capacity to make sense (even subconsciously) of these senses in relation to itself,

... we can consider it sufficiently developed to treat it as an individual and thus deny forceful termination of it. Whether or not it's human doesn't really matter.


And Sperm cells are as much potential humans as children are potential world champion Athletes. It'll happen, but only if it works really hard and can beat off all of the competition.

Now, I am an avid pro life person. I believe strongly that a fetus is a human life. There is a lot of evidence to support that, but, I still dont understand why people are prochoice.

So people, if your pro choice, please, post a few good, hard, backed up reasons here. Dont make four word posts like "its not a life" or "its the womans choice". I ask you post a logical argument.

Human life does not equal personhood.

By being anti-abortion (when we start arguing about whether life or death is better you can say you are pro-life, for now you are anti-abortion), you are saying that it is perfectly ok to restrict the rights of a person to protect a nonperson.

The fetus is an internally incubated offspring of a species that develops it's young in the womb of it’s mother rather than in an egg or in a marsupial pouch, offering it the highest level of protection possible.

We protect the eggs of birds of prey (for example), we penalize the killing of wild animals during the times that they carry their young (spring and summer) and yet, here, in this thread, we cannot name an embryo/fetus as even an entity of it's own species, nor allow it any protections whatsoever? Absurd.

A Parasite temporarily or permanently exploits the energy of a host, i.e., it 'steals' it's sustenance. An embryo/fetus relationship with it’s mother cannot 'steal' anything because everything it needs is freely 'given' by the mother’s own body.
Yep and as soon as our species is endangered, you might have a point. Also, you might note that in those cases the mother is desiring to take care of the offspring. We aren't acting against the wishes forcing the parents to take care of offspring it doesn't want and more importantly forcing the mother to carry a child it doesn't want, forcing her to endanger her life and to take the damage and difficulties that go with bearing offspring. The comparison - absurd.

Mother birds often in times of famine where they feel they cannot care for offspring push their eggs out of their nest. I had a hamster that I forgot to feed and since she couldn't care for the babies she killed it. Animals make our case for us, not the other way around.

What the embryo/fetus needs is not freely given since the mother is not being forced to have abortion. She clearly does not want the embryo/fetus to take what it needs so your claim isn't just spurious, it's a downright lie, unless of course we don't count the brain and what it desires as part of the body.

Human life does not equal personhood.

By being anti-abortion (when we start arguing about whether life or death is better you can say you are pro-life, for now you are anti-abortion), you are saying that it is perfectly ok to restrict the rights of a person to protect a nonperson.

Yes, exactly

Human life does not equal personhood.

Straight from the books of every ethnic-centrist who ever devalued another race, creed, breed, cache, sex or age of another human being and was attempting to 'define' and justify that deprival of human rights from another.

By being anti-abortion (when we start arguing about whether life or death is better you can say you are pro-life, for now you are anti-abortion), you are saying that it is perfectly ok to restrict the rights of a person to protect a nonperson.

By being pro-death of the pre-born (when we start arguing about whether pre-born get to choose to not be killed you can say you are pro-choice, for now you are pro-death of the pre-born), you are saying that it is perfectly ok to restrict the rights of the pre-born to the whims of another based on nothing but age discrimination against the young.

Straight from the books of every ethnic-centrist who ever devalued another race, creed, breed, cache, sex or age of another human being and was attempting to 'define' and justify that deprival of human rights from another.



By being pro-death of the pre-born (when we start arguing about whether pre-born get to choose to not be killed you can say you are pro-choice, for now you are pro-death of the pre-born), you are saying that it is perfectly ok to restrict the rights of the pre-born to the whims of another based on nothing but age discrimination against the young.

Wrong. It is not alive. Prove it's alive and you'll have a point. Last time I checked things had to be alive to kill them. However, you invoked the rules we put upon other species so you must meet the biological standard for life. Or how about they meet the same standards we expect when people die. We consider a person to have died when their brain ceases to function. Since in the majority of cases the brain hasn't yet managed to begin to function at the level of function we require for life for humans in medicine all the time, it really can't count as death (even if you ignore biological standards). So prove it is alive by either of these standards. I'll wait.

Straight from the books of every ethnic-centrist who ever devalued another race, creed, breed, cache, sex or age of another human being and was attempting to 'define' and justify that deprival of human rights from another.
A human finger, severed and left on a table, will be full of live cells. It will therefore be alive. Does that a human make?

As of yet, the only arguments I have seen suggesting that we protect the emrbyo/early fetus are emotive and, essentially, religious. I am not in favor of forcing any religious or philosophical position upon other people through the law. I feel that only that which we can demonstrate in an objective manner should be legislated. Thus, I will not legislate that a woman cannot abort an embryo/early fetus, as doing so would be to force my religion upon her through the law.

If someone can provide an objective definition of "human person" that includes zygotes/embryos, does not include other single human cells or human organs, and does not invoke the potentiality argument, I would like to see it.

And what? Your point makes no sense. Everything is based off of some form of moral/philosophical idea/ideal. Objectivity requires us to do other things that aren't moral. Such as kill off old people because they do less for our society than a 30 year old. And kill off all AIDS patients because they represent a huge threat to society. Yet we don't. Why?

