NationStates Jolt Archive

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?

A human, not a rabbit, not a deer. A human has 'human' rights.

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.

No, Jesus didn't say anything about it. I don't hold that it's moral. I don't approve of abortions. I, however, don't see how I can enslave a woman to bear a child when getting an abortion cannot in any remotely objective manner be shown to hurt anyone.

I'm pretty sure he said something about lying? I'm talking about something he said nothing about and you're doing something that's listed as a no-no in the ten commandments. Interesting that you'd chastise me.

A human, not a rabbit, not a deer. A human has 'human' rights.

A living human has human rights. Unfortunately, what you're attempting to protect through law doesn't qualify.

A human, not a rabbit, not a deer. A human has 'human' rights.

Ok, work with me here. What makes a human different from an animal?

Strawman. Try going after the points not the poster.

Actually, it's an ad hominem, but I appreciate the sentiment.

Strawman. Try going after the points not the poster.

It's not a strawman, everyone can see for themselves that the links say 3 weeks for rythmic heart beat regulation, 5 weeks for measurable synapses and 6 weeks for full body movements. Well before 'most' abortions.



Then he wails about how it doesn't say it actually 'controls' anything he thinks is import, and then he stresses this interpreting and re-wording what they said to try and make it all 8 weeks or later.

But, they didn't say that now did they? The strawman here is on Jacobia's entire inability to understand what he is reading.

You seem to have reading comprehension and reading application issues, your interpretation of the two links information leaves a lot to be desired.

I hope you keep posting this. Post it over and over. Because I know this thread gets a lot of looks and I like for people to know about you. The meaning of your link is clear, and I don't believe you're unable to understand it. I simply think you refuse to admit that it does not support your point and that you didn't realize I'd so thoroughly expose you. Please, continue. I can't wait for people to read your assessment of that link.

It's not a strawman, everyone can see for themselves that the links say 3 weeks for rythmic heart beat regulation, 5 weeks for measurable synapses and 6 weeks for full body movements. Well before 'most' abortions.



Then he wails about how it doesn't say it actually 'controls' of anything, by desiring to interpret and re-word what they said, until 8 weeks or later.

But, they didn't say that now did they? The strawman here is on Jacobia's entire inability to understand what he is reading.

So why not post this instead of insulting Jacobia's reading ability? It seems like it would have been easier and more conducive to the debate rather then saying he has reading comprehension issues.

I hope you keep posting this. Post it over and over. Because I know this thread gets a lot of looks and I like for people to know about you. The meaning of your link is clear, and I don't believe you're unable to understand it. I simply think you refuse to admit that it does not support your point and that you didn't realize I'd so thoroughly expose you. Please, continue. I can't wait for people to read your assessment of that link.

You really truly do have personal issues here don't you? And I don’t mean just with this issue, but another poster’s point of view in a general forum. You need help Jacobia, anger management, social skills, I don't know what, but your personal resentment or bitterness, or whatever it is palpable.

I’ll let you rant, I’ll be back tomorrow, it’s quite late here.

So why not post this instead of insulting Jacobia's reading ability? It seems like it would have been easier and more conducive to the debate rather then saying he has reading comprehension issues.

But he does have reading comprehension issues showing here, now doesn't he.

It's not a strawman, everyone can see for themselves that the links say 3 weeks for rythmic heart beat regulation, 5 weeks for measurable synapses and 6 weeks for full body movements. Well before 'most' abortions.

And where are those synapses? Where does it say the system develops from? Does it say from tail to head? Does it say that the first synapses at five weeks are NOT in the brain? Does it refer to the full-body movements as sentient?


Then he wails about how it doesn't say it actually 'controls' anything he thinks is import, and then he stresses this interpreting and re-wording what they said to try and make it all 8 weeks or later.

But, they didn't say that now did they? The strawman here is on Jacobia's entire inability to understand what he is reading.
Un-huh? Answer the questions. Where does it say those synapses are formed? Does it not say that the motions at six weeks are controlled by the synapses in the spine, not the brain? Come on. Answer honestly. What does it say about those synapses?

Ok, work with me here. What makes a human different from an animal?

Human
Etymology: Middle English humain, from Middle French, from Latin humanus; akin to Latin homo human being -- more at HOMAGE
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
2 : consisting of humans
3 a : having human form or attributes b : susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature <such an inconsistency is very human

But he does have reading comprehension issues showing here, now doesn't he.
Not to my knowledge. All I see is that you are a little to fast to try to insult another poster in this thread instead of first addressing the arguement.

Human
Etymology: Middle English humain, from Middle French, from Latin humanus; akin to Latin homo human being -- more at HOMAGE
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
2 : consisting of humans
3 a : having human form or attributes b : susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature <such an inconsistency is very human

an·i·mal
n.
1. A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.
2. An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal.
3. A person who behaves in a bestial or brutish manner.
4. A human considered with respect to his or her physical, as opposed to spiritual, nature.
5. A person having a specified aptitude or set of interests: “that rarest of musical animals, an instrumentalist who is as comfortable on a podium with a stick as he is playing his instrument” (Lon Tuck).

Uh-oh... I saw a human in the definition for animal! Try again Ph33r. What makes a human different from any other animal? Or do you really feel it's just our frailties and sympathies that make us different?

You really truly do have personal issues here don't you? And I don’t mean just with this issue, but another poster’s point of view in a general forum. You need help Jacobia, anger management, social skills, I don't know what, but your personal resentment or bitterness, or whatever it is palpable.

I’ll let you rant, I’ll be back tomorrow, it’s quite late here.

Good. Here I go.

Notice how he dodges the point, friends. Notice how he does not answer any of the questions I pose about his sources. Obviously legitimate questions. Notice how doesn't reply to any of my substantive posts with anything other that suggesting I have difficulty with reading comprehension (even though my points are quoted from the link he posted) and problems with anger. What Ph33r calls anger is merely me making sure that people can see that he is attempting to deceive as he does in thread after thread in post after post.

Notice that he claims the heart is the more important organ than the brain when trying to decide life but when asked how he would react if he had to choose between which were replaced, he ignored the post. Is there any wonder why?

Notice that when we are talking about the brain he posts a link that supports our points, but then he starts talking about the nervous system because were he intellectually honest he would have to admit that brain is not functioning at this point and the spinal cord is what they are talking about when they refer to synapses and control. And when it is quoted and he is asked about it, he simply says that I have problems reading and never addresses the point. Is there any question why he doesn't actually address the point?

Again, I have to point out the difference between Avalon II and some of the other posters. Avalon II may be uneducated in certain areas. He may use circular arguments at times. He may not be a very skilled debator. But I whole-heartedly believe that he is attempting to actually support his posts and his points with more than supterfuge and trickery. I don't agree with his points or his purposes, but I believe he believes them.

Ph33r is just attempting to win, and he will do so at any cost. I believe abortion to be a very important issue (whether a woman chooses to have one, whether and when they should be legal) so don't take my word for it. Reread his posts. Reread his links and the parts he quotes of them. I am certain that you will find what I find in the links (as anyone would) and you will see that whether you agree with abortion or not, that brain function is not occuring until after the eighth week and even at that point the functions are very simplistic.

Read my signature for more information about his purposes and tactics. If you're curious if I am being honest about him search out his posts including the one referenced in my signature and you'll find that what is in this thread is not isolated. It will better prepare you for his attacks in other threads and later in this one.

I warn you because these are issues of human rights and he views these posts as a means to an end and will say anything to accomplish the curtailing of human rights across the board. I want you to see this.

Back to the point, again, read his posts and his links. I don't have to make my points, his links do it for me. It's clear when it says that any control by the brain occurs (or begins to occur) and what kind of control it is at what time. Unlike his summary the links break out the actual functions and where they are controlled because the link is not attempting to trick you like he is.

I think it is more harmful to force a women to have a child than to have an abortion.
I also believe the choice should be the women's as only approx. half the fundies (Women) go through childbirth.
Look at all the people on welfare with children. I am a great believer in only having children only if you can support them.
People should not be forced to use unsafe procedures due to disagreements over their purposes, but more focus should be placed on methods to not become pregnant rather than opposing abortions

Ideally they would not be necessary, but should be permitted

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.

Hear, hear.

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

I'm not "missing the point", I'm reading your made-up rules the way you wrote them. If there's possible misinterpretations, it's because you put them there. Go fix your rules.

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

I think Dem already made it clear that twins are not formed by mitosis of the fertilized egg. If you still didn't understand that, you should ask her to explain again.

[i]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.

Sorry Ph33r, this clearly refers to neural connections in the spinal cord, not in the brain. And your source, by pointing out that the CNS matures from tail to head places the function of the brain later. These spontaneous movements that are described are not controlled by the brain, but by the spinal cord. They are akin to reflexive movements in the limbs, which do not involve the brain.

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).

Now these actions are not reflexive. They are, as the source says, coordinated. Thus, these action would most likely require brain activity.

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.

Do you really have to be dishonest to believe what you believe? You haven't shown any such thing. You have shown that the spinal cord is developed enough to produce reflexive movements at 6 weeks (there was nothing about any functional connections at 5 weeks there - it simply said that connections begin to form). You have shown that the brain is most likely functional, to a point, by the 8th week, as more complex actions can be carried out.

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.

Wow! Where did you go to school? The heart controls its own beating. The brain can send signals to change the rate, but is not needed to keep the heart beating. As long as electrolytes are still around, the heart will continue to beat because it has its own pacemaker.

I myself have done experiments with animals in which we could remove the heart intact from the animal, place it in a petri dish of electrolytes, and watch it continue to beat.

If you grow heart cells in a petri dish, they will spontaneously begin to beat.

What makes body movements possible? Muscular motor skills of the brain, week five.

Incorrect again. The brain is not needed for some types of movement - ie. reflexes. Your reflexes occur because of connections between the muscular system and the spinal cord. The message goes from the muscle to the spinal cord and back again. It never travels to the brain.

Now what were you saying about week 8?

What were you saying about someone needing to go back to school?

Sorry Ph33r, this clearly refers to neural connections in the spinal cord, not in the brain. And your source, by pointing out that the CNS matures from tail to head places the function of the brain later. These spontaneous movements that are described are not controlled by the brain, but by the spinal cord. They are akin to reflexive movements in the limbs, which do not involve the brain.

No, no, no! You must have reading comprehension problems. Just because his source says what you say in explicit wording doesn't mean it MEANT those things. Obviously, it is more important that you read Ph33r's summary than the actual link. :rolleyes:

Now these actions are not reflexive. They are, as the source says, coordinated. Thus, these action would most likely require brain activity.

Hmmmm... that sounds familiar... who else said that? Oh, me.

Do you really have to be dishonest to believe what you believe? You haven't shown any such thing. You have shown that the spinal cord is developed enough to produce reflexive movements at 6 weeks (there was nothing about any functional connections at 5 weeks there - it simply said that connections begin to form). You have shown that the brain is most likely functional, to a point, by the 8th week, as more complex actions can be carried out.

I realize I could have been less harsh last night, and should have been, actually, but it's obvious that Ph33rdom has no interest in truth. He is all about ends justify the means. However, it doesn't matter what we say at this point, because Ph33r does this in thread after thread, he posts a bunch of nonsense that gets thoroughly refuted, he replies to none of it and then acts like it's all accepted. If the thread is still going, he'll be back with and pretend like his sources said what he claims in hopes that no one will call him on it. He knows he won't trick us, but he's hoping he can convinced some that are less educated on the subject and won't take the time to look it up.

It's not a strawman, everyone can see for themselves that the links say 3 weeks for rythmic heart beat regulation,

A regulation carried out by the heart tissue itself, which does not necessitate interference from the brain.

http://biology.about.com/library/organs/heart/blsinoatrialnode.htm

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/biology/sanode.html

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99358.htm

Ok, that should be enough.

5 weeks for measurable synapses

5 weeks for developiing synapses in the spinal cord is what it says, my dear.

and 6 weeks for full body movements.

It says 6 weeks for random movements along the spine, and controlled by the spinal cord. Still nothing at all about the brain.

Then he wails about how it doesn't say it actually 'controls' anything he thinks is import, and then he stresses this interpreting and re-wording what they said to try and make it all 8 weeks or later.

He didn't re-word anything. Your source clearly does not list any actions that would require control from the brain itself until week 8 or later.

But, they didn't say that now did they? The strawman here is on Jacobia's entire inability to understand what he is reading.

No, my dear. Jocabia understands biology and can read what is written, instead of what you want to see.

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

I've answered this already! The good twin gets the soul and the evil twin remains soulless. That's why that one is evil. :rolleyes:

The government. The government already pays in the UK to help support children through tax credits. It just needs to be more effective/efficent
Right, yeah. And where is the government going to get the money from? How is it inefficient/ineffective now, and how should it be improved?

She is, since it was her choice to commit suicide. The rapeist should be indirectly blamed and should have his sentence extended.
So it's possible for a man who is not a doctor to be liable for abortion. Of course, in this scenario, the only thing the rapist did to cause the abortion was make the woman pregnant in the first place. Will all men who are fathers, whose wives/lovers get abortions, be criminally liable?

No we don't, the heart has to stop before the time of death is marked on the death certificate.
If the heart stopping was the time of death, there probably would never be any medical resuscitation.

A regulation carried out by the heart tissue itself, which does not necessitate interference from the brain.

http://biology.about.com/library/organs/heart/blsinoatrialnode.htm

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/biology/sanode.html

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99358.htm

Ok, that should be enough.



5 weeks for developiing synapses in the spinal cord is what it says, my dear.



It says 6 weeks for random movements along the spine, and controlled by the spinal cord. Still nothing at all about the brain.



He didn't re-word anything. Your source clearly does not list any actions that would require control from the brain itself until week 8 or later.



No, my dear. Jocabia understands biology and can read what is written, instead of what you want to see.

I would like to add that much of what I now understand about the development of the brain was thanks to you pointing out what I didn't understand about it. I've studied a lot about the development of the brain after birth but I knew very little about it, until I read some of the sources you pointed me to and then found more on my own. I'd like to thank you for that. My knowledge is still a little sketchy (mostly because it's not nearly as interesting to me as the development of the brain post-birth and how it affects who we are and what we are capable of), but I understand it enough to speak intelligently about it (most of the time). I still defer to you when we're talking in depth about the development of the embryo/fetus.

I figured I hardly ever give you any credit, and since it's warranted here, what better time than the present.

If the heart stopping was the time of death, there probably would never be any medical resuscitation.

Indeed. If a person's heart stops and there are medical professionals nearby, they will begin to try and restart the heart through various means. It is only after they have tried and failed for long enough to cause brain-death that they finally stop and record a time-of-death.

Meanwhile, a person (or animal) can be dead, and its heart remain beating, as the beat is completely controlled by the heart itself through the sinoatrial node. I have seen this myself. It really, really freaks you out the first time you go to dissect a mouse and its heart is still beating, yet some dissections actually require it.