Because our morals, however established, stop us from doing so.

Wrong. It is not alive. Prove it's alive and you'll have a point. Last time I checked things had to be alive to kill them. However, you invoked the rules we put upon other species so you must meet the biological standard for life. Or how about they meet the same standards we expect when people die. We consider a person to have died when their brain ceases to function. Since in the majority of cases the brain hasn't yet managed to begin to function at the level of function we require for life for humans in medicine all the time, it really can't count as death (even if you ignore biological standards). So prove it is alive by either of these standards. I'll wait.


No we don't, the heart has to stop before the time of death is marked on the death certificate.

A human finger, severed and left on a table, will be full of live cells. It will therefore be alive. Does that a human make?

A healthy human embryo has it's own budding fingers and a heart beat before the 4th week of gestation. Your finger is a human finger, your finger, the one you had when you were an embryo too.

Age discrimination. Not digit discrimination.

A healthy human embryo has it's own budding fingers and a heart beat before the 4th week of gestation. Your finger is a human finger, your finger, the one you had when you were an embryo too.

Age discrimination. Not digit discrimination.

Well, technically we don't even begin to count a person's age until they are already born. Of course you've heard this before, I'm sure.

No we don't, the heart has to stop before the time of death is marked on the death certificate.

We can revive the heart. The concern is always for brain death.

Well, technically we don't even begin to count a person's age until they are already born. Of course you've heard this before, I'm sure.

Tell that to a pregnant mother. Pregnant on purpose or not, pregnant mothers after their first visit to the OB/GYN will be able to start drawing up charts to tell you EXACTLY how many days along they are, so much so, she is counting the very weeks until delivery, and after the first ultrasound, she'll have that down to a few day window. She and her doctor are keeping a very precise chart of how old the pre-born child is.

This place counts the weeks too:
http://pregnancy.about.com/od/yourbaby/a/pregcalendar.htm

We can revive the heart. The concern is always for brain death.

No, your earlier statement was wrong, pure and simple. Death is based on the heart beat. The pre-born brain is not a concern outside of watching out for possible developing birth defects.

Tell that to a pregnant mother. Pregnant on purpose or not, pregnant mothers after their first visit to the OB/GYN will be able to start drawing up charts to tell you EXACTLY how many days along they are, so much so, she is counting the very weeks until delivery, and after the first ultrasound, she'll have that down to a few day window. She and her doctor are keeping a very precise chart of how old the pre-born child is.

This place counts the weeks too:
http://pregnancy.about.com/od/yourbaby/a/pregcalendar.htm

If she decides to go through with the pregnancy. Even so, the doctors and pregnant women are counting stages or months/days of the pregnancy not the baby. I have never heard a pregnant woman say, "My baby is 5 months and 11 days old!"

I am an atheist myself, so i see no real issue with aborting a fetus. Especially one that is threatening the mothers life, or one that would be born with serious health problems.
My mother is a christian however, yet she says it a way i kind of like. That is "You should have the right to choose, but you should not make that choice unless absolutely necessary."

If she decides to go through with the pregnancy. Even so, the doctors and pregnant women are counting stages or months/days of the pregnancy not the baby. I have never heard a pregnant woman say, "My baby is 5 months and 11 days old!"

EVEN if she's getting an abortion, the abortionist does an ultrasound just before performing the abortion to verify (get this) the 'age' of the embryo/fetus...

Gestational age, not actual age. It's another way of saying phase or development... as in still developing, incomplete, not fully formed.... therefore not fully alive.

Gestational age, not actual age. It's another way of saying phase or development... as in still developing, incomplete, not fully formed.... therefore not fully alive.

Age of development, like say, infant, toddler, pre-school, child, puberty/pre-teen, teen, adulthood, middle-age, senior citizen... You mean a phase of development, as in 'fully completed' alive, finished and growing/aging?

Age of development, like say, infant, toddler, pre-school, child, puberty/pre-teen, teen, adulthood, middle-age, senior citizen... You mean a phase of development, as in 'fully completed' alive, finished and growing/aging?

No, though it's a nice attempt to twist my words. "Still developing" that which will make it viable -to sustain life beyond the woman's womb. Until such a point as the fetus could live outside of a woman's body, it is not alive. Notice how you didn't include fetus with your infant/toddler comparison. Obviously, if a child doesn't have well-developed organs he or she is not going to be alive.

#4 doesn't say that it's an entity because it's developing brainwave activity, it clearly says "developing in the pattern that its DNA accords it to". This includes every cell that has DNA. If you want to rephrase your 5 requirements, go right ahead

Your missing the point. All humans contain within themselves DNA. This DNA is for want of a better phrase, an instruction manual on how a human being should develop/grow. Individual cells perform functions within that instrcution manual, in the same way that screws hold together a clock. But only the entire human develops acordinng to the entire manual


But see, all of us humans do quite a bit of mitosis. We do some meiosis too, but I'd guess that over 99% of our cells are "created" through mitosis. If you have one single-cell organism formed through combining 2 cells, those previous cells are destroyed. Then, if this single-cell organism splits in 2 through mitosis, the single-cell organism no longer exists. What exists now is a 2-cell organism formed through mitosis. So #5 states that the fertilized egg is an entity, but once it starts splitting through mitosis, it stops being an entity? I think you need to make your Avalonology clearer...