I would like to add that much of what I now understand about the development of the brain was thanks to you pointing out what I didn't understand about it. I've studied a lot about the development of the brain after birth but I knew very little about it, until I read some of the sources you pointed me to and then found more on my own. I'd like to thank you for that. My knowledge is still a little sketchy (mostly because it's not nearly as interesting to me as the development of the brain post-birth and how it affects who we are and what we are capable of), but I understand it enough to speak intelligently about it (most of the time). I still defer to you when we're talking in depth about the development of the embryo/fetus.

I figured I hardly ever give you any credit, and since it's warranted here, what better time than the present.

Well, as long as we're patting each other on the back here... =)

You've actually pointed me to links in some of the post-birth type conversations I had never seen before - I guess since all that reading got you interested. My main area of interest is actually the cardiovascular system, so what I know about the nervous system is based mostly on required classes and a little extra reading. We should get Bottle in here if it really gets down into the nitty gritty - she's a neuro person. =)

It's not a strawman, everyone can see for themselves that the links say 3 weeks for rythmic heart beat regulation, 5 weeks for measurable synapses and 6 weeks for full body movements. Well before 'most' abortions.



Then he wails about how it doesn't say it actually 'controls' anything he thinks is import, and then he stresses this interpreting and re-wording what they said to try and make it all 8 weeks or later.

But, they didn't say that now did they? The strawman here is on Jacobia's entire inability to understand what he is reading.

You're assuming it's the brain that regulates the heartbeat, but a source here says otherwise:

Regulation of the cardiac cycle

Cardiac muscle is myogenic, which means that it is self-exciting. This is in contrast with skeletal muscle, which requires either conscious or reflex nervous stimuli. The heart's rhythmic contractions occur spontaneously, although the frequency or heart rate can be changed by nervous or hormonal influences such as exercise or the perception of danger.

The rhythmic sequence of contractions is coordinated by the sinoatrial and atrioventricular nodes. The sinoatrial node, often known as the cardiac pacemaker, is located in the upper wall of the right atrium and is responsible for the wave of electrical stimulation (See action potential) that initiates atria contraction. Once the wave reaches the atrioventricular node, situated in the lower right atrium, it is conducted through the bundles of His and causes contraction of the ventricles. The time taken for the wave to reach this node from the sinoatrial nerve creates a delay between contraction of the two chambers and ensures that each contraction is coordinated simultaneously throughout all of the heart. In the event of severe pathology, the Purkinje fibers can also act as a pacemaker; this is usually not the case because their rate of spontaneous firing is considerably lower than that of the other pacemakers and hence is overridden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart#Regulation_of_the_cardiac_cycle

Sorry it's wikipedia and not a medical journal. Of course, if you'd like to point me to a proper source to correct wikipedia, I'd appreciate it.

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

I suspect I'm already pushing mod guidelines on the tastefulness of my posts so I'll have to resist the temptation to reply.;)

A regulation carried out by the heart tissue itself, which does not necessitate interference from the brain.

http://biology.about.com/library/organs/heart/blsinoatrialnode.htm

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/biology/sanode.html

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99358.htm

Ok, that should be enough.


No, it is not enough. The heart will not function without the outside stimuli of a funtioning brain stem. If you cut off the head of a chicken, it is well known that it will run around for a period of time. The same is true of other animals, including humans, that the heart will not suddenly stop, but peter off after it has been disconnected from the signal it requires for regulation. As you mentioned yourself, you know that a disconnected heart will stop unless it is reconnected to stimuli (mechanical or othewise). Why pretend that a heart can funtion for five weeks without input? Because that's what you are saying. Three week heart, 8 week brain, if that is true, then the heart would have to regulate and change it's own heart beat to for a period of five weeks. This does not happen. The sites do not suggest that they do, I'm surprised at you Dem., you know better.

I suspect I'm already pushing mod guidelines on the tastefulness of my posts so I'll have to resist the temptation to reply.;)

Damn. :p

I think it is more harmful to force a women to have a child than to have an abortion.
I also believe the choice should be the women's as only approx. half the fundies (Women) go through childbirth.
Look at all the people on welfare with children. I am a great believer in only having children only if you can support them.
People should not be forced to use unsafe procedures due to disagreements over their purposes, but more focus should be placed on methods to not become pregnant rather than opposing abortions

Ideally they would not be necessary, but should be permitted

Well said.

Have you noticed that most of the pro-lifers are also against welfare? To be fair Avalon is a welcome exception to this rule.

No, it is not enough. The heart will not function without the outside stimuli of a funtioning brain stem. If you cut off the head of a chicken, it is well known that it will run around for a period of time. The same is true of other animals, including humans, that the heart will not suddenly stop, but peter off after it has been disconnected from the signal it requires for regulation. As you mentioned yourself, you know that a disconnected heart will stop unless it is reconnected to stimuli (mechanical or othewise). Why pretend that a heart can funtion for five weeks without input? Because that's what you are saying. Three week heart, 8 week brain, if that is true, then the heart would have to regulate and change it's own heart beat to for a period of five weeks. This does not happen. The sites do not suggest that they do, I'm surprised at you Dem., you know better.

Dude. You realize you're trying to correct a biologist on biology? Did you even look at the links?

Damn. :p

I'll give you a clue: it involved 5 traffic cones, a mildly stunned tele-tubbie and a very surprised squirrel (and it was even more surprised by the time I'd finished with it!) I'm not sure about the legality of the remaining ingredients.

The less said about the method the better, it wasn't pretty....

No, it is not enough. The heart will not function without the outside stimuli of a funtioning brain stem.

Actually, it will. I've personally witnessed it. Now, eventually, it will stop, as it will cease to get the necessary nutrients and electrolytes....

The same is true of other animals, including humans, that the heart will not suddenly stop, but peter off after it has been disconnected from the signal it requires for regulation.

You didn't even bother to read any of the links, did you? The signal it requires for regulation is incorporated into the heart itself! The sinoatrial node controls the heartbeat. The only thing it gets from outside (sometimes) are "speed up" or "slow down" signals.

As you mentioned yourself, you know that a disconnected heart will stop unless it is reconnected to stimuli (mechanical or othewise).

I didn't mention any such thing. I said that, as long as it has electrolytes, it will keep beating. Like I said, I've done it myself - watched a heart continue beating although it was completely disconnected from the rest of the body. All it had was the proper electrolyte solution in a petri dish. I've watched heart cells, disconnected from any body, begin beating on their own, and self-regulate such that an entire petri dish will beat together.

Why pretend that a heart can funtion for five weeks without input?

It isn't pretending, my dear. It is biology. As the heart develops, it begins beating completely on its own.

Three week heart, 8 week brain, if that is true, then the heart would have to regulate and change it's own heart beat to for a period of five weeks.

There really isn't much changing of the heartbeat in the first five weeks. It begins, it becomes steady, and it goes. Certain hormonal and chemical cues can speed it up (as they can in vivo and even in a petri dish), but it is still regulated by the heart tissue itself, independent of any nervous system input.

This does not happen. The sites do not suggest that they do, I'm surprised at you Dem., you know better.

Actually, they do. They describe the function of the sinoatrial node. One even points out very clearly that the nervous system is not involved. The heart is self-regulating. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

I'll give you a clue: it involved 5 traffic cones, a mildly stunned tele-tubbie and a very surprised squirrel (and it was even more surprised by the time I'd finished with it!) I'm not sure about the legality of the remaining ingredients.

The less said about the method the better, it wasn't pretty....

o.0

Does it involving hurting the squirrel at all? 'Cause then I can't in good conscience do that.

Well, as long as we're patting each other on the back here... =)

You've actually pointed me to links in some of the post-birth type conversations I had never seen before - I guess since all that reading got you interested. My main area of interest is actually the cardiovascular system, so what I know about the nervous system is based mostly on required classes and a little extra reading. We should get Bottle in here if it really gets down into the nitty gritty - she's a neuro person. =)

Actually, what got me interested in the brain in particular has to do with my personal experiences in education and having to do with the treatment of geniuses (no comments from the peanut gallery). I started out really investigating the nature of intelligence. I didn't know when I began the research that I would learn so much about how different individual brains can be and how differently we sense and interpret information and that our measurement of that is far from linear (as most people think IQ tests are). The stuff I found out about gender identity and sexuality was almost a side-effect as it was not anything I really cared about or looked for.

The unfortunate part is that post-birth neurology books almost entirely gloss over the factors in development prior to birth, and it left me fairly ignorant (but not realizing it). Between what I've learned either from you or because of you regarding that and what I've learned about how genetic sex is not binary, (also pointed there by you) I've become very interested in the maltreatment of people based on sexuality and gender identity. Well, actually, in stopping the maltreatment (I'm not watching it and eating popcorn). /hijack.

Dishonest? Who's being dishonest?

Complex actions are not required to prove brain functionality. Hibernating animal brains, the closest a human ever gets to hibernating is while in the womb, work much the same way. Brain synapses are extremely slow during the period of 'rest' and begin to fire off only just before it’s time to ‘wake up.’ And waking up too soon is detrimental to proper development (processing too much stimuli too soon seems to restrict good development). As to brain development and growth, the primary brain development all occurs in the first trimester. Brain related birth defects and any damages caused by substance abuse or substance starvation damage (malnutrition from a lack of omega 3 or frolic acid, for example) occurs before many women even sustpect that they are pregnant. But the 'emotion' and humanity/personality part of the brain - although 'sleeping' does exist before the 8th week...

First, the post conception (PC) brain and synapses timing…

The "weaning problem" is likely related to another peculiarity in mammalian development, Clancy notes: Relative to the sequence of neural development events, the times required for gestation and dates of birth are "all over the map, or rather, all over the calendar." Some kinds of mammals are born with their eyes open, while others can't open their eyes until hours or days after birth, she says, citing an example familiar to anyone who has raised babies and kittens.

The only other event that doesn't fit the developmental patterns, the Cornell neurobiologists report, is a huge surge in the production of synapses (the junctions where brain cells communicate), an event that begins just before birth in the developing brains of primates, including humans.

For all other milestone events, the model accurately "predicted" the post- conception (PC) time, where the PC time was known from actual experiments with animals. (Accurate prediction of known facts is a critical test for mathematical models. The model's correlation, between predictions and known facts, was 0.9900, a nearly perfect relationship that indicates high accuracy.) For example, the PC time of peak development of the amygdala (the almond-shaped section in the front of the brain's temporal lobe that is involved in emotions such as fear) was predicted by the Cornell model to be 14.3 days in rats, whereas previous experiments put amygdala development at 15 days. Similarly accurate predictions were found for amygdala development in two other thoroughly studied species, mice and macaque monkeys.

And for species with no experimental data on that part of the brain (including hamsters, rabbits, ferrets, cats and humans) the model made predictions, based on the general developmental pattern in all mammals. Thus, the PC time of peak amygdala cell development in the human fetus should be about PC 50 days, according to the Cornell model -- although no ethical scientist would ever conduct experiments to confirm that prediction.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/July01/rat_days.hrs.html

Here’s a new story of evidence that the developing brain (although pre-born, this is about viable babies), suggesting the importance of the ‘hibernation’ like condition requirement for a developing brain, and this would hold true for all pre-born brain development at a previous stage as well, the one we are talking about.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/305546/womb_needed_for_proper_brain_development/index.html?source=r_health

o.0

Does it involving hurting the squirrel at all? 'Cause then I can't in good conscience do that.

Not 'hurt' exactly....

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

Hmmmm... your source and it doesn't seem to agree with the rhetoric you're spewing. Two weeks after the heart starts beating the FIRST synapses begin to form IN THE SPINAL CORD. Are you actually claiming there is a functioning brain prior to the formation of synapses? You do realize that the synapse is what allows nerve impulses to travel in the nervous system, yes? This means that before their formation, no impluses. And five weeks is only the spinal cord. The movements in the body of the embryo (your source calls it a fetus, but this is inaccurate) are caused by those new synapses IN THE 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." They are clear that they are referring to the new synapses formed in the spinal cord. Again, it does not make any reference to coordinated actions until after the fingers at ten weeks, but one could conclude, from this source, that the movements of limbs and fingers show brain activities beginning at eight weeks.

Are you saying YOUR OWN SOURCE is wrong now?

Dude. You realize you're trying to correct a biologist on biology? Did you even look at the links?

One doesn't even have to rely on Dem, Ph33r posted a link that debunks his claims thoroughly, unless one pretends that brain functions don't involve synapses and that the passage doesn't refer to the first evidence of neural function in the sixth week and doesn't attribute that function to the spinal cord and NOT the brain.

I can't believe this thread is still here.

You guys are beating a dead horse...

o.0

Does it involving hurting the squirrel at all? 'Cause then I can't in good conscience do that.
But Squirrels are evil, comrade. Death to the facist Squirrels!

You didn't even bother to read any of the links, did you? The signal it requires for regulation is incorporated into the heart itself! The sinoatrial node controls the heartbeat. The only thing it gets from outside (sometimes) are "speed up" or "slow down" signals.

The embryonic heart beat does change. The heart beat speed is measured as a first sign of stress and is referenced vs., it's age to ensure that everything is developing as it is supposed to. If the heart decreases in speed or increases in speed, there is a problem and they try to figure out what is wrong.



I didn't mention any such thing. I said that, as long as it has electrolytes, it will keep beating. Like I said, I've done it myself - watched a heart continue beating although it was completely disconnected from the rest of the body. All it had was the proper electrolyte solution in a petri dish. I've watched heart cells, disconnected from any body, begin beating on their own, and self-regulate such that an entire petri dish will beat together.

You are in affect describing how the heart works. Like a wheel on a bicycle, the wheel will spin even after the bike has crashed. But it is simply spinning, and the heart cells are still running on momentum of the last 'direction' they recieved. That's why heart reactivation requires an electrical shock, merely pumping it will not make it start again.



It isn't pretending, my dear. It is biology. As the heart develops, it begins beating completely on its own.

No, the heart, brain and cord all three develop together. I've already shown links galore that show that and even 3d images showing how they connect and are the first three internal organs.


There really isn't much changing of the heartbeat in the first five weeks. It begins, it becomes steady, and it goes. Certain hormonal and chemical cues can speed it up (as they can in vivo and even in a petri dish), but it is still regulated by the heart tissue itself, independent of any nervous system input. Not true. See above. Stress is measurable via heart beat rate in embryonic pre-borns.


Actually, they do. They describe the function of the sinoatrial node. One even points out very clearly that the nervous system is not involved. The heart is self-regulating. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

the node is like the flywheel in an engine. It is like the torque and speed regulator that keeps the engine speed within acceptable ranges, but it is not the driving force nor the determining factor of what speed will be applied. Neuron signals from brain stem activity are the driving force behind heart beat rhythm. Emotion and applied mental concentration can and do affect it.

Dishonest? Who's being dishonest?

Could it be, just maybe, the person misrepresenting their sources and denying biological facts about the heart?

Complex actions are not required to prove brain functionality.

I never said they were. I simply pointed out that, in your source, the first evidence of anything that needs brain functionality is at 8 weeks. The rest can all be carried out without it.

*snip a bunch of irrelevant stuff*

All of your highlighted quotes are cute, but none of them contradict your other source, which clearly stated that the spinal cord develops functionality before the brain, and the cord doesn't even provide reflexive movement until week 6....

The embryonic heart beat does change. The heart beat speed is measured as a first sign of stress and is referenced vs., it's age to ensure that everything is developing as it is supposed to. If the heart decreases in speed or increases in speed, there is a problem and they try to figure out what is wrong.




You are in affect describing how the heart works. Like a wheel on a bicycle, the wheel will spin even after the bike has crashed. But it is simply spinning, and the heart cells are still running on momentum of the last 'direction' they recieved. That's why heart reactivation requires an electrical shock, merely pumping it will not make it start again.




No, the heart, brain and cord all three develop together. I've already shown links galore that show that and even 3d images showing how they connect and are the first three internal organs.

Not true. See above. Stress is measurable via heart beat rate in embryonic pre-borns.



the node is like the flywheel in an engine. It is like the torque and speed regulator that keeps the engine speed within acceptable ranges, but it is not the driving force nor the determining factor of what speed will be applied. Neuron signals from brain stem activity are the driving force behind heart beat rhythm. Emotion and applied mental concentration can and do affect it.

And where, pray tell, are these neuron signals coming from when your source says the first synapses IN THE SPINAL CORD don't form until five weeks, two weeks after the heart begins to beat?

I am thoroughly amused by this little turn of events.

"Everyone knows the fan is turned on and off by the CPU and it's running so there must be a CPU."
"Um, no, it CAN be turned on and off by CPU, but I haven't connected it yet."
"It's there I can see it."
"I know but it's not connected. The CPU cannot communicate with the fan's connnection to turn it on and off."
"But it must because it's running."
"Look, it's not connected. You can see that clearly, yes?"
"No, it must be! IT MUST BE!! Because I don't want to be wrong!!"

The embryonic heart beat does change. The heart beat speed is measured as a first sign of stress and is referenced vs., it's age to ensure that everything is developing as it is supposed to. If the heart decreases in speed or increases in speed, there is a problem and they try to figure out what is wrong.

And these increases do not require neural connections in the embryo. There is no direct innervation of the sinoatrial node, even in the adult human being. There are hormones and other factors (ie. adrenaline) released which regulate the heartbeat. I can (and have) droped these substances directly onto the heart and watched the heart rate change. You can place these same substances in a petri dish full of heart muscle cells and watch their beat rate change. And, believe it or not, these substances are all made in the mother's body!

From my earlier sources:

Question: What is the force that acts upon the sinoatrial node in the heart that
makes the sinoatrial node send out the electrical charge that causes the heart to beat?
schnabel

Answer: Wow, that's a complex one! Basically, no outside force acts on the SA node.
That's why it's called the "pacemaker" of the heart. In simple terms, the membranes of
the cells of the SA node have special proteins which periodically allow a small number
of positively charged ions to enter the cell. The periodicity with which this happens
is run by a clock that is right in these cells. The electrical signal generated by the
SA node that tells the heart to beat is triggered whenever the SA node cells become
slightly more positively charged inside, which is just what happens whenever these
proteins let in a few positive ions. So there it is in basic terms. For the real
story, you need to understand quite a bit about electricity and ions and the energy
that determines diffusion, but if your in high school or beyond, you're probably
ready to give it a try if you are really interested. I recommend a college biology
book, such as the one by Campbell, or, for more advanced stuff, a real physiology
book such as "Animal Physiology" by Augustine, Eckert, & Randall.
Good luck! --ProfBill

Function:

* Sets the rate of contraction for the heart.

* Spontaneously contracts and generates nerve impulses that travel throughout the heart wall causing both atria to contract.

From m-w.com:

One entry found for spontaneous.
Main Entry: spon·ta·ne·ous
Pronunciation: spän-'tA-nE-&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin spontaneus, from Latin sponte of one's free will, voluntarily
1 : proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint
2 : arising from a momentary impulse
3 : controlled and directed internally : SELF-ACTING <spontaneous movement characteristic of living things>
4 : produced without being planted or without human labor : INDIGENOUS
5 : developing without apparent external influence, force, cause, or treatment
6 : not apparently contrived or manipulated : NATURAL
- spon·ta·ne·ous·ly adverb
- spon·ta·ne·ous·ness noun

You are in affect describing how the heart works. Like a wheel on a bicycle, the wheel will spin even after the bike has crashed.

No, that is a very poor analogy. The only way it would work is if the wheel itself spun with no input, which is not the case. When you stop giving it input, it stops beating.

The sinoatrial node, on the other hand, is an electrical oscillator unto itself. It requires no signal from outside to continue beating. The reason the heart will stop if the brain dies/is removed is that you stop breathing. Thus, the heart is not receiving oxygen and will die.

But it is simply spinning, and the heart cells are still running on momentum of the last 'direction' they recieved. That's why heart reactivation requires an electrical shock, merely pumping it will not make it start again.

The thing here is that the "direction" comes from the heart itself - from the sinoatrial node. Of course pumping the heart will not make it start up again, you need to restart the oscillator - the pacemaker - the sinoatrial node.

No, the heart, brain and cord all three develop together. I've already shown links galore that show that and even 3d images showing how they connect and are the first three internal organs.

Yes, and the heart develops well before the brain and spinal cord. This is basic embryology here....

None of your links have disputed the fact that the heart beats independent of neural input.

Not true. See above. Stress is measurable via heart beat rate in embryonic pre-borns.

What part of "chemical and hormonal cues" do you not understand? Stress is signalled by these cues.

the node is like the flywheel in an engine. It is like the torque and speed regulator that keeps the engine speed within acceptable ranges, but it is not the driving force nor the determining factor of what speed will be applied. Neuron signals from brain stem activity are the driving force behind heart beat rhythm. Emotion and applied mental concentration can and do affect it.

Incorrect. Please go and study cardiovascular anatomy and then get back to me.

Note: You've stepped dangerously close to my area of expertise here, Ph33r, I suggest you stop while you're only slightly behind.

I am thoroughly amused by this little turn of events.

"Everyone knows the fan is turned on and off by the CPU and it's running so there must be a CPU."
"Um, no, it CAN be turned on and off by CPU, but I haven't connected it yet."
"It's there I can see it."
"I know but it's not connected. The CPU cannot communicate with the fan's connnection to turn it on and off."
"But it must because it's running."
"Look, it's not connected. You can see that clearly, yes?"
"No, it must be! IT MUST BE!! Because I don't want to be wrong!!"
:p

Not sure if that is accurate but still good fun.

Note: You've stepped dangerously close to my area of expertise here, Ph33r, I suggest you stop while you're only slightly behind.

No let him continue its fun to watch. *munches on some popcorn*

Dude. You realize you're trying to correct a biologist on biology? Did you even look at the links?

Silly. Dem is no more an expert in pre-natal development than anyone else here, although she is a biologist she's been wrong before and she can be wrong again. I respect her credentials, but it doesn’t make her right about embryonic human development stages.

Silly. Dem is no more an expert in pre-natal development than anyone else here, although she is a biologist she's been wrong before and she can be wrong again. I respect her credentials, but it doesn’t make her right about embryonic human development stages.

Your argument with me has nothing to do with embryonic human development stages, it has to do with the heart, which is part of the cardviovascular system, which is my area of study.

Now, if you would like to recant your ridiculous statement, backed up by none of your sources, that the heart cannot beat without neural input.....

Silly. Dem is no more an expert in pre-natal development than anyone else here, although she is a biologist she's been wrong before and she can be wrong again. I respect her credentials, but it doesn’t make her right about embryonic human development stages.

Silly. Even though she is no more a expert in pre-natal development she is more involved in the actual science then you or I and that gives her more wait in the arguement since she's at least studied biology in a more indepth manner.

Not 'hurt' exactly....

Alright, then. :D

One doesn't even have to rely on Dem, Ph33r posted a link that debunks his claims thoroughly, unless one pretends that brain functions don't involve synapses and that the passage doesn't refer to the first evidence of neural function in the sixth week and doesn't attribute that function to the spinal cord and NOT the brain.

I know, but I can't get over the fact that this father-to-be is telling a biologist she "should know better" about biology! The nerve!

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.

on the one hand, i agree with you: there is no question that life begins at conception, the moment the eggs gets fertilized and a new genetic combination has been created. i don't honestly take the "there aren't any organs yet!" argument seriously. as such, abortion is clearly murder.

however, as i am not a particularly religious person, i have no particular objections to murder in this circumstance. lots of animals kill their babies rather young, and i don't see why we're any different than they are.....abortion keeps the population down (slightly), as well. the "god created life, god is the one who takes it away" argument is equally specious from my point of view, because i don't believe in a god, and this point of view extends to euthanasia as well, but not to capital punishment. bluntly....i don't really think it's any of my goddamned business, as long as the state has nothing to do with it.

nonetheless, i do think it a little......dissapointing....that abortion is used as readily as it is today, and i may consider the type of person that regularly kills their own children to be of a somewhat shady character.

bluntly: i'm pro-situation. sometimes, it might be the best solution, and i do think this extends a little further than the typical date rape argument. 17-18 year old girls are going to have sex - i see nothing the least bit wrong with that.......i don't think they should be forced to face the consequences of raising a child because they made a mistake in not using contraception. they're 17/18. they're going to make mistakes. it's part of being 17/18. let them abort if they want.

you're 30, you make 100k, you're married, you have two kids already....well, maybe i might call you a cold, callous bitch for killing your children and probably never talk to you again, but i do not believe that i have the right to tell you not to kill your own infants. they're your infants. until they can fend for themselves, you're the mama bear and if you want to eat them for breakfast....

what does bug me though is when the mother wants to abort and the father wants the child. i think, in this situation, a law should be passed that prevents the woman from aborting, granted it's consensual sex. in this case, it's a murder that harms someone and should be treated as such.

otherwise, it's a victimless crime; i don't doubt it's a crime, but the only victim has no concept that they're being wronged, so nobody is hurt; there is therefore no real victim.

I can't believe this thread is still here.

You guys are beating a dead horse...

Dead horse fetus, yep. We're all about beating dead horse fetuses here.

But Squirrels are evil, comrade. Death to the facist Squirrels!

Nooooooooooo, they're so kyuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuute!! :(

:p

Not sure if that is accurate but still good fun.

Yeah, I actually had to stretch the analogy, but it makes the point.

From: http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Notes/heart.htm

Embryonic Heart Rate (EHR), early in development the heart starts to **********spontaneously*********** beat and a recent study by Wisser and Dirschedl in dated human embryos showed an increase up to 63 postmenstrual days or 22 mm greatest length. Thereafter a steady decrease of EHR was noted. Maximal EHR is reached when morphological development of the embryonic heart is completed.

And as for your comments that a difference in heart rate based on age is expected, you are absolutely right, although it has nothing at all to do with neural input:



Early ultrasonographic measurement of embryonic heart rate (EHR) shows a steady increase from Stage 9-10 (75 beats / minute) to Stage 18 (130 beats / minute) and on to Stage 20, following which a gradual decrease in EHR occurs. This increase correlates with heart development and a low EHR is used as an indicator of developmental failure and likely abortion. Late stethoscope measurements of fetal heart rate can monitor fetal stress and identifies the characteristic "lub-dub" heart valve sounds.

The heart, as it develops, regulates its own beat. It is actually a good thing that the heartbeat starts off slow, as the arteries are not yet fully developed at this point and are really more like capillaries than arteries. They wouldn't be able to withstand a faster, more powerful heartbeat.

Silly. Dem is no more an expert in pre-natal development than anyone else here, although she is a biologist she's been wrong before and she can be wrong again. I respect her credentials, but it doesn’t make her right about embryonic human development stages.

How about your sources? Are they experts? Your source says the first synapses don't form until two weeks after the heart starts to beat and that the effects of the synapses are not seen until the sixth week. Is your source wrong?

Would you care to answer how heart is receiving neural impulses when there are not yet ANY synapses in the nervous system?

The embryonic heart beat does change. The heart beat speed is measured as a first sign of stress and is referenced vs., it's age to ensure that everything is developing as it is supposed to. If the heart decreases in speed or increases in speed, there is a problem and they try to figure out what is wrong.

From the little I've read, the rate change can be caused by hormones, doesn't have to be from the brain.

You are in affect describing how the heart works. Like a wheel on a bicycle, the wheel will spin even after the bike has crashed. But it is simply spinning, and the heart cells are still running on momentum of the last 'direction' they recieved. That's why heart reactivation requires an electrical shock, merely pumping it will not make it start again.

I take it you never heard of CPR.

Anyone else notice how Ph33r doesn't answer questions he can't twist to his agenda?

I'll ask again, how does the heart receive neural signals as you claim when the synapses have not formed yet?

Silly. Dem is no more an expert in pre-natal development than anyone else here, although she is a biologist she's been wrong before and she can be wrong again. I respect her credentials, but it doesn’t make her right about embryonic human development stages.

She's not a pre-nat expert, but at least she is a biologist. And you are...? Right, a father-to-be. Which, obviously makes you more of an expert in pre-nat biology than a biologist. Silly of me to ask.

Your argument with me has nothing to do with embryonic human development stages, it has to do with the heart, which is part of the cardviovascular system, which is my area of study.

Now, if you would like to recant your ridiculous statement, backed up by none of your sources, that the heart cannot beat without neural input.....

No, the discussion is embryonic hearts. You lost track in the details.

-snip-

what does bug me though is when the mother wants to abort and the father wants the child. i think, in this situation, a law should be passed that prevents the woman from aborting, granted it's consensual sex. in this case, it's a murder that harms someone and should be treated as such.

-snip-

And once we have the technology to put the embryo in the father's body so he can carry it, I will agree with you on this. Since we can't, no, daddy doesn't get to force the woman to carry his precious seed.

No, the discussion is embryonic hearts. You lost track in the details.

Oh, so embryonic hearts require input from the brain, that incidentally is not capable of communicating with it, but regular hearts don't. I see.

And perhaps if you could tell us how the nervous system communicates with the heart before the synapses form, then we might be able to examine that possibility... any time.

No, the discussion is embryonic hearts. You lost track in the details.

Her source was precisely about embryonic hearts. Look: "Embryonic Heart Rate". Right there on the quote. Did you read it?

No, it is not enough. The heart will not function without the outside stimuli of a funtioning brain stem. If you cut off the head of a chicken, it is well known that it will run around for a period of time. The same is true of other animals, including humans, that the heart will not suddenly stop, but peter off after it has been disconnected from the signal it requires for regulation. As you mentioned yourself, you know that a disconnected heart will stop unless it is reconnected to stimuli (mechanical or othewise).

Is this a discussion of the embryonic heart? Nope, seems like all the examples you give here are not embryonic. It seems like you are trying to describe the function of an adult heart (not even human) and compare it to the embryonic heart. So your incorrect knowledge of the functions of the adult heart can be applied, but Dem's study of the circulatory system cannot? Wow, just wow.

And once we have the technology to put the embryo in the father's body so he can carry it, I will agree with you on this. Since we can't, no, daddy doesn't get to force the woman to carry his precious seed.
On the show Sliders it explains the technology I think. Rembrant had to carry the child.