The entity was originally created by a non mitosis process. The twins that exist as a result of the spliting of a fertalised egg are not so much created as two new humans. The human began its existance at fertalisation, its split into two humans does not mean two humans were created. It means that one created human was split into two

No, because the words "2nd Trimester" already mean second period of 13 weeks.

Yes, and the word "mother" already means something different than you are trying to make it. It means the female or single parent of the offspring - either the female who gives it genetic information or the single parent which gives it information if two sexes are not present.

Your body creates its indivdual cells through cell division. The embryo is created by cell fusion

My body creates individual cells through cell fusion as well. My muscle cells were created that way, as were my osteoclasts.

Happens all the time, my friend.

Not every labour is the same, not every pregnancy is the same.


Indeed. My great-grandmother had a normal menstrual cycle throughout her entire pregnancy. Half of me always wonders now when I get my period, if I might not actually be pregnant, and how I would know for sure until later. Once, when it came late, I actually went and got tested just in case, I was so convinced.

No, though it's a nice attempt to twist my words. "Still developing" that which will make it viable -to sustain life beyond the woman's womb. Until such a point as the fetus could live outside of a woman's body, it is not alive. Notice how you didn't include fetus with your infant/toddler comparison. Obviously, if a child doesn't have well-developed organs he or she is not going to be alive.

Show me who decided the definition of life is life outside of the womb. Who wrote this definition?

What are premature babies then? Some survive at 24 weeks, some do not. But they all, either way, would have been better off still in a healthy womb. The walls of a uterus are not magical, passage out of one does not bestow 'personhood' upon an entity in any way outside of legal definition, as it stands now.

The human ages and develops from the day the cystoblast implants and is accepted by the uterus linning. It’s growth rate and development is known, it will not stop until death (be it the next day or ninety nine years later). The word ‘potential’ no longer applies.

And what? Your point makes no sense. Everything is based off of some form of moral/philosophical idea/ideal. Objectivity requires us to do other things that aren't moral. Such as kill off old people because they do less for our society than a 30 year old. And kill off all AIDS patients because they represent a huge threat to society. Yet we don't. Why?

Because our morals, however established, stop us from doing so.

Objectivity doesn't require us to do any of those things, although I wonder about you since you thought of them....

We make laws about things that objectively harm other human beings. Of course, that is by an objective definition of "other human beings."

No we don't, the heart has to stop before the time of death is marked on the death certificate.

You mean we harvest all those organs from live people>?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Oh wait, brain death doesn't include a stopped heartbeat....

I am an atheist myself, so i see no real issue with aborting a fetus. Especially one that is threatening the mothers life, or one that would be born with serious health problems.
My mother is a christian however, yet she says it a way i kind of like. That is "You should have the right to choose, but you should not make that choice unless absolutely necessary."

I can certainly agree with that sentiment, although I would disagree with some on what constitutes "absolutely necessary".

The entity was originally created by a non mitosis process.

So were my muscle cells, osteoclasts, and eggs. In fact, many of my cells were "created" through differentiation of precurosr, not mitosis. Hmmm....

The twins that exist as a result of the spliting of a fertalised egg are not so much created as two new humans. The human began its existance at fertalisation, its split into two humans does not mean two humans were created. It means that one created human was split into two

Wait, so you are saying that twins are only one human?

You mean we harvest all those organs from live people>?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Why not: they aren't using the organs correctly! :p

No, your earlier statement was wrong, pure and simple. Death is based on the heart beat. The pre-born brain is not a concern outside of watching out for possible developing birth defects.

Really? So why is the heart important? Because it gives blood to the brain. Can the heart be replaced? Yep. Can the brain? Nope. If you fall in the water and stop breathing and your heart stops, they are concerned with how long you are down. Why? Because after a certain amount of time, your heart can be restarted but your brain won't function or won't function well enough to consider you living anymore. When the discussion happened about Terri Schiavo, did it center around whether her heart functioned properly or whether her brain did? When they autopsied her were they concerned with the condition of her heart or her brain (or lack thereof)? When a baby is born, which is of more concern damage to the heart or damage to the brain? Which are they more likely to be able to fix?

The brain is what it's all about and you know it. Now, you can pretend it's not in an effort to make a point but if we could put a man on a machine and his brain functioned fine but the machine acted as his heart, no worries. No one would question whether he is living. If we put a man on a machine that replaced the function of his brain but his heart was undamaged, would we consider him alive? Terri Schiavo answered that question and the answer is no. The entire debate was about whether her brain could recover. It was never about her heart. It amazes me how unimportant honesty is to you. You'll try to win an argument on a technicality but you simply don't care that it's dishonest.

EVEN if she's getting an abortion, the abortionist does an ultrasound just before performing the abortion to verify (get this) the 'age' of the embryo/fetus...

To verify the stage of development. You know why this is as well as everyone in the thread. Again, you make my point from the previous post. You'll try to win an argument on a technicality even though you know it's dishonest. No one is arguing if the embryo/fetus is developing and that this development is based on how long it gestates, however we all know that whether it is born early or late (different levels of gestation) we start counting age from the day it leaves the womb. Is this untrue? No, you know it's true. But truth doesn't matter to you if you think you can 'win'.