Her source was precisely about embryonic hearts. Look: "Embryonic Heart Rate". Right there on the quote. Did you read it?

I can't wait to see the answer to some of these. I'm curious just how much he can actually extract from his anus. I am thoroughly impressed thus far at the volume of inaccurate posts it contains. I would think it would be uncomfortable. Maybe that's why he's been so irritable lately.

Again, I'll ask how does the brain communicate with the heart two weeks before the first synapses are formed, Ph33r? Does anyone actually think I'll get an answer to this question?

No, the discussion is embryonic hearts.

Embryonic hearts are still hearts, my dear. They work based on the same mechanisms as adult hearts.

Incidentally, my research does involve embryonic development of the cardiovascular system, as I am interested in how vascular stem cells differentiate and what cues they follow in doing so. This research means that I have read quite a few papers referencing the development of the heart, when beating begins and blood flow starts, and when the smooth muscle cells develop....


Is this a discussion of the embryonic heart? Nope, seems like all the examples you give here are not embryonic. It seems like you are trying to describe the function of an adult heart (not even human) and compare it to the embryonic heart. So your incorrect knowledge of the functions of the adult heart can be applied, but Dem's study of the circulatory system cannot? Wow, just wow.

I also find it interesting that Ph33r makes the *assumption* that the heartbeat "peters off" due to a loss of signal from the brain. This is not, in fact, true. The heart stops beating if the brain stops because the brain stem *does* control breathing, and without the lungs breathing, the cardiac cells cannot get oxygen. Without oxygen, the cells cannot make ATP. And without ATP, there is no contraction of cardiac muscle or creation of an action potential in the SA node.

On the show Sliders it explains the technology I think. Rembrant had to carry the child.

Huh?

Anyone else notice how Ph33r doesn't answer questions he can't twist to his agenda?

I'll ask again, how does the heart receive neural signals as you claim when the synapses have not formed yet?

Synapses are 'connections.' Neurons (nerve cells) communicate chemically by releasing and responding to chemical substances, and are called Neurotransmitters. The processes of neurotransmission refers to this form of chemical communication between cells of the central and peripheral nervous system at the anatomically specialized point of transmission (i.e., in this case, the connection between the heart, cord and brain, and are known in the embryonic pre-born).

Huh?
And once we have the technology to put the embryo in the father's body so he can carry it,
On the show Sliders this happened. I was saying that. What else did you think I said?

And once we have the technology to put the embryo in the father's body so he can carry it, I will agree with you on this. Since we can't, no, daddy doesn't get to force the woman to carry his precious seed.

if i was running things he would....

Embryonic hearts are still hearts, my dear. They work based on the same mechanisms as adult hearts.

Incidentally, my research does involve embryonic development of the cardiovascular system, as I am interested in how vascular stem cells differentiate and what cues they follow in doing so. This research means that I have read quite a few papers referencing the development of the heart, when beating begins and blood flow starts, and when the smooth muscle cells develop....



I also find it interesting that Ph33r makes the *assumption* that the heartbeat "peters off" due to a loss of signal from the brain. This is not, in fact, true. The heart stops beating if the brain stops because the brain stem *does* control breathing, and without the lungs breathing, the cardiac cells cannot get oxygen. Without oxygen, the cells cannot make ATP. And without ATP, there is no contraction of cardiac muscle or creation of an action potential in the SA node.

Well, he uses the similar thinking to claim the heart defines death because if the heart doesn't work, no oxygen to the brain and thus no brain function. He intentionally ignores the fact that if a machine makes oxygen go to the brain that the heart can be temporarily taken completely out of the loop and temporarily ceases to function due to various maladies that we often survive, thus the need for CPR, which is about getting oxygen to the brain and the heart until the heart restarts on it's own or by shocking it.

Synapses are 'connections.' Neurons (nerve cells) communicate chemically by releasing and responding to chemical substances, and are called Neurotransmitters.

Do you know where those neurotransmitters are released? Any guesses?

How about, at the synapses!!

Ding! Ding! Ding! That is correct! Neurons communicate by releasing and responding to neurotransmitters at synapses!

Synapses are 'connections.' Neurons (nerve cells) communicate chemically by releasing and responding to chemical substances, and are called Neurotransmitters. The processes of neurotransmission refers to this form of chemical communication between cells of the central and peripheral nervous system at the anatomically specialized point of transmission (i.e., in this case, the connection between the heart, cord and brain, and are known in the embryonic pre-born).

Still requires a 'connection', friend. But then you knew that. Do you think you're fooling anyone because you looked up a little jargon? Neurotransmitters require synapses. You referred to only one type of synapse. There are two. One is a chemical synapse and the other is electrical. They function differently but nerve cells CANNOT communicate without one or the other. But then you knew that as well, didn't you.

http://ifcsun1.ifisiol.unam.mx/Brain/synap.htm

I'm not "missing the point", I'm reading your made-up rules the way you wrote them. If there's possible misinterpretations, it's because you put them there. Go fix your rules.

I explained already. DNA functions to a human in a fashion similar to an instruction manual. IE It explains how all the various elements of it work to create the function of the whole. 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


I think Dem already made it clear that twins are not formed by mitosis of the fertilized egg. If you still didn't understand that, you should ask her to explain again.

If they are not created by mitosis then it doesnt conflict with point 5

Do you know where those neurotransmitters are released? Any guesses?

How about, at the synapses!!

Ding! Ding! Ding! That is correct! Neurons communicate by releasing and responding to neurotransmitters at synapses!

I don't think he's trying to trick us anymore. I think he thinks if he sounds scientific enough that people might not notice that what he says doesn't make any sense. He admits that synapses are connections then he pretends like nerve cells don't need to be CONNECTED in order to communicate. I certainly hope he realizes that we aren't going to allow this particular line of anti-logic.

And once we have the technology to put the embryo in the father's body so he can carry it,
On the show Sliders this happened. I was saying that. What else did you think I said?

What's "Sliders"? A TV show?

What's "Sliders"? A TV show?
Yes, it was a SCi-Fi Channel TV show: you see Quien Mallory, was a smart college student, he was working on a device to travel through paralel dimensions. He succeeded but there were a few un-foreseen elements. Like the T-rex that almost took a bite out of him.

In order to escape (becomes the timer is on set time) he had to mess with it. This broke it so now he can't control how long he will be in the next dimension (random each time).

The other cast members were Rembrant Brown, the Proffessor, and Wade.
The show was really good until they killed off Quien for no good reason in like the 6th season. :(

But yeah, one time Rembrant was confuised for his alternate and so he had to carry the baby. You only carry it till the mother/baqby is ready to give birth than you give it back.

I explained already. DNA functions to a human in a fashion similar to an instruction manual. IE It explains how all the various elements of it work to create the function of the whole. 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



If they are not created by mitosis then it doesnt conflict with point 5

Can you post your 5 rules again? I don't even remember what they are.

Yes, it was a SCi-Fi Channel TV show: you see Quien Mallory, was a smart college student, he was working on a device to travel through paralel dimensions. He succeeded but there were a few un-foreseen elements. Like the T-rex that almost took a bite out of him.

In order to escape (becomes the timer is on set time) he had to mess with it. This broke it so now he can't control how long he will be in the next dimension (random each time).

The other cast members were Rembrant Brown, the Proffessor, and Wade.
The show was really good until they killed off Quien for no good reason in like the 6th season. :(

But yeah, one time Rembrant was confuised for his alternate and so he had to carry the baby. You only carry it till the mother/baqby is ready to give birth than you give it back.

Ah. Sounds like an interesting show. :)

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

Ok, well, since you continue to be obtuse, let's look at this source more thoroughly, shall we?

I decided to look at seen what else it says about the early development of the brain. Now when does the heart start beating, Ph33r?

everyone can see for themselves that the links say 3 weeks for rythmic heart beat regulation, 5 weeks for measurable synapses and 6 weeks for full body movements.

Hmmm... and what does the source say about brain development at that point?

When does brain development begin?

Brain development begins with the formation and closure of the neural tube, the earliest nervous tissue that looks like a fat earthworm stretched out along the entire back of the embryo. The neural tube forms from the neural plate, which begins forming just sixteen days after conception. This plate lengthens and starts folding up, forming a groove at around eighteen days, which then begins fusing shut into a tube around twenty-two days post-conception. By 27 days, the tube is fully closed and has already begun its transformation into the brain and spinal cord of the embryo.

Wait... but that can't be... that would mean that brain is only just beginning to form (from the earliest nervous tissue) at 27 days AFTER the heart starts beating (21-24 days). But that would make you... but you can't be...oh, but you must be... WRONG!!! *buzzer sound*

Next contestant?

Can you post your 5 rules again? I don't even remember what they are.

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

Next contestant?

I'd like to buy a vowel Pat.

1. An entity with DNA of the genus homo

In truth, there is no such thing. DNA is DNA. There is no "DNA of the genus homo."

2. An entity with DNA that is unique from either of its biological parents*

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

By this definition, there is no such thing as biological parents either, since chromosomes do not fuse when the egg is fertilized. In fact, chromosomes do not fuse at all.

3. An entity that exists of itself (IE is not part of anothers body)

How is this determined?

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

I think it's amusing that a person who admittedly knows little about biology believes he should be able to create the legal definition of human being, even though it does not meet the biological defintion of a life.

Also, I'd like to point out that in the case of cloning the two sets of 23 chromosomes are not necessarily the sets of chromosome the cloned individual received (meaning they aren't broken into sets that are the same as the sperm and egg that formed the original individual).

Now, again, when were the two lives formed in the case of twins? You said at conception, but according to your rules there is only one life at conception, later there are two, but both are formed at that point, according to your rules. So did the original die? Because the original does not exist anymore (this is not a case of one sprouting from the other).

Oh, and in response to some of the other rediculous points made about brain death. I thought I might cite a little more than assertions the avowed biology expert, Ph33rdom. How's the Mayo Clinic (for the record they were the source of some of Mr. Ph33rdom's links earlier)?

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/brain-death/AN00990

Q.What is brain death? If the person had a heart attack, could a heart transplant help?

A.Brain death is a legal definition of death. It means complete and irreversible loss of brain function. It can result from brain injury, such as:

Prolonged lack of oxygen to the brain, such as may occur in cardiac arrest
Bleeding into or around the brain
Severe head injuries
After brain death occurs, breathing and heart function can be maintained for a period of time with the help of machines. A coma is not the same as brain death. People in comas still have some measurable brain function.

To make a diagnosis of brain death, doctors conduct required medical tests. These tests are based on legally accepted medical guidelines. Tests include clinical examinations that show no brain reflexes and an inability to breathe without assistance. In some situations, other tests may be used to confirm the diagnosis, such as a brain wave test (electroencephalogram).

A heart transplant will not change the situation in brain death because the brain has been irreversibly damaged.

I can't wait to see the answer to some of these. I'm curious just how much he can actually extract from his anus. I am thoroughly impressed thus far at the volume of inaccurate posts it contains. I would think it would be uncomfortable. Maybe that's why he's been so irritable lately.

Again, I'll ask how does the brain communicate with the heart two weeks before the first synapses are formed, Ph33r? Does anyone actually think I'll get an answer to this question?
What's that old computer formula? GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). When all you let into your brain is propaganda, then all that can come out of your mouth will be propaganda, too. It's fun to make propaganda try to jump through hoops designed for facts. Mean, but fun.

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.


We protect the eggs of birds of prey, because they are endangered. We penalise the killing of wild animals during the times that they carry their young, so that we can preserve the size of herds.

Humans are pretty far FROM endangered.

Thus - the argument is a little irrelevent, no?


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.

Actually - since the foetus MUST have a special 'device' that can 'filter' materials from the mothers blood-stream, as it flows by - I think the parasite argument is fully vindicated. The mother doesn't 'give', the placenta takes.

We protect the eggs of birds of prey, because they are endangered. We penalise the killing of wild animals during the times that they carry their young, so that we can preserve the size of herds.

Humans are pretty far FROM endangered.

Thus - the argument is a little irrelevent, no?
Aye; and in many cases we are preserving them so that we can exploit them. Conservation is not necessarily a noble endeavour.

We protect the eggs of birds of prey, because they are endangered. We penalise the killing of wild animals during the times that they carry their young, so that we can preserve the size of herds.

Humans are pretty far FROM endangered.

Thus - the argument is a little irrelevent, no?

Hmmm... that sounds familiar. Someone brilliant must have had a similar reaction...

Actually - since the foetus MUST have a special 'device' that can 'filter' materials from the mothers blood-stream, as it flows by - I think the parasite argument is fully vindicated. The mother doesn't 'give', the placenta takes.

Don't be silly. I had a leech on me once. It was sucking my blood, but my body was 'freely' giving it to it, since it didn't kill it or stop it, until my mind became aware of it and told me to kill that bloodsucker. :rolleyes:

I don't believe the embryo to be as bad as some people feel it is, but the fact is that it can be likened to a parasite which many times is adapted in a way that makes unlikely that it will kill the host animal and unlikely that the host animal will kill or detach it. That's called evolution. Whoops. That's another dirty word too.

Nooooooooooo, they're so kyuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuute!! :(

Yeah but so was Hitler with his little button nose and his sweet little moustasche. He was like a big cuddly, genocidal teddy bear really.

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

Dem is already replying to it, so I'll let the biologist deal with biology. But I do have a question for you, Avalon.

Say a young girl is being regularly sexually abused for years by her father. Let's say she's about 12 years old, young enough to be considered a child, but old enough to, possibly, be physically capable of reproducing. Say this girl finds herself pregnant (or rather, doctors find that she's pregnant, after social workers take her away from her only parent).

After learning the pain involved in labor (she knows what the size of a baby is, and, having been raped several times, she knows what the size of her vagina is), she doesn't want to have the baby. Doctors say she's healthy enough to survive pregnancy and labor, considering our current technology, but the little girl really doesn't want to go through that. Do you think she should be allowed to have an abortion?

Yeah but so was Hitler with his little button nose and his sweet little moustasche. He was like a big cuddly, genocidal teddy bear really.

You're killing me.

Actually - since the foetus MUST have a special 'device' that can 'filter' materials from the mothers blood-stream, as it flows by - I think the parasite argument is fully vindicated. The mother doesn't 'give', the placenta takes.

Indeed. Did you know that fetal hemoglobin is different from adult hemoglobin? It has a much higher affinity for oxygen so that it can essentially pull the oxygen off of the maternal hemoglobin. Newborn infants often have a drastic drop in hemoglobin levels as their bodies switch over to adult hemoglobin.

Pretty cool, huh?

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.

In fact, it isn't all that unusual to have 'light' periods during pregnancy... certainly during the early months.

But, when you consider how erratic some people's periods are anyway (my wife has gone 6 months between periods, before...) it isn't too hard to believe someone could be pregnant, and things everything was still peachy.