Age of development, like say, infant, toddler, pre-school, child, puberty/pre-teen, teen, adulthood, middle-age, senior citizen... You mean a phase of development, as in 'fully completed' alive, finished and growing/aging?

Keep proving my point. You know that the brain does not function at the point of most abortions and that the fetus does not qualify for the biological and medical standards for alive. Continue to be intellectually dishonest. It's not as if we expect different.

Quick question, will you celebrate birthdays or conceptiondays with your children? I wonder why we celebrate birthdays. Actually, I'll tell you honestly, that I don't. I know why. So do you.

You mean we harvest all those organs from live people>?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Oh wait, brain death doesn't include a stopped heartbeat....


That's a particularly European and American rationale. 'Brain Death' in Japan, fore example, where the concept of ‘brain death’ has only recently been adopted in legislation at all, but has yet to be widely accepted by the general populace, means little or nothing to them (and certainly not a backward technological society nor overly 'religious'). But as you should know, and you probably do, 'truly dead' people, people who are heart dead upon arrival at the hospital, etc., are not used for donors today (not that they couldn't some day be used if they arrived quickly enough and were usable). Only the body living and sustainable 'brain dead' people and are deemed unrecoverable are used for donors in America, and it's why they need people to signed their 'own' donor cards, they might be sued for murder by surviving family members if they don't have a legitimate donor card...

So were my muscle cells, osteoclasts, and eggs. In fact, many of my cells were "created" through differentiation of precurosr, not mitosis. Hmmm...

Again, the point is not meant to be dealt with on its own, but in the context of the other 4 points


Wait, so you are saying that twins are only one human?

No. I am saying that when they were created they were one, but they became two. However the process by which they became two does not eqauate to the creation of either of them

You mean we harvest all those organs from live people>?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Oh wait, brain death doesn't include a stopped heartbeat....

Don't bother. We both know that if his wife was laying on a table with a functional brain and stopped heart but her brain was kept fully functional while they repaired or replaced her heart, he wouldn't consider her dead. However, if her head was cut off but her body was completely functional, there is little doubt whcih of those scenarios he would prefer or what he would do in those scenarios. The only way to suggest otherwise is simply to be dishonest.

Keep proving my point. You know that the brain does not function at the point of most abortions and that the fetus does not qualify for the biological and medical standards for alive. Continue to be intellectually dishonest. It's not as if we expect different.

I already proved it does function. You choose to ignore the evidence.

The brain functions for the embryo heart very early, before most pregnancies can even be detected yet, and the brain and body is responsive to stimuli before the end of the embryonic stage, as it goes into the fetus stage, and that short period is when most abortions occur. Your statement is in error..

Side Issue: I have not conceded the brain aware status as relevant in the first place, only you pro-option to kill it people keep harping on it and have suggested it's somehow meaningful. Wait a month and look again, problem solved. It is simply a state/phase that all humans go through when they are that age. All humans have passed through it, and only humans can come from it, it is therefore, human, it cannot be anything else.

Don't bother. We both know that if his wife was laying on a table with a functional brain and stopped heart but her brain was kept fully functional while they repaired or replaced her heart, he wouldn't consider her dead. However, if her head was cut off but her body was completely functional, there is little doubt whcih of those scenarios he would prefer or what he would do in those scenarios. The only way to suggest otherwise is simply to be dishonest.

The only way to define 'death' only one way is shortsighted. Neither brain nor heart is dead in a fetus.

Again, the point is not meant to be dealt with on its own, but in the context of the other 4 points



No. I am saying that when they were created they were one, but they became two. However the process by which they became two does not eqauate to the creation of either of them

So when WERE they created?

The only way to define 'death' only one way is shortsighted. Neither brain nor heart is dead in a fetus.

Absolutely right. The embryo/fetus is not yet alive during most abortions. I have already said that at the point where the fetus has brain function at the level we expect to consider an born human to have not yet died then and only then do I consider it to be alive (since we consider the reverse death). The definitions of life used here by pro-lifers is an objective one used by medicine and biology. You guys are just making up whatever works.

Answer honestly, if your wife's heart was replaced by a machine and her heart was removed would you consider her to still be living? What if her brain was replaced by a machine and her brain was removed?

So when WERE they created?

When the sperm and egg fused and the indivdual DNA created.

Don't bother. We both know that if his wife was laying on a table with a functional brain and stopped heart but her brain was kept fully functional while they repaired or replaced her heart, he wouldn't consider her dead. However, if her head was cut off but her body was completely functional, there is little doubt whcih of those scenarios he would prefer or what he would do in those scenarios. The only way to suggest otherwise is simply to be dishonest.

Brain dead mothers have given birth to live children... even very recently. Was the child born of a dead womb? Does perhaps death mean more than one organ has stopped. The brain is just an organ, it can work in various modes.

To pretend, as you do over and over again, that a physically mature but seriously and irreparably damaged brain and a brain that is perfectly healthy but very young, are somehow in the same category is quite simply ludicrous and a juvenile argument.

I already proved it does function. You choose to ignore the evidence.