Say a young girl is being regularly sexually abused for years by her father. Let's say she's about 12 years old, young enough to be considered a child, but old enough to, possibly, be physically capable of reproducing. Say this girl finds herself pregnant (or rather, doctors find that she's pregnant, after social workers take her away from her only parent).

After learning the pain involved in labor (she knows what the size of a baby is, and, having been raped several times, she knows what the size of her vagina is), she doesn't want to have the baby. Doctors say she's healthy enough to survive pregnancy and labor, considering our current technology, but the little girl really doesn't want to go through that. Do you think she should be allowed to have an abortion?

No. And if that isnt an appeal to emotion I dont know what is.

No. And if that isnt an appeal to emotion I dont know what is.

In a way, it is.

Of course, in truth, it's a situation that happens all the time, especially in, say, the North Georgia mountains. Of course, then again, most of those girls don't even know they're pregnant until they're rushed to the hospital in labor.

One way or another, I certainly wouldn't want the job of telling a 12-year old girl what she was about to be forced to go through. We'll give that job to you.

No. And if that isnt an appeal to emotion I dont know what is.

It's not emotional appeal, it's a question about your opinion of what would be right in a specific circumstance. But, hey, at least you're consistent. On not allowing abortion, that is, not on caring about children.

oh yeah, now I remember why I left NS General for at least three weeks.

oh yeah, now I remember why I left NS General for at least three weeks.

LMAO! :D

Welcome back...

Do you know where those neurotransmitters are released? Any guesses?

How about, at the synapses!!

Ding! Ding! Ding! That is correct! Neurons communicate by releasing and responding to neurotransmitters at synapses!


Yes, and specifically, during the five week phase the tail part (the bottom part) of the developing brain is where the synapses are that we are talking about, they start at the bottom (the tail and move forward even as the front part rolls up and splits into two and then four sections, it's what we have been talking about... (the two lower pink striped areas in the cut out of an embryonic brain shown in this link picture of a cut-out).

http://www.med.unc.edu/embryo_images/unit-nervous/nerv_htms/nerv011.htm

So what was your point? The brain hasn’t curled up yet, but it is about to… I fail to see how it having a tail type section is so bothersome to everyone here?

~~~

I also fail to see how this is all that pertinent to the issue of abortion. The entire embryo/fetus/pre-born child develops and grows as it is supposed to. The brain isn't done even after the 42nd week after birth, so what is the relevancy of what it is doing at week 5 or 12 and 20? So long as it is growing and healthy, just like all of our brains were at that age of development, there isn't a problem, it is doing what it is supposed to be doing. The brain continues to grow and increase in synapse connections even after adulthood, even as we lose them….

While in the womb, the heart, nervous system and brain develop in synch, any other characterization of the specifics of one over the other is trivial technicality and irrelevant, because the baby will need all three to function properly, and as they develop to begin functioning before they are finished, to be able to complete it’s growth requirements before birth.

The primary brain layout is accomplished during the first trimester. 52% of abortions occur at or before the 8th week, another 25% happen up to the ninth week. The fetus brain is already complex, and the heart and the nervous system are functioning as they grow.

Over every single week, 'massive' amounts of development are taking place... Such as a nine day span from 7.24 weeks to 8.5 weeks of a embryonic turned fetus’ foot is shown in the link below.

http://www.med.unc.edu/embryo_images/unit-mslimb/mslimb_htms/mslimb025.htm

(After looking at the picture, click the home button and look around. All sorts of embryonic growth information is there, although visual it is informative. )

-snip-
I also fail to see how this is all that pertinent to the issue of abortion. The entire embryo/fetus/pre-born child develops and grows as it is supposed to. The brain isn't done even after the 42nd week after birth, so what is the relevancy of what is is doing at week five and 12 and 20, so long as it is growing and healthy, just like all of our brains were at that age of development . The brain continues to grow and increase in synapse connections even after adulthood, even as we lose them…
-snip-

Me too.

Yes, and specifically, during the five week phase the tail part (the bottom part) of the developing brain is where the synapses are that we are talking about, they start at the bottom (the tail and move forward even as the front part rolls up and splits into two and then four sections, it's what we have been talking about... (the two lower pink striped areas in the cut out of an embryonic brain shown in this link picture of a cut-out).

http://www.med.unc.edu/embryo_images/unit-nervous/nerv_htms/nerv011.htm

So what was your point? The brain hasn’t curled up yet, but it is about to… I fail to see how it having a tail type section is so bothersome to everyone here?

~~~

I also fail to see how this is all that pertinent to the issue of abortion. The entire embryo/fetus/pre-born child develops and grows as it is supposed to. The brain isn't done even after the 42nd week after birth, so what is the relevancy of what it is doing at week 5 or 12 and 20? So long as it is growing and healthy, just like all of our brains were at that age of development, there isn't a problem, it is doing what it is supposed to be doing. The brain continues to grow and increase in synapse connections even after adulthood, even as we lose them….

While in the womb, the heart, nervous system and brain develop in synch, any other characterization of the specifics of one over the other is trivial technicality and irrelevant, because the baby will need all three to function properly, and as they develop to begin functioning before they are finished, to be able to complete it’s growth requirements before birth.

The primary brain layout is accomplished during the first trimester. 52% of abortions occur at or before the 8th week, another 25% happen up to the ninth week. The fetus brain is already complex, and the heart and the nervous system are functioning as they grow.

Over every single week, 'massive' amounts of development are taking place... Such as a nine day span from 7.24 weeks to 8.5 weeks of a embryonic turned fetus’ foot is shown in the link below.

http://www.med.unc.edu/embryo_images/unit-mslimb/mslimb_htms/mslimb025.htm

(After looking at the picture, click the home button and look around. All sorts of embryonic growth information is there, although visual it is informative. )


http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm

25% of abortions were known to have been performed at <6 weeks' gestation, 18% at 7 weeks, and 16% at 8 weeks
59% of abortion occur before 8 weeks gestation
88% occur before 13 weeks gestation -- about end of the first trimester.

Me too.

Actually, Ph33rdom has done a good job (to the extent his information is accurate) of justifying current abortion law and practices. Almost all abortions occur long before a embryo has any serious claim to personhood.
The remaining abortions are justified by extigent circumstances.

We currently err on the side of the developing child.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm

25% of abortions were known to have been performed at <6 weeks' gestation, 18% at 7 weeks, and 16% at 8 weeks
59% of abortion occur before 8 weeks gestation
88% occur before 13 weeks gestation -- about end of the first trimester.


You gotta keep up with the terminology Cat, the gestation week is the pregancy week minus two. So 6 week gestation is week 8, and so on.

Actually, Ph33rdom has done a good job (to the extent his information is accurate) of justifying current abortion law and practices. Almost all abortions occur long before a embryo has any serious claim to personhood.
The remaining abortions are justified by extigent circumstances.

We currently err on the side of the developing child.

I beg to differ about the last sentence, I think we err on the side of the 'choice' but I agree to disagree with respect (in your case ;) ) .

Actually, Ph33rdom has done a good job (to the extent his information is accurate) of justifying current abortion law and practices. Almost all abortions occur long before a embryo has any serious claim to personhood.
The remaining abortions are justified by extigent circumstances.

We currently err on the side of the developing child.

What I meant is, it really doesn't matter in that stage of development the embryo/fetus is, or what it'll become. It's in the woman's body, so she gets to decide whether or not it's allowed to stay there, regardless of anything else. This whole "when does it become a person"/"when does its brain start working/heart beating"/"when is it considered human" thing... This is all details. It can be a determining factor on how the removal is performed, but not on whether or not the removal should be allowed.

You gotta keep up with the terminology Cat, the gestation week is the pregancy week minus two. So 6 week gestation is week 8, and so on.

That does not appear to be the definition found in dictionaries or by the CDC.

Plus, if it were true, your statistics are even more off.

EDIT:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002367.htm
"Gestation is the period between conception and birth of a baby, during which the fetus grows and develops inside the mother's uterus"

What I meant is, it really doesn't matter in that stage of development the embryo/fetus is, or what it'll become. It's in the woman's body, so she gets to decide whether or not it's allowed to stay there, regardless of anything else. This whole "when does it become a person"/"when does its brain start working/heart beating"/"when is it considered human" thing... This is all details. It can be a determining factor on how the removal is performed, but not on whether or not the removal should be allowed.

I agree with you on this.

But there are two arguments here:
1) Woman has superior right to her body regardless of rights of embryo/fetus
2) Embryo has no rights.

I agree with you on this.

But there are two arguments here:
1) Woman has superior right to her body regardless of rights of embryo/fetus
2) Embryo has no rights.

What's the difference?

That does not appear to be the definition found in dictionaries or by the CDC.

Plus, if it were true, your statistics are even more off.

I won't defend my statistics to single digits, I went by memory.

However, as to the the terminology stuff... if your wife goes to her OB/GYN and then comes home and says, "honey, I'm six weeks pregnant!" And then you accuse her of being bad at math because she had her period six weeks ago and you are sure of it, and then she tells you that they count back to the last period for 'pregnancy-weeks' for timing the anticipated birth day and growth rate stuff etc., and you recall that this has happened to you before and that just means that everytime they count a week you have to subtract by two to count to the day you boffed your brains out that night after a dinner and a movies while the kids were out, etc., and you realize then that after three kids you're going to have to start to remember this stuff someday, then you know when things say 'gestation' weeks it means you have to add 2 weeks when you talk about it or your wife gets mad :p

What's the difference?

Each are independent moral justifications for abortion.

Each are independent moral justifications for abortion.

Hm. I guess I go with #1.

Yes, and specifically, during the five week phase the tail part (the bottom part) of the developing brain is where the synapses are that we are talking about, they start at the bottom (the tail and move forward even as the front part rolls up and splits into two and then four sections, it's what we have been talking about... (the two lower pink striped areas in the cut out of an embryonic brain shown in this link picture of a cut-out).

http://www.med.unc.edu/embryo_images/unit-nervous/nerv_htms/nerv011.htm

So what was your point? The brain hasn’t curled up yet, but it is about to… I fail to see how it having a tail type section is so bothersome to everyone here?

There are NO synapses until five weeks. I love how you try to pretend you weren't saying otherwise. Nothing like some good ol' fashioned honesty from our resident holier than thou.

Your source(the one you claimed I didn't know how to read): There are no synapses before five weeks.
Your source: First actions of the nervous system at six weeks. (reflexive spinal cord actions)
Your source: First real movements occur at eight and ten weeks and first coordinated movements occur at that time or later.

Your claim(reputedly from this same source): The heart is being controlled by the the brain at three weeks.
Your claim: The brain is functioning before most abortions are performed.


Added information from us: The heart needs no interaction with the nervous system to function.
56% of abortions occur BEFORE eight weeks. (posted several times by TCT and never refuted by you).

Your claim: The heart cannot function without the brain.
Your claim: Synapses are not necessary for the nervous system to function.

Are there synapses before five weeks according the source you claimed I don't know how to read? Nope. Did you say otherwise? Yep. No noticeable use of those synapses until six weeks and this is still only reflexive. Did you claim otherwise? Yep. Did you claim the heart is being controlled by the nervous system at three weeks (when the nervous system is just beginning to be transformed from the tube that precedes it. Actually it resembles a flatworm) two weeks before the first synapses form and not in the brain. Yet you claim the brain is function at five weeks before any synapses have formed in the brain.

I also fail to see how this is all that pertinent to the issue of abortion.

What it's pertinent to is your credibility. You posted a link that you claimed showed brain function at five weeks and earlier, knowing it didn't. When I pointed it out, you claimed I am unable to read and understand an link that talks about brain function. I'd say your credibility is ranking right up there with HerPower, except she's not real.

Incidentally, if you'd like to learn more about how the nervous system functions, I'd be happy to teach you. It will prevent further embarassment.

You gotta keep up with the terminology Cat, the gestation week is the pregancy week minus two. So 6 week gestation is week 8, and so on.

Except your source is actually using the gestation weeks as well. Do you ever stop with your dishonesty? It's really sad.

I won't defend my statistics to single digits, I went by memory.

However, as to the the terminology stuff... if your wife goes to her OB/GYN and then comes home and says, "honey, I'm six weeks pregnant!" And then you accuse her of being bad at math because she had her period six weeks ago and you are sure of it, and then she tells you that they count back to the last period for 'pregnancy-weeks' for timing the anticipated birth day and growth rate stuff etc., and you recall that this has happened to you before and that just means that everytime they count a week you have to subtract by two to count to the day you boffed your brains out that night after a dinner and a movies while the kids were out, etc., and you realize then that after three kids you're going to have to start to remember this stuff someday, then you know when things say 'gestation' weeks it means you have to add 2 weeks when you talk about it or your wife gets mad :p

What you're saying is correct however your source is using the lesser number (the gestation weeks). So whether he is using gestation weeks or pregnancy weeks the majority of abortions are occuring before any observable brain function.

I won't defend my statistics to single digits, I went by memory.

However, as to the the terminology stuff... if your wife goes to her OB/GYN and then comes home and says, "honey, I'm six weeks pregnant!" And then you accuse her of being bad at math because she had her period six weeks ago and you are sure of it, and then she tells you that they count back to the last period for 'pregnancy-weeks' for timing the anticipated birth day and growth rate stuff etc., and you recall that this has happened to you before and that just means that everytime they count a week you have to subtract by two to count to the day you boffed your brains out that night after a dinner and a movies while the kids were out, etc., and you realize then that after three kids you're going to have to start to remember this stuff someday, then you know when things say 'gestation' weeks it means you have to add 2 weeks when you talk about it or your wife gets mad :p

Here this will show that what your saying about the two weeks is correct. Always want to add that element of truth to your twisting of the facts.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112

But it doesn't apply to your claims about the brain since implantation doesn't occur until week three when you claim the heart starts beating. So we both know you were using gestation weeks and not pregnancy weeks. In pregnancy weeks the heart does not begin beating until week five and the first synapses are created in week 8 and the first observable movement occurs at week 10, if we are talking pregnancy weeks.

Week 5: Baby's heart begins to beat

Your baby at week 5 (three weeks from conception)
At week five, your baby is 1/17 of an inch long — about the size of the tip of a pen.

This week, your baby's heart and circulatory system are taking shape. Your baby's blood vessels will complete a circuit, and his or her heart will begin to beat. Although you won't be able to hear it yet, the motion of your baby's beating heart may be detected with an ultrasound exam.

With these changes, circulation begins — making the circulatory system the first functioning organ system.

Except your source is actually using the gestation weeks as well. Do you ever stop with your dishonesty? It's really sad.

Charlatanese comes easy to you doesn’t it. Perhaps you believe your own pitch?

You pull things out of the air, cite things out of context, you misdirect attention from the issue to a misunderstood triviality on your part, and if all that wasn’t bad enough you get angry and confrontational about it. Have you had your blood pressure checked lately?

I’ve used sources that have used both terminologies. I try to differentiate them for the reader when I cite them by paying attention to it saying which type they are… I'm not promising to have miss one or two or mixed the cites up. But when I post a link to evidence, at least I've posted a link, unlike some other arguments in this thread.

As to preggie weeks...