I didn't ignore it. I didn't concede it. Even your own two sources do not agree and you admit that. One of your sources and EVERY other source I've seen has brain function beginning after the majority of abortions are done.

The brain functions for the embryo heart very early, before most pregnancies can even be detected yet, and the brain and body is responsive to stimuli before the end of the embryonic stage, as it goes into the fetus stage, and that short period is when most abortions occur. Your statement is in error..

Not according to one of your sources. If it was wrong, one wonders why you would post it? Are you saying that that one source MUST be right and your other source MUST be wrong? Shall I quote you where you said brain function didn't occur until the eighth week?

Side Issue: I have not conceded the brain aware status as relevant in the first place, only you pro-option to kill it people keep harping on it and have suggested it's somehow meaningful. Wait a month and look again, problem solved. It is simply a state/phase that all humans go through when they are that age. All humans have passed through it, and only humans can come from it, it is therefore, human, it cannot be anything else.

Not option to kill it. It's not alive by the biological definition of the term. You can make up terms all you like. I would prefer to use terms that have nothing to do with your religious beliefs or any other biased purpose. The definition of terms we are using are based on biological and medical definitions that were not created solely for the definition of a human fetus.

And yes I realize you say you don't care about the brain, but you try to make these arguments anyway, even when you realize you don't really believe them. If a doctor said to you we can induce labor early but it will protect your child's brain and damage the heart or we can allow it to go to term where it will certainly have brain damage but no damage to the heart, it wouldn't be a difficult decision and you know it. A heartbeat is not as important as brainwaves and you and I both know it.

I didn't ignore it. I didn't concede it. Even your own two sources do not agree and you admit that. One of your sources and EVERY other source I've seen has brain function beginning after the majority of abortions are done.

Fine, prove it with a link. Or quit pretending. I've provided four to six links at various times in this thread. None of them said the brain wasn't functioning at the time most abortions are done.

Brain dead mothers have given birth to live children... even very recently. Was the child born of a dead womb? Does perhaps death mean more than one organ has stopped. The brain is just an organ, it can work in various modes.

To pretend, as you do over and over again, that a physically mature but seriously and irreparably damaged brain and a brain that is perfectly healthy but very young, are somehow in the same category is quite simply ludicrous and a juvenile argument.

The organ was alive, the mother was dead. You and I both know it.

It's a juvenile argument, now? So would you care to find an unbiased definition of life that is used somewhere other than related to fetuses and fetuses only? I am using unbaised and common defitions that were created outside of this argument. They don't fit your cause so you make things up.

I will continue to ask the question. If you could have your wife with a fully functioning heart and a machine replacing her required brain functions or a fully functioning brain and a machine replacing her heart functions, which would you prefer?

When the sperm and egg fused and the indivdual DNA created.

Two 'lives' were created according to you, at that point?

Fine, prove it with a link. Or quit pretending. I've provided four to six links at various times in this thread. None of them said the brain wasn't functioning at the time most abortions are done.

So if I find one that YOU'VE posted, can I refer to you as "The Great Liar" for the rest of your and my tenure on this forum AND every time anyone asks why you are referred to as that, you have to admit that it is because I have repeatedly caught you lying? Fair enough? Deal?

Show me who decided the definition of life is life outside of the womb. Who wrote this definition?

What are premature babies then? Some survive at 24 weeks, some do not. But they all, either way, would have been better off still in a healthy womb. The walls of a uterus are not magical, passage out of one does not bestow 'personhood' upon an entity in any way outside of legal definition, as it stands now.

The human ages and develops from the day the cystoblast implants and is accepted by the uterus linning. It’s growth rate and development is known, it will not stop until death (be it the next day or ninety nine years later). The word ‘potential’ no longer applies.

There ya go! At 24 weeks, they can be considered to have life! That wasn't too hard, was it? Once a fetus is viable, I would consider abortion to have potential moral consequences, but not before then. It's still up to many other factors such as health, medical practice and legality.

Two 'lives' were created according to you, at that point?
Does each twin get a half a soul?

Or does one be so greedy as to take it all?

Or does the soul not enter into the equation till it breathes thereby not making this a issue (I vote for 3).
:D

Week 3
* beginning development of the brain, spinal cord, and heart

Weeks 4 to 5
* formation of tissue that develops into the vertebra and some other bones
* further development of the heart which now beats at a regular rhythm
* movement of rudimentary blood through the main vessels
* beginning of the structures of the eye and ears
* the brain develops into five areas and some cranial nerves are visible
(the first positive pregnancy results from a urine test are obtainable during this period [after the first missed period])

Week 6
* beginning of formation of the lungs
* further development of the brain

Week 7-8
* nipples and hair follicles form
* elbows and toes visible
* all essential organs have at least begun to form
*rotation of intestines
*facial features continue to develop
*the eyelids are more developed
*the external features of the ear begin to take their final shape
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/002398.htm
(The end of the eighth week marks the end of the "embryonic period" and the beginning of the "fetal period" and ‘most abortions in America are performed in week 7-9)