This site breaks it up the OB/GYN way.
http://pregnancy.about.com/od/yourbaby/a/pregcalendar.htm

That does not appear to be the definition found in dictionaries or by the CDC.

Plus, if it were true, your statistics are even more off.

EDIT:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002367.htm
"Gestation is the period between conception and birth of a baby, during which the fetus grows and develops inside the mother's uterus"

Actually, it should be noted that I have heard it called weeks gestation both starting from the time of conception and from the time of the last period. From the mayo clinic source the actual beginning of development (the time the sperm and egg fuse) is actually two weeks after the last period when they are talking about development. The sources that Ph33r was using were working from the conception and not using the pregnancy weeks he was talking about.

Here this will show that what your saying about the two weeks is correct. Always want to add that element of truth to your twisting of the facts.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112

But it doesn't apply to your claims about the brain since implantation doesn't occur until week three when you claim the heart starts beating. So we both know you were using gestation weeks and not pregnancy weeks. In pregnancy weeks the heart does not begin beating until week five and the first synapses are created in week 8 and the first observable movement occurs at week 10, if we are talking pregnancy weeks. *snip*

You should read the rest of what your own site says:

Week 10: Neurons multiply (*8 weeks gestational according to TCT's abortion statistics)
By now, your baby's vital organs have a solid foundation. The embryonic tail has disappeared completely, and your baby has fully separated fingers and toes. The bones of your baby's skeleton begin to form.

This week, your baby's brain will produce almost 250,000 new neurons every minute.

Your baby's eyelids are no longer transparent. The outer ears are starting to assume their final form, and tooth buds are forming as well. If your baby is a boy, his testes will start producing the male hormone testosterone.

Now who's lying?

Charlatanese comes easy to you doesn’t it. Perhaps you believe your own pitch?

You pull things out of the air, cite things out of context, you misdirect attention from the issue to a misunderstood triviality on your part, and if all that wasn’t bad enough you get angry and confrontational about it. Have you had your blood pressure checked lately?

I’ve used sources that have used both terminologies. I try to differentiate them for the reader when I cite them by paying attention to it saying which type they are… I'm not promising to have miss one or two or mixed the cites up. But when I post a link to evidence, at least I've posted a link, unlike some other arguments in this thread.

Ha. Dude, you've been caught OVER and OVER. You claimed the brain was functioning before the majority of abortions (in rebuttal to TCT's claim otherwise which started this all the first time) and we've shown time and again USING YOUR SOURCE that the brain does not show any signs of function until at least 8 weeks from conception and the majority of abortions occur before 8 weeks. This goes to directly show that TCT was indeed correct and you were wrong. You again posted your source twisting the facts in it to try and suggest people are aborting cognitive beings and when corrected accused people of being unable to read and understand the source. Shall I quote you? I mean it's all in text. It's not like anyone has to take my word for it.

As far as links, you post a link and claim it says other than it does. I didn't have to post a link. Your link said the same thing I did. It supported my claims before I'd had time to support them. By the way, forgot to thank you for that. Thanks, man.

Now, just to be clear, when you were talking about the heart beginning to beat is this at three weeks or five weeks from the last period? What about the first synapses in the spinal cord? Six weeks or eight weeks from the last period? First limb movements eight weeks or ten weeks from the period? First finger movements ten weeks or twelve weeks from the last period?

You state that being clear is your modus operandi, so answering these question will do so. Just thought I'd help you be clear.

You should read the rest of what your own site says:

Week 10: Neurons multiply (*8 weeks gestational according to TCT's abortion statistics)
By now, your baby's vital organs have a solid foundation. The embryonic tail has disappeared completely, and your baby has fully separated fingers and toes. The bones of your baby's skeleton begin to form.

This week, your baby's brain will produce almost 250,000 new neurons every minute.

Your baby's eyelids are no longer transparent. The outer ears are starting to assume their final form, and tooth buds are forming as well. If your baby is a boy, his testes will start producing the male hormone testosterone.

Now who's lying?

What did I lie about? Please quote me.

Formation of nuerons does not equate to use of the brain. It's development of the brain. And the majority of abortions occur BEFORE 8 weeks (before the formation of the nuerons above). I read the whole thing. Are you trying to twist things again?

What did I lie about? Please quote me.

Formation of nuerons does not equate to use of the brain. It's development of the brain. And the majority of abortions occur BEFORE 8 weeks (before the formation of the nuerons above). I read the whole thing. Are you trying to twist things again?

Math time again...

25% of abortions were known to have been performed at 6 weeks' gestation, 18% at 7 weeks
25+18=43%

That means, 57% of abortions are done during or after 8 gestational (or 10 preggy as the source you linked to was counting week 1 as pre-fertilization) weeks, just like I said.

Math time again...

25% of abortions were known to have been performed at 6 weeks' gestation, 18% at 7 weeks
25+18=43%

That means, 57% of abortions are done during or after 8 gestational (or 10 preggy as the source you linked to was counting week 1 as pre-fertilization) weeks, just like I said.

Um. I already showed using the CDC that 59% occur at or before 8 gestational weeks.

Your numbers are simply backwards.

More importantly 88% are before 13 weeks.

Um. I already showed using the CDC that 59% occur at or before 8 gestational weeks.

Your numbers are simply backwards.

More importantly 88% are before 13 weeks.

I used your numbers, we are both using week 8, you say week 8 and before, I'm saying week 8 and after...

Math time again...

25% of abortions were known to have been performed at 6 weeks' gestation, 18% at 7 weeks
25+18=43%

That means, 57% of abortions are done during or after 8 gestational (or 10 preggy as the source you linked to was counting week 1 as pre-fertilization) weeks, just like I said.

Um, I lied, huh? Let's see.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm

"59% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation"

It says one up till 8 weeks from gestation. You keep trying to extend this, but you fail.

My link talks about the formation of neuron which says nothing of them beginning to function. Also, it refers to the first trimester as 13 weeks which is always using the forty week gestation period that measures from the least period. That means that you don't add two weeks on. But either way you're wrong. But you knew that. You don't care if we know you're wrong so long as you trick some people.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm

[25% of abortions were known to have been performed at <6 weeks' gestation, 18% at 7 weeks, and 16% at 8 weeks
59% of abortion occur before 8 weeks gestation
88% occur before 13 weeks gestation -- about end of the first trimester.

You should read the rest of what your own site says:

Week 10: Neurons multiply (*8 weeks gestational according to TCT's abortion statistics)
By now, your baby's vital organs have a solid foundation. The embryonic tail has disappeared completely, and your baby has fully separated fingers and toes. The bones of your baby's skeleton begin to form.

This week, your baby's brain will produce almost 250,000 new neurons every minute.

Your baby's eyelids are no longer transparent. The outer ears are starting to assume their final form, and tooth buds are forming as well. If your baby is a boy, his testes will start producing the male hormone testosterone.
Now who's lying?

What you're saying is correct however your source is using the lesser number (the gestation weeks). So whether he is using gestation weeks or pregnancy weeks the majority of abortions are occuring before any observable brain function.

Appears to be you. Let's examine some more.

We consider a person to have died when their brain ceases to function.

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.
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.

Oh, and in response to some of the other rediculous points made about brain death. I thought I might cite a little more than assertions the avowed biology expert, Ph33rdom. How's the Mayo Clinic (for the record they were the source of some of Mr. Ph33rdom's links earlier)?

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/brain-death/AN00990

Q.What is brain death? If the person had a heart attack, could a heart transplant help?

A.Brain death is a legal definition of death. It means complete and irreversible loss of brain function. It can result from brain injury, such as:

Prolonged lack of oxygen to the brain, such as may occur in cardiac arrest
Bleeding into or around the brain
Severe head injuries
After brain death occurs, breathing and heart function can be maintained for a period of time with the help of machines. A coma is not the same as brain death. People in comas still have some measurable brain function.

To make a diagnosis of brain death, doctors conduct required medical tests. These tests are based on legally accepted medical guidelines. Tests include clinical examinations that show no brain reflexes and an inability to breathe without assistance. In some situations, other tests may be used to confirm the diagnosis, such as a brain wave test (electroencephalogram).

A heart transplant will not change the situation in brain death because the brain has been irreversibly damaged.

Oh, look. Caught again. Sad.

I used your numbers, we are both using week 8, you say week 8 and before, I'm saying week 8 and after...

Read the source. It's talking about the time from the last period. That's why it is using a 40-week gestation period (which goes from the last period). When we talk about the first trimester being 13 weeks it is measured from the last period. The CDC is using the 13 week trimester.

You are doing 8 week and after in an attempt to twist the statistics. By the time there is any observable movement even if you said the 8 weeks is from conception the embryo has been aborted in 56% of the cases.

Appears to be you. Let's examine some more.

Oh, look. Caught again. Sad.

You've failed to show that the embryonic pre-born brain is classified as dead. We know the heart is beating, we now know (thanks to the mayo link you provided) that 250,000 connections are being made per minute during the 8th gestational week, and you say what?

I said:
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.

What part of prenatal, embryonic, or pre-birth science in regards to the embryonic pre-born condition, is going to argue otherwise? Figuratively speaking, you go to a OB/GYN and say, "is my baby okay?" They listen or check for the heart beat, check their chart and see where it's supposed to be, and then they tell you yes or no. It's all on the heart and it's beat, fast or slow, stopped or going.

As long as I can have sex with foetus corpses, I am down with abortion.

Read the source. It's talking about the time from the last period. That's why it is using a 40-week gestation period (which goes from the last period). ...

No, gestational goes from two weeks 'after' the last period. Gestational goes from fertilization/implantation (two weeks later).

You HAVE to try harder Jacobia, you are confusing yourself and getting bent out of shape over your own misconceptions and you just keep doing it over and over again.

You've failed to show that the embryonic pre-born brain is classified as dead. We know the heart is beating, we now know (thanks to the mayo link you provided) that 250,000 connections are being made per minute during the 8th gestational week, and you say what?

I said it wasn't dead. I said it can't be. The embryo does not qualify for life so it can't die. It doesn't say connections. Quit lying. Neurons are the cells not the connections which are called synapses. You know better and I'll prove it.

"This week, your baby's brain will produce almost 250,000 new neurons every minute."

Synapses are 'connections.' Neurons (nerve cells) communicate chemically by releasing and responding to chemical substances, and are called Neurotransmitters.

Caught lying again. Amusing. Quit trying to twist the facts. It is talking about the formation of the brain not the function of it. The source you posted shows the first movements in the eighth and tenth week and no coordinated movement until afterward. Essentially, it is clear there is no higher brain function till later than the eight week. You tried to claim brain function as early as the third before the first synapse had formed.

Neuron:
AKA: nerve cell

The fundamental unit of the nervous system, having structure and properties that allow it to conduct signals by taking advantage of the electrical charge across its cell membrane.

Synapse:
a highly specialized junction between two neurons, or between a neuron and an effector cell (e.g., muscle or gland cell), at which electrical and/or chemical signals are passed from one cell to another.

Synapses and neurons are no the same thing. Quit trying to trick people into thinking they are.
I said:


What part of prenatal, embryonic, or pre-birth science in regards to the embryonic pre-born condition, is going to argue otherwise? Figuratively speaking, you go to a OB/GYN and say, "is my baby okay?" They listen or check for the heart beat, check their chart and see where it's supposed to be, and then they tell you yes or no. It's all on the heart and it's beat, fast or slow, stopped or going.
The operative part of your statement that I was quoting was where you claimed I was wrong about brain death and twice said death is legally based on the heart. I showed you otherwise. You're again trying a little slight-of-post, but your magic is weak. Try again. We're on an internet forum where I can just quote you. I can't believe you would so blatantly lie and then pretend like I'm doing it. I'll post what you wrote again only this time I'll using bolding.

We consider a person to have died when their brain ceases to function.

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.
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.

And in case you try to pretend like I was talking about something else. I"ll point out that I was talking about that I think the objective time of life is the reverse of the objective time of death. We legally claim a person dies when the brain waves stop. Life should begin at the time brain waves start. You claimed that my claim that legal death is based on the brain was spurious and you've been shown to be wrong.

No, gestational goes from two weeks 'after' the last period. Gestational goes from fertilization/implantation (two weeks later).

You HAVE to try harder Jacobia, you are confusing yourself and getting bent out of shape over your own misconceptions and you just keep doing it over and over again.

Ok, I'll go slow. When does the first trimester end on the Mayo clinic source which you yourself say starts from the date of the last period (two weeks earlier than conception)? At <=13 weeks.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112

Notice even in the link that it's weeks 01 to 12.

Now let's look at the CDC link.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm

" Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 59% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks."

Hmmm... why thirteen weeks? Um, because it's the end of the first trimester.

Dang, caught again. Don't you get tired of getting caught lying and twisting the truth?

The amusing part is that even if you were right, the CDC says most abortions occur before the tenth week you are talking about the connections (when, of course, the source said neurons and NOT connections/synapses, another of your lies). You just keep on twisting the truth. I'm right here catching you.

You fabricate.

Here's the simple and easy, non-obfuscating version...

~ You think an embryonic pre-born baby is dead, the OB/GYN checks the heart beat and says it's alive, whom do we believe? The prenatal expert might be the wiser choice, but perhaps you can get a few people to believe you.

~ 8th week gestational = 10th week pregnant. You can confuse yourself all you want, but the rest of us understand that 10th week pregnant is 8th week gestational and the embryo-turning fetus pre-born has a well functioning heart, working and very fast growing brain and a fully connected nervous system and THIS stage and later is the stage of 58% of abortions in America (according to the abortion statistic provided to us earlier in this thread).

Try to distract as you will, but the real issue being discussed is the condition of the embryo/fetus/pre-born, not you and your agenda to change the issue into something it is not...

You fabricate.

Here's the simple and easy, non-obfuscating version...

~ You think an embryonic pre-born baby is dead, the OB/GYN checks the heart beat and says it's alive, whom do we believe? The prenatal expert might be the wiser choice, but perhaps you can get a few people to believe you.

~ 8th week gestational = 10th week pregnant. You can confuse yourself all you want, but the rest of us understand that 10th week pregnant is 8th week gestational and the embryo-turning fetus pre-born has a well functioning heart, working and very fast growing brain and a fully connected nervous system and THIS stage and later is the stage of 58% of abortions in America (according to the abortion statistic provided to us earlier in this thread).

Try to distract as you will, but the real issue being discussed is the condition of the embryo/fetus/pre-born, not you and your agenda to change the issue into something it is not...


1. The isssue isn't whether the embryo is alive, but whether it is a person. It can't be a person until it has brainwaves. Your whole heartbeat argument is a red herring.

2. You have the numbers backward. 59% of abortions in America occur before the point that even you allege is the earlies point that an embryo could have brainwaves.

3. As a point of fact, you are way off in your estimates of fetal development, but I see no need to go there. Your already twisted in enough knots as is.

Ok, I'll go slow. When does the first trimester end on the Mayo clinic source which you yourself say starts from the date of the last period (two weeks earlier than conception)? At <=13 weeks.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112

Notice even in the link that it's weeks 01 to 12.

Jacobia, the first week on that site says:
Week 1: Getting ready
It may seem strange, but you're not actually pregnant the first week or two of the time allotted to your pregnancy. Yes, you read that correctly!

Conception typically occurs about two weeks after your period begins. To calculate your due date, your health care provider will count ahead 40 weeks from the start of your last period. This means your period is counted as part of your pregnancy — even though you weren't pregnant at the time.

Aren't you even reading it?


Now let's look at the CDC link.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm

" Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 59% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks."

Gestation means from 'conception.'


Hmmm... why thirteen weeks? Um, because it's the end of the first trimester.

Dang, caught again. Don't you get tired of getting caught lying and twisting the truth?

Caught? What are you talking about, you have no idea do you? You HAVE to READ what they mean Jacobia. Your accusations are ridiculous. Gestational MEANs from conception. The site you are linking to is clearly quoted above, it is TWO WEEKS BEFORE CONCEPTION.


Are you drinking tonight or something?

You fabricate.

Here's the simple and easy, non-obfuscating version...

~ You think an embryonic pre-born baby is dead, the OB/GYN checks the heart beat and says it's alive, whom do we believe? The prenatal expert might be the wiser choice, but perhaps you can get a few people to believe you.

I didn't say dead. You keep claiming I did, but it's not like you attempt to stick to the truth prior to this statement. There are more choices than alive or dead. Dead implies once alive. The embryo does not yet meet the biological requirements for life. They've been posted a few times in this thread. It is not dead. It is not yet alive biologically. As mentioned dozens of times before, a human that has a heartbeat and no brain activity is considered dead legally outside of the debate about fetuses and embryos. You want to make up special rules for what qualifies legally and biologically for life but only for human fetuses. It's ridiculous.

~ 8th week gestational = 10th week pregnant. You can confuse yourself all you want, but the rest of us understand that 10th week pregnant is 8th week gestational and the embryo-turning fetus pre-born has a well functioning heart, working and very fast growing brain and a fully connected nervous system and THIS stage and later is the stage of 58% of abortions in America (according to the abortion statistic provided to us earlier in this thread).

Try to distract as you will, but the real issue being discussed is the condition of the embryo/fetus/pre-born, not you and your agenda to change the issue into something it is not...
Confuse myself. Let's ask the expert.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002367.htm

"Gestational age is the time measured from the first day of the woman's last menstrual cycle to the current date and is measured in weeks. A pregnancy of normal gestation is approximately 40 weeks"

Whoops. Since the link is talking about gestational age. 8th week equal 8th week pregnant.

In case people don't want to read up on the thread, I'll summarize.

Ph33rdom's misinformation:
The heart is controlled by the brain when it starts at the third week.

Truth:
The heart is started and regulated by itself. There is no brain in the third week (from conception).

Ph33rdom's misinformation:
The heart determines death.

Truth:
Brain death is the legal definition of death. At least in North America.

Ph33rdom's misinformation:
The majority of abortions occur after the brain begins to function.

Truth:
According to Ph33r's own sources the earliest observable motion of limbs is at 8 weeks and 10 weeks for fingers (again from conception) and coordinated movement (brain function) does not start until after this time. Any movement earlier that 8 weeks is attributed to reflexes (the spinal column) by Ph33r's source.

Ph33rdom's misinformation:
The CDC is counting from conception.

Truth:
They are counting from last period when they count that most abortions occur before the eighth week.

Check the sites and the posts and his misinformation is obvious for all to see. He has been caught time and again by a scientist, an engineer and a lawyer making dishonest statements about biology and law. His retorts amount, bah, you can't read. He even suggested Dem doesn't understand the heart (her focus in biology is the cardiovascular system).

Hist efforts are laughable, so I encourage all to go back and read his posts. I know I laughed.

Jacobia, the first week on that site says:
Week 1: Getting ready
It may seem strange, but you're not actually pregnant the first week or two of the time allotted to your pregnancy. Yes, you read that correctly!

Conception typically occurs about two weeks after your period begins. To calculate your due date, your health care provider will count ahead 40 weeks from the start of your last period. This means your period is counted as part of your pregnancy — even though you weren't pregnant at the time.

Aren't you even reading it?

Yes. It is exactly what I'm saying. The forty week cycle includes the two weeks before conception (from the last period). The CDC also includes it. I posted from another site that shows that the gestational age includes those same two weeks you keep talking about.

Gestation means from 'conception.'

So you're claiming the site I quoted was wrong. Yep. Disbelieve the objective site. Believe YOU and only you. Right.

Caught? What are you talking about, you have no idea do you? You HAVE to READ what they mean Jacobia. Your accusations are ridiculous. Gestational MEANs from conception. The site you are linking to is clearly quoted above, it is TWO WEEKS BEFORE CONCEPTION.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/002367.htm

"Gestational age is the time measured from the first day of the woman's last menstrual cycle to the current date and is measured in weeks. A pregnancy of normal gestation is approximately 40 weeks"

Gestational age starts from the the last period (two weeks before conception). Not only do I read. I keep quoting it.

Are you drinking tonight or something?
I'm beginning to think you do. Last night you accused me of not being able to read. Every person in the thread has confirmed what I found in the source. Everyone sees through your lies. Of course I keep quoting you so it makes it much harder for you to get away with it.

NOTE: the link is from TCT

1. The isssue isn't whether the embryo is alive, but whether it is a person. It can't be a person until it has brainwaves. Your whole heartbeat argument is a red herring.

2. You have the numbers backward. 59% of abortions in America occur before the point that even you allege is the earlies point that an embryo could have brainwaves.

3. As a point of fact, you are way off in your estimates of fetal development, but I see no need to go there. Your already twisted in enough knots as is.

Look back at the same time last night, and the same claims that I can't read came out. The same confirmation that he was just blowing smoke. I'm beginning to worry that I've given him too much credit. Even I'm starting to believe he actaully thinks the sources say what he is claiming. It's just so hard for me to believe that an educated person can't read these sources and understand them enough to understand the points you, I, GnI, Dem and others have made.

Your last link says:
For example, an infant born with a gestational age of 36 weeks may actually have a developmental gestational age of 38 weeks, and therefore behave more like a term infant than a premature infant.

Determination of gestational age is an important factor in planning appropriate care for the fetus or infant. It provides important information regarding expected or potential problems and directly affects the medical treatment plan for the baby.

Exactly like I said. You take the gestational week and add two weeks… See the bolding above. Your own links says what I am saying Jacobia… Whats the problem here?


As to the number of abortions by percentage and the the 8th week. ALL of the listed numbers are here exactly as they show there. I’ve provided both the gestation week and development (pregnancy) week for reference.

24.9% of abortions were known to have been performed at 6 weeks' gestation (8 weeks pregnant), 17.9% at 7 weeks gestation (9 weeks pregnant), and 16.4% at 8 weeks (10 weeks pregnant), and 19% at 9-10 week gestation (11-12 weeks pregnant), 10% at 11 weeks gestation (13 weeks pregnant), 6.2% at 12-15 weeks gestation (14-17 weeks pregnant), 4.3% at 16-20 gestation (18-22 weeks pregnant), 1.4% at or after 21 weeks gestation (or 23 and after weeks pregnant).

24.9 (6 weeks gestational) + 17.9 (7 weeks gestational) = 42.8% That means that there are 57.2% of abortions done during and after the 8th week of gestational pregnancy which is 10 weeks pregnancy development level (according to Jacobia’s link)

Your last link says:
For example, an infant born with a gestational age of 36 weeks may actually have a developmental gestational age of 38 weeks, and therefore behave more like a term infant than a premature infant.

Determination of gestational age is an important factor in planning appropriate care for the fetus or infant. It provides important information regarding expected or potential problems and directly affects the medical treatment plan for the baby.

Exactly like I said. You take the gestational week and add two weeks… See the bolding above. Your own links says what I am saying Jacobia… Whats the problem here?


As to the number of abortions by percentage and the the 8th week. ALL of the listed numbers are here exactly as they show there. I’ve provided both the gestation week and development (pregnancy) week for reference.

24.9% of abortions were known to have been performed at 6 weeks' gestation (8 weeks pregnant), 17.9% at 7 weeks gestation (9 weeks pregnant), and 16.4% at 8 weeks (10 weeks pregnant), and 19% at 9-10 week gestation (11-12 weeks pregnant), 10% at 11 weeks gestation (13 weeks pregnant), 6.2% at 12-15 weeks gestation (14-17 weeks pregnant), 4.3% at 16-20 gestation (18-22 weeks pregnant), 1.4% at or after 21 weeks gestation (or 23 and after weeks pregnant).

24.9 (6 weeks gestational) + 17.9 (7 weeks gestational) = 42.8% That means that there are 57.2% of abortions done during and after the 8th week of gestational pregnancy which is 10 weeks pregnancy development level (according to Jacobia’s link)

Why do both links put the end of the first trimester at thirteen weeks? Um, because they are both talking about the same thing. But, hey, keep trying. Maybe someone is dumb enough to believe you without reading the links. I'm not.

As long as I can have sex with foetus corpses, I am down with abortion.

Bah, you just want to steal the guns we gave them.

Hmmm... that sounds familiar. Someone brilliant must have had a similar reaction...


Really? THAT person must be wise beyond all belief... they are my hero. :)


Don't be silly. I had a leech on me once. It was sucking my blood, but my body was 'freely' giving it to it, since it didn't kill it or stop it, until my mind became aware of it and told me to kill that bloodsucker. :rolleyes:

I don't believe the embryo to be as bad as some people feel it is, but the fact is that it can be likened to a parasite which many times is adapted in a way that makes unlikely that it will kill the host animal and unlikely that the host animal will kill or detach it. That's called evolution. Whoops. That's another dirty word too.

I don't believe embryoes to be bad at all. I love my newborn baby boy, and the thought that he might never have turned up is repellent to me. And, from the time I found out 'we' were pregnant, I was just waiting for the moment I first saw him (well.. it could have been 'her' at that point, but, you know what I mean).

However, my EMOTION isn't relevent. Adorable though my baby is, he WAS a 'parasite' throughout the whole epriod of gestation. I'm not using 'parasite' as a loaded word... it is a technical description of the relationship.

In a way, it is.

Of course, in truth, it's a situation that happens all the time, especially in, say, the North Georgia mountains. Of course, then again, most of those girls don't even know they're pregnant until they're rushed to the hospital in labor.

One way or another, I certainly wouldn't want the job of telling a 12-year old girl what she was about to be forced to go through. We'll give that job to you.

This might sound like one of those things they 'blame' on that area of the country, because it is considered 'backwoodsy' and full of hillbillies.

I live there.

There is a REASON why such areas get those reputations.

I won't defend my statistics to single digits, I went by memory.

However, as to the the terminology stuff... if your wife goes to her OB/GYN and then comes home and says, "honey, I'm six weeks pregnant!" And then you accuse her of being bad at math because she had her period six weeks ago and you are sure of it, and then she tells you that they count back to the last period for 'pregnancy-weeks' for timing the anticipated birth day and growth rate stuff etc., and you recall that this has happened to you before and that just means that everytime they count a week you have to subtract by two to count to the day you boffed your brains out that night after a dinner and a movies while the kids were out, etc., and you realize then that after three kids you're going to have to start to remember this stuff someday, then you know when things say 'gestation' weeks it means you have to add 2 weeks when you talk about it or your wife gets mad :p

I have to say... they didn't do this at our OB/GYN... we got a figure (which was wrong, and they recalculated it TWICE during the pregnancy) for how far along the foetus was... no speculative 'period' numbers... in fact, they ONLY wanted to know THAT number so they could try to work out if the foetus was developing 'on track'.

I used your numbers, we are both using week 8, you say week 8 and before, I'm saying week 8 and after...

What you are using is the START of week 8 (which is actually a seven-completed-weeks-of-growth foetus).... not an 8-week-foetus.

I'm afraid Cat-Tribes and Jocabia have you, on this one.

However, my EMOTION isn't relevent. Adorable though my baby is, he WAS a 'parasite' throughout the whole epriod of gestation. I'm not using 'parasite' as a loaded word... it is a technical description of the relationship.
An inappropriate one. A parasite is foreign to the body.

You fabricate.

Here's the simple and easy, non-obfuscating version...

~ You think an embryonic pre-born baby is dead

Strawman.

A rock is not dead, as it has never been alive.

A foetus may be 'not dead', WITHOUT the situation being that it is 'alive'...

It has the potential to be 'alive'... but it hasn't BEEN 'alive'... so, it is JUST 'not alive'.

Strawman.

A rock is not dead, as it has never been alive.

A foetus may be 'not dead', WITHOUT the situation being that it is 'alive'...

It has the potential to be 'alive'... but it hasn't BEEN 'alive'... so, it is JUST 'not alive'.
Not alive = dead, for biologicals.

You would be better to say "not a life."

An inappropriate one. A parasite is foreign to the body.

Why would you believe that? Perhaps you are thinking in zoological terms (which might count if we were talking about a penguin that sucked blood out of pandas, or something), rather than in medical terms?


Definition of Parasite

Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4769

Not alive = dead, for biologicals.

You would be better to say "not a life."

The whole area is kind of hazy, actually.

Look at a virus, for example... it interacts as a biological agent, and is not 'dead'... but it still hasn't been determined FOR SURE that a virus is 'alive'.

Not 'alive' is a perfectly cromulant term. :)

The whole area is kind of hazy, actually.

Look at a virus, for example... it interacts as a biological agent, and is not 'dead'... but it still hasn't been determined FOR SURE that a virus is 'alive'.

Not 'alive' is a perfectly cromulant term. :)
Ooh! cromulance :)

But the foetus is not a virus, any more than it is a parasite.

An inappropriate one. A parasite is foreign to the body.

Look, either the embryo is a foreign body and not part of the woman, or it's part of her body, in which case it's nobody's business what she does with it. Make up your minds.

Yes, and specifically, during the five week phase the tail part (the bottom part) of the developing brain

There is no "tail part" of the brain. There is a "tail part" of the CNS, which, as your source points out, is the spinal cord. The cells that will become portions of the brain later are not functional as brain sections until they become part of the brain.

I also fail to see how this is all that pertinent to the issue of abortion.

Me too. So why do you keep bringing it up?

Why would you believe that? Perhaps you are thinking in zoological terms (which might count if we were talking about a penguin that sucked blood out of pandas, or something), rather than in medical terms?
Those "zoological terms" define a parasite.

I have read all the posts about parasite, and have come to the conclusion that what is really meant is that the fetus is parasitic. That does not make it a parasite.

Even by your medical definition, the fetus is not an organism that enters or penetrates another body to feed, or feeds off its surface.

Look, either the embryo is a foreign body and not part of the woman, or it's part of her body, in which case it's nobody's business what she does with it. Make up your minds.
It is a part of her.

24.9% of abortions were known to have been performed at 6 weeks' gestation (8 weeks pregnant),

Sorry, even by your own sources, 6 weeks gestation is 6 weeks pregnant. This is because you are not technically pregnant until conception - implantation - which your sources say occur at 2 weeks after fertilization.