When does the fetus's brain begin to work?
Generally speaking, the central nervous system (which is composed of the brain and the spinal cord) matures in a sequence from "tail" to head. In just the fifth week after conception, the first synapses begin forming in a fetus's spinal cord. By the sixth week, these early neural connections permit the first fetal movements--spontaneous arches and curls of the whole body--that researchers can detect through ultrasound imaging. Many other movements soon follow--of the limbs (around eight weeks) and fingers (ten weeks), as well as some surprisingly coordinated actions (hiccuping, stretching, yawning, sucking, swallowing, grasping, and thumb-sucking). By the end of the first trimester, a fetus's movement repertoire is remarkably rich, even though most pregnant women can feel none of it. (Most women sense the first fetal movements around eighteen weeks of pregnancy.)
http://www.zerotothree.org/brainwonders/FAQ.html

So, as I've shown and proved once again, the embryonic brain and nervous system is functional by the fifth week, developing and timing a heart beat by the third week, and split into all it' sections BEFORE the fetus stage.

As to respond to this and now say something like, it is not fully developed yet so it doesn't count or some such thing, let's ask again...
When is the brain fully developed?
In some way, never. Our brains are continually re-shaping themselves to meet the demands of everyday life, even throughout adulthood...
(*same link as the second one above)
So obviously, this is not a satisfactory way to justify the denial of the right to life of a human with their own functioning brain and beating heart...

Truth is, the fetus isn't viable not because of the brain and heart, but the other organs, like lungs and intestine... So unless you want to call them 'not persons' because their intestines don't poop yet, whatever.

So if I find one that YOU'VE posted, can I refer to you as "The Great Liar" for the rest of your and my tenure on this forum AND every time anyone asks why you are referred to as that, you have to admit that it is because I have repeatedly caught you lying? Fair enough? Deal?

You have issues. Perhaps you can find help for that? :rolleyes:

You have issues. Perhaps you can find help for that? :rolleyes:

That wasn't very Christian like of you. :rolleyes:

There ya go! At 24 weeks, they can be considered to have life! That wasn't too hard, was it? Once a fetus is viable, I would consider abortion to have potential moral consequences, but not before then. It's still up to many other factors such as health, medical practice and legality.

Hmmm, according to your argument, when a pre-born 'can’ possibly be removed without killing it, then it's illegal to do so? Because only then they are human? That's kind of an oxymoron and backward logic now isn't it? When the fetus is just only a short way past 'half' way, then the mother's body is irrelevant; all that talk of 'parasite' was nonsense because NOW the fetus might survive an abortion?

What kind of position is that? It's not an issue, it's subterfuge.

That wasn't very Christian like of you. :rolleyes:

Yes it is. He says he's a Christian too. Point out the error of your brothers ways, if he comes around, then good, if he does not...

Yes it is. He says he's a Christian too. Point out the error of your brothers ways, if he comes around, then good, if he does not...

Except you weren't doing it in a brotherly way. That response was to make him look bad in the arguement. You made jerk response and now your trying to justify it. Wow thats low especially for a Christian.

Except you weren't doing it in a brotherly way. That response was to make him look bad in the arguement. You made jerk response and now your trying to justify it. Wow thats low especially for a Christian.

Jesus did it first and then the Apostles afterwards did it all the time. Perhaps you should go read the New Testament some time instead of going around trying to pretend like you know what it says.

Jesus did it first and then the Apostles afterwards did it all the time. Perhaps you should go read the New Testament some time instead of going around trying to pretend like you know what it says.

Aww but your not Jesus and your not trying to do it in a nice brotherly way. Perhaps you should stop trying to pretend like this was a nice "christian" act and admit that you were being an ass to him.

Aww but your not Jesus are you and your not trying to do it in a nice brotherly way. Perhaps you should stop trying to pretend like this was a nice "christian" act and admit that you were being an ass to him.

Oh, I never said it was 'nice,' you assumed that part on your own. I would have called it a rebuke I suppose, if I had to define it.

Oh, I never said it was 'nice,' you assumed that part on your own. I would have called it a rebuke I suppose, if I had to define it.

I'm sorry its just when I see someone trying to help another I expect it to be you know in a nice way not being a jerk. My bad for assuming that your nice to others. And on your rebuke I'd go more along the lines of strawman. :rolleyes:

Hmmm, according to your argument, when a pre-born 'can’ possibly be removed without killing it, then it's illegal to do so? Because only then they are human? That's kind of an oxymoron and backward logic now isn't it? When the fetus is just only a short way past 'half' way, then the mother's body is irrelevant; all that talk of 'parasite' was nonsense because NOW the fetus might survive an abortion?

What kind of position is that? It's not an issue, it's subterfuge.

Did you actually read my statement? Or did you just create a specialized version of it in your head? Let me spell out my statement for you so as to avoid misunderstanding. Once a fetus is viable I, personally, would consider moral consequences (i.e. murder) ONLY after health factors, medical opinion and the legal status of abortion restrictions are applied. Until a fetus has developed what is necessary to it's own survival, then yes, it could technically be considered a parasite. I believe there is a reason abortion is legally allowed until the end of the first trimester, barring health issues that jeopardize the woman at a later phase of pregnancy. The mother's body is never irrelevant. I'm sure you wish it was, because then all we'd have to worry about is the fetus and nobody else, but the woman carrying a fetus is always relevant. Please, don't ever forget that.

Did you actually read my statement? Or did you just create a specialized version of it in your head? I said that once a fetus is viable I would consider moral consequences (i.e. murder) ONLY after health factors, medical opinion and the legal status of abortion restrictions are applied. Until a fetus has developed what is necessary to it's own survival, then yes, it could be considered a parasite. I believe there is a reason abortion is legally allowed until the second trimester, barring health issues that jeopardize the woman at a leter phase of pregnancy. The mother's body is never irrelevant.

It's STILL a parasite, according to the definition being used around here, until it is born, viable or not, it receives it’s sustenance from it’s mother.

Legally 'allowable' changes to the status of the pre-born is irrelevant. The development of the human species (God ordained or Evolutionary development) does not change with recognition from governments. The pre-born is a pre-born, legal right to life or not, defining its rights does not change what it is, A very young, growing, human, aging and living, in the womb or out.

I'm sorry its just when I see someone trying to help another I expect it to be you know in a nice way not being a jerk. My bad for assuming that your nice to others. And on your rebuke I'd go more along the lines of strawman. :rolleyes:

Pot, meet kettle. :p Silly.

Pot, meet kettle. :p Silly.

lol except I was never in any debate with you now. I just pointed out that you made a mean spirited remark. So nice try but you fail once again.

Week 3
* beginning development of the brain, spinal cord, and heart

Weeks 4 to 5
* formation of tissue that develops into the vertebra and some other bones
* further development of the heart which now beats at a regular rhythm
* movement of rudimentary blood through the main vessels
* beginning of the structures of the eye and ears
* the brain develops into five areas and some cranial nerves are visible
(the first positive pregnancy results from a urine test are obtainable during this period [after the first missed period])

Week 6
* beginning of formation of the lungs
* further development of the brain

Week 7-8
* nipples and hair follicles form
* elbows and toes visible
* all essential organs have at least begun to form
*rotation of intestines
*facial features continue to develop
*the eyelids are more developed
*the external features of the ear begin to take their final shape
(The end of the eighth week marks the end of the "embryonic period" and the beginning of the "fetal period" and ‘most abortions in America are performed in week 7-9)
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/002398.htm

When does the fetus's brain begin to work?
Generally speaking, the central nervous system (which is composed of the brain and the spinal cord) matures in a sequence from "tail" to head. In just the fifth week after conception, the first synapses begin forming in a fetus's spinal cord. By the sixth week, these early neural connections permit the first fetal movements--spontaneous arches and curls of the whole body--that researchers can detect through ultrasound imaging. Many other movements soon follow--of the limbs (around eight weeks) and fingers (ten weeks), as well as some surprisingly coordinated actions (hiccuping, stretching, yawning, sucking, swallowing, grasping, and thumb-sucking). By the end of the first trimester, a fetus's movement repertoire is remarkably rich, even though most pregnant women can feel none of it. (Most women sense the first fetal movements around eighteen weeks of pregnancy.)
http://www.zerotothree.org/brainwonders/FAQ.html

So, as I've shown and proved once again, the embryonic brain and nervous system is functional by the fifth week, developing and timing a heart beat by the third week, and split into all it' sections BEFORE the fetus stage.

As to respond to this and now say something like, it is not fully developed yet so it doesn't count or some such thing, let's ask again...
When is the brain fully developed?
In some way, never. Our brains are continually re-shaping themselves to meet the demands of everyday life, even throughout adulthood...
(*same link as the second one above)
So obviously, this is not a satisfactory way to justify the denial of the right to life of a human with their own functioning brain and beating heart...

Truth is, the fetus isn't viable not because of the brain and heart, but the other organs, like lungs and intestine... So unless you want to call them 'not persons' because their intestines don't poop yet, whatever.

Nevermind. You did it for me. I bolded the important parts. At six weeks, does it say the brain is controlling anything? Nope. The synapses in the spinal cord cause spontaneous movement. When does it talk about the brain doing anything? Read the bolded part, maybe by the eighth or tenth week. 56% of abortions happen by week 8. You corrected yourself. Nice job.

And again, how intellectually dishonest of you. "the embryonic brain and nervous system is functional by the fifth week," We were talking about the brain. Read your source again. Did you not understand it or are you lying? I'll accept either answer. It clearly says the brain is not controlling ANYTHING at five weeks.

It's STILL a parasite, according to the definition being used around here, until it is born, viable or not, it receives it’s sustenance from it’s mother.

Legally 'allowable' changes to the status of the pre-born is irrelevant. The development of the human species (God ordained or Evolutionary development) does not change with recognition from governments. The pre-born is a pre-born, legal right to life or not, defining its rights does not change what it is, A very young, growing, human, aging and living, in the womb or out.

Again it comes down to one simple question. What is a human? Your answer please.

Yes it is. He says he's a Christian too. Point out the error of your brothers ways, if he comes around, then good, if he does not...

Refering to someone as lying when they are is un-Christian? What should I say, you're telling the untruth? You posted again YOUR OWN SOURCE that says the brain is not controlling the body when the majority of abortions occur, while claiming you proved me wrong. I know that you're capable of understanding so one must assume you're lying instead. However, if you'd like to correct me and just suggest that your incapable of understanding your source, feel free to do so. I just call them like I see them.

Jesus did it first and then the Apostles afterwards did it all the time. Perhaps you should go read the New Testament some time instead of going around trying to pretend like you know what it says.

Ha. Amusing. Jesus called people like you hypocrites. Interesting that you'd point that out to him.

Ha. Amusing. Jesus called people like you hypocrites. Interesting that you'd point that out to him.

Don't waste your time on that Jocabia Ph33r couldn't beat you at the arguement so he tried to attack you. It happens.

Don't waste your time on that Jocabia Ph33r couldn't beat you at the arguement so he tried to attack you. It happens.

Amusingly, he again posted a source that says EXACTLY what I said and then claimed victory. It's clear that it says the first synapses form at 5 weeks and that they form from 'tail' to head. It also says no movement that could be considered controlled happens until eight to ten weeks. Then he summarizes the source as if it supports his argument. I simply don't believe that he is unable to understand his source, so one must conclude that he thinks protecting nonpersons justifies lying.

Nevermind. You did it for me. I bolded the important parts. At six weeks, does it say the brain is controlling anything? Nope. The synapses in the spinal cord cause spontaneous movement. When does it talk about the brain doing anything? Read the bolded part, maybe by the eighth or tenth week. 56% of abortions happen by week 8. You corrected yourself. Nice job.


Time for you to go back to school. What tells the heart to beat? The brain stem and nervous system, week three. The heart cannot beat without the brain stem and brain cannot function without the heart.
What makes body movements possible? Muscular motor skills of the brain, week five.

Now what were you saying about week 8?

Again it comes down to one simple question. What is a human? Your answer please.

A human is a mammel that will age and mature and (if healthy and not killed before sexual maturity) produce more human offspring.

Ha. Amusing. Jesus called people like you hypocrites. Interesting that you'd point that out to him.

Interesting that Jesus didn't go around saying it was moral, healthy and good for people to decide if they should allow their children to live, funny that you would hold that point of view.

A human is a mammel that will age and mature and (if healthy and not killed before sexual maturity) produce more human offspring.

Correct me if I am wrong. Your opinion is that a human is a mammal that will, barring circumstances resulting in death, produce more mammals. So an animal, then. Right?

Time for you to go back to school. What tells the heart to beat? The brain stem and nervous system, week three. The heart cannot beat without the brain stem and brain cannot function without the heart.
What makes body movements possible? Muscular motor skills of the brain, week five.

Now what were you saying about week 8?
Really? I need to go back to school. Fine. Let's play. See, the more you make people examine this source the more they are going to see you're lying. I hope you continue this argument for a few more pages.

"In just the fifth week after conception, the first synapses begin forming in a fetus's spinal cord.By the sixth week, these early neural connections permit the first fetal movements"

Hmmm... that's from your source. Now it says that the FIRST SYNAPSES are just forming in week five and not even in the brain. Yet, you claim they exist in week three IN THE BRAIN. It also says that these early neural connections are the only thing allowing the FIRST fetal movements. Did you miss that sentence, that YOU quoted from YOUR source? But maybe they really did mean the brain was already formed. Let's see.

"Generally speaking, the central nervous system (which is composed of the brain and the spinal cord) matures in a sequence from "tail" to head."

From 'tail' to head? Hmmmm... now what would be in the head? The brain perhaps? Oh, wait, that must mean... but it couldn't because you certainly wouldn't be that dishonest... it means that if the FIRST synapses are forming in the spinal cord then the synapses in the brain must be forming AFTER... but wait, that would mean... but it couldn't you're too honest... After the fifth week? But Ph33r said they formed in the third week.

One would have to be an embryo without a functioning brain (up to eight weeks gestation) in order to believe your source says what you claim.

When does the fetus's brain begin to work?
Generally speaking, the central nervous system (which is composed of the brain and the spinal cord) matures in a sequence from "tail" to head. In just the fifth week after conception, the first synapses begin forming in a fetus's spinal cord. By the sixth week, these early neural connections permit the first fetal movements--spontaneous arches and curls of the whole body--that researchers can detect through ultrasound imaging. Many other movements soon follow--of the limbs (around eight weeks) and fingers (ten weeks), as well as some surprisingly coordinated actions (hiccuping, stretching, yawning, sucking, swallowing, grasping, and thumb-sucking). By the end of the first trimester, a fetus's movement repertoire is remarkably rich, even though most pregnant women can feel none of it. (Most women sense the first fetal movements around eighteen weeks of pregnancy.)
http://www.zerotothree.org/brainwonders/FAQ.html

I'm gonna keep that source. That's great.

Amusingly, he again posted a source that says EXACTLY what I said and then claimed victory. It's clear that it says the first synapses form at 5 weeks and that they form from 'tail' to head. It also says no movement that could be considered controlled happens until eight to ten weeks. Then he summarizes the source as if it supports his argument. I simply don't believe that he is unable to understand his source, so one must conclude that he thinks protecting nonpersons justifies lying.

You seem to have reading comprehension and reading application issues, your interpretation of the two links information leaves a lot to be desired.

You seem to have reading comprehension and reading application issues, your interpretation of the two links information leaves a lot to be desired.

Strawman. Try going after the points not the poster.