Thus, 6 weeks gestation = 6 weeks pregnant = 8 weeks after fertilization.

Interestingly enough, the sources you and other have cited all use the same focus - gestation. The heartbeat begins at 3 weeks gestation. The first synapses are formed in the developing spinal cord at 5 weeks gestation. They first begin to cause reflexive and random movement at 6 weeks gestation. The first complex movements that would require more than spinal cord activity occur between 8 and 10 weeks gestation.

You are trying to obfuscate things by bringing in a distinction that doesn't matter. The links that have been used use gestation time anyways.

This might sound like one of those things they 'blame' on that area of the country, because it is considered 'backwoodsy' and full of hillbillies.

I live there.

There is a REASON why such areas get those reputations.

My boyfriend's mother is a neonatal ICU nurse up in Floyd County (Rome, GA). It's the closest hospital to most of North GA, so they get just about all the patients there. They see so many young teens in labor (usually with no prenatal care), it isn't even funny. And they'll wait until the girl is on an epideral to ask who the father is, and it's really sad how often the answer is, "My daddy." *shakes head*

An inappropriate one. A parasite is foreign to the body.

A parasite is simply defined as one organism living within or on another organism, drawing nourishment from that other organism, without providing a survival advantage in return.

Once the fetus meets the definition of an organism, it is a parasite, plain and simple. There is nothing inappropriate about the use of the word.

http://www.answers.com/topic/parasite

Sorry, even by your own sources, 6 weeks gestation is 6 weeks pregnant. This is because you are not technically pregnant until conception - implantation - which your sources say occur at 2 weeks after fertilization.

Thus, 6 weeks gestation = 6 weeks pregnant = 8 weeks after fertilization.

Interestingly enough, the sources you and other have cited all use the same focus - gestation. The heartbeat begins at 3 weeks gestation. The first synapses are formed in the developing spinal cord at 5 weeks gestation. They first begin to cause reflexive and random movement at 6 weeks gestation. The first complex movements that would require more than spinal cord activity occur between 8 and 10 weeks gestation.

You are trying to obfuscate things by bringing in a distinction that doesn't matter. The links that have been used use gestation time anyways.
Yes, exactly. He is also trying to include the eight week in the number of abortions so that he can claim that brain activity is occuring during the time abortions are being performed. Did you also notice how he took a statement about neurons and turned it into a statement about connections/synapses? Then he suggests that I'm the one trying to obfuscate things.

It is a part of her.

Great, you're pro-choice, then. I'm glad.

A parasite is simply defined as one organism living within or on another organism, drawing nourishment from that other organism, without providing a survival advantage in return.

Once the fetus meets the definition of an organism, it is a parasite, plain and simple. There is nothing inappropriate about the use of the word.
The fetus isn't an organism.

The fetus isn't an organism.

Actually, based on the links in this thread, it is.

The embryo isn't an organism, as it does not yet meet all the requirements therein. However, a fetus does.

You should read the rest of what your own site says:

Week 10: Neurons multiply (*8 weeks gestational according to TCT's abortion statistics)
By now, your baby's vital organs have a solid foundation. The embryonic tail has disappeared completely, and your baby has fully separated fingers and toes. The bones of your baby's skeleton begin to form.

This week, your baby's brain will produce almost 250,000 new neurons every minute.

Your baby's eyelids are no longer transparent. The outer ears are starting to assume their final form, and tooth buds are forming as well. If your baby is a boy, his testes will start producing the male hormone testosterone.

Now who's lying?

You've failed to show that the embryonic pre-born brain is classified as dead. We know the heart is beating, we now know (thanks to the mayo link you provided) that 250,000 connections are being made per minute during the 8th gestational week, and you say what?

Hmmmm... looks like you.

Man, I just love doing that. And just in case you claim that what you said is the same thing. I can prove that you know better.

Synapses are 'connections.' Neurons (nerve cells) communicate chemically by releasing and responding to chemical substances, and are called Neurotransmitters. The processes of neurotransmission refers to this form of chemical communication between cells of the central and peripheral nervous system at the anatomically specialized point of transmission (i.e., in this case, the connection between the heart, cord and brain, and are known in the embryonic pre-born).

Whoops. Looks like you knew the difference but you were simply trying to mislead anyone who wouldn't notice what you'd done. Sad.

Actually, based on the links in this thread, it is.

The embryo isn't an organism, as it does not yet meet all the requirements therein. However, a fetus does.
An organism is an individual form of life. The fetus is not an individual separate from its parent; they are joined by the umbilical cord.

An organism is an individual form of life. The fetus is not an individual separate from its parent; they are joined by the umbilical cord.

By your definition, no parasite which lives inside its host could possibly be considered an organism, as it is joined to its host. Of course, by the biological definition, having a connection to a host does not preclude being an organism. The entity must meet all of the requirements to be deemed an organism, and must do so as an entity.

Also by your definition, if we crushed the head of an infant after it had been born, but before the umbilical cord was cut, we would not have killed anything....

By your definition, no parasite which lives inside its host could possibly be considered an organism, as it is joined to its host. Of course, by the biological definition, having a connection to a host does not preclude being an organism. The entity must meet all of the requirements to be deemed an organism, and must do so as an entity.
Yes, the parasite is joined with a host, i.e. another organism. The offspring of the woman is not joined with the mother; it is a part of her. It is her womb, her placenta, her umbilical, and her offspring.

The definition of organism still includes the word 'individual'.

Also by your definition, if we crushed the head of an infant after it had been born, but before the umbilical cord was cut, we would not have killed anything....
We would have destroyed a very significant part of the mother, her offspring. Why you equate that to "nothing", I have no clue.

Yes, the parasite is joined with a host, i.e. another organism. The offspring of the woman is not joined with the mother; it is a part of her. It is her womb, her placenta, her umbilical, and her offspring.

You are aware, I would assume, that the embryonic/fetal tissue forms the placenta, umbilicical cord, etc. Thus, in reality, it is the embryo's/fetus' placenta and umbilical cord.

Because the fetus meets all of the requirements of being an organism - including being an individual entity, it is an organism.

We would have destroyed a very significant part of the mother, her offspring. Why you equate that to "nothing", I have no clue.

Offspring is not part of another organism. One organism produces another organism, and we call that new one the offspring. I doubt you'll find a single biological definition that defines "offspring" as "part of the mother."

Yes, the parasite is joined with a host, i.e. another organism. The offspring of the woman is not joined with the mother; it is a part of her. It is her womb, her placenta, her umbilical, and her offspring.

The definition of organism still includes the word 'individual'.


We would have destroyed a very significant part of the mother, her offspring. Why you equate that to "nothing", I have no clue.

You are trying to apply philosophy to biology. Biology has a definition for a parasite and for an organism. Forgive them, but they didn't consider your personal philosophies when making the definitions for those words and how biological entities qualify as those terms.

You are aware, I would assume, that the embryonic/fetal tissue forms the placenta, umbilicical cord, etc. Thus, in reality, it is the embryo's/fetus' placenta and umbilical cord.

Because the fetus meets all of the requirements of being an organism - including being an individual entity, it is an organism.
You can assume all you like.

Your scientism that holds technical definitions as the one and only truth of the "reality" of things is meaningless here. I need only point to a part as being a section of a whole, and the offspring as being a part of the mother's body to assert my claim. As is the placenta and the umbilical.

Offspring is not part of another organism. One organism produces another organism, and we call that new one the offspring. I doubt you'll find a single biological definition that defines "offspring" as "part of the mother."
Then why do people not use the word "offspring" instead of the emotionally charged (and inaccruate) word "parasite" in these discussions? Surely it is clear that the latter term is repugnant to those with whom you debate? As far as I can see, the only reasons for doing it is to tick off the fundamentalists and offend sensibilities.

The offspring is an organism when it is born.

You can assume all you like.

Your scientism that holds technical definitions as the one and only truth of the "reality" of things is meaningless here. I need only point to a part as being a section of a whole, and the offspring as being a part of the mother's body to assert my claim. As is the placenta, the umbilical and the off-spring.

Ah, so the scientific terms that we are talking about should have nothing to do with science and should be defined by your philosophies. *nods*

Then why do people not use the word "offspring" instead of the emotionally charged (and inaccruate) word "parasite" in these discussions? Surely it is clear that the latter term is repugnant to those with whom you debate? As far as I can see, the only reasons for doing it is to tick off the fundamentalists and offend sensibilities.

The offspring is an organism when it is born.
The offspring is an organism when it fits the scientific definition for an organism since organism is a scientific term. I don't think the term 'parasite' is necessary either, but once it qualifies as an organism it meets the scientific definition of parasite which is all anyone is talking about.

My philosophy defines offspring as big, black boots. I expect everyone in this thread to take that into account when using terms, darn it! Don't try and trick me with your 'scientism' and 'language'. I said they're big, black boots. Obey me.

Ah, so the scientific terms that we are talking about should have nothing to do with science and should be defined by your philosophies. *nods*
Thank you, Mr. Strawman.

The offspring is an organism when it fits the scientific definition for an organism since organism is a scientific term. I don't think the term 'parasite' is necessary either, but once it qualifies as an organism it meets the scientific definition of parasite which is all anyone is talking about.

My philosophy defines offspring as big, black boots. I expect everyone in this thread to take that into account when using terms, darn it! Don't try and trick me with your 'scientism' and 'language'. I said they're big, black boots. Obey me.
Scientism. Science is the be-all-to-end-all and nothing else could ever be right. God forbid we be human.

You can assume all you like.

Your scientism that holds technical definitions as the one and only truth of the "reality" of things is meaningless here. I need only point to a part as being a section of a whole, and the offspring as being a part of the mother's body to assert my claim. As is the placenta and the umbilical.

Why do I feel like doing this after reading this post? :headbang:

Then why do people not use the word "offspring" instead of the emotionally charged (and inaccruate) word "parasite" in these discussions? Surely it is clear that the latter term is repugnant to those with whom you debate? As far as I can see, the only reasons for doing it is to tick off the fundamentalists and offend sensibilities.

The offspring is an organism when it is born.
"When" it is born. It isn't a offspring till it is born by your own words!

Parasite isn'tt emotionally charged. Terrorist as is freedom fighter.

Your scientism that holds technical definitions as the one and only truth of the "reality" of things is meaningless here.

We are having a technical discussion here. Therefore, technical definitiosn are the only ones that need be used.

I need only point to a part as being a section of a whole, and the offspring as being a part of the mother's body to assert my claim. As is the placenta and the umbilical.

In that case, my clothes are a part of my body. They are a section of the whole.

Your claim is exactly as idiotic as me claiming that my clothes are a part of me, because they are on my person.

Then why do people not use the word "offspring" instead of the emotionally charged (and inaccruate) word "parasite" in these discussions?

For one thing, "offspring" is technically used to discuss already born creatures. An egg is not "offspring", but a live hatchling is. A fetus is not "offspring", but an infant is.

Thus, referring to an embryo/fetus as "offspring" would be in error.

Meanwhile, you have yet to show that the word parasite need be emotionally charged, or that it is inaccurate to use. The only way you can claim it is inaccurate is by making up your own definitions for some things, while using the accepted definitions for others.

Surely it is clear that the latter term is repugnant to those with whom you debate?

There are people who find it "repugnant" to point out that humans are technically animals. There are people who find it "repugnant" to use the word penis or vagina. There are people who find it "repugnant" to point out that all creatures, including humans, have DNA.

I have no time for people who assign random "repugnance" to a technical term. If they take issue with it, it is because they are assigning a bad connotation to the word, not because I am.

As far as I can see, the only reasons for doing it is to tick off the fundamentalists and offend sensibilities.

The reasons for doing it are to point out the technical realities of a pregnancy. Like I said, if the fundamentalists or anyone else are "offended" by the idea, that's their problem. Why is "parasite" any more of an "emotionally charged" word than penis?

The offspring is an organism when it is born.

Actually, to be technically correct, you would say that the organism is an offspring when it is born.

Scientism. Science is the be-all-to-end-all and nothing else could ever be right. God forbid we be human.

And who, pray tell, in this thread has expressed any such sentiment?

Thank you, Mr. Strawman.

Ah, so you're admitting your constructing a strawman. Good. That saves time.

Scientism. Science is the be-all-to-end-all and nothing else could ever be right. God forbid we be human.

No one expressed that. In fact, the two people you are talking to are both Christians. However, we are not willing to encapsulate our faith in law. Science is not a faith and is encapsulated in many laws and seems an appropriate measuring stick here.

We are having a technical discussion here. Therefore, technical definitiosn are the only ones that need be used.
No, you are making a technical discussion; there is a difference. Half of the opponents to such posts in this thread were struggling to represent their positions on those terms! I wish they'd stuck to their guns.

In that case, my clothes are a part of my body. They are a section of the whole.
If that's how you define your body, then yes. Personally, my body stops at the skin/hair.

Your claim is exactly as idiotic as me claiming that my clothes are a part of me, because they are on my person.
"On" your person, not a part of your person (but I was talking body, not person).

For one thing, "offspring" is technically used to discuss already born creatures. An egg is not "offspring", but a live hatchling is. A fetus is not "offspring", but an infant is.

Thus, referring to an embryo/fetus as "offspring" would be in error.

Meanwhile, you have yet to show that the word parasite need be emotionally charged, or that it is inaccurate to use. The only way you can claim it is inaccurate is by making up your own definitions for some things, while using the accepted definitions for others.
Again with the "technically". I understand that this is the position you are debating from, but it is not the position everyone on this thread started out using, especially those not learned in the particulars of biology.

Alright, "technically" the term "offspring" may not be the correct one either, but it is as applicable as "parasite". I have shown "parasite" to be inaccurate: it describes an organism that is foreign to the body, not a part of the body. This may not be a "medical" definition, but it is a valid common one.

There are people who find it "repugnant" to point out that humans are technically animals. There are people who find it "repugnant" to use the word penis or vagina. There are people who find it "repugnant" to point out that all creatures, including humans, have DNA.

I have no time for people who assign random "repugnance" to a technical term. If they take issue with it, it is because they are assigning a bad connotation to the word, not because I am.
The assigning of it is not what is random or arbitrary. It is based on a person's beliefs. The only arbitrariness here is the instance of your encountering people whose beliefs differ so radically from yours.

The reasons for doing it are to point out the technical realities of a pregnancy. Like I said, if the fundamentalists or anyone else are "offended" by the idea, that's their problem. Why is "parasite" any more of an "emotionally charged" word than penis?
I understand that, but the "technical reality" of a pregnancy is not the world of the parent who is having to deal with deciding motherhood, or abortion, or adoption or the morality of choices. And that's the position a lot of your opponents were arguing from.

A parasite is emotionally charged for your opponents who were discussing "a child", not a creature.

Actually, to be technically correct, you would say that the organism is an offspring when it is born.

And who, pray tell, in this thread has expressed any such sentiment?
I was responding to that particular post.

Alright, "technically" the term "offspring" may not be the correct one either, but it is as applicable as "parasite". I have shown "parasite" to be inaccurate: it describes an organism that is foreign to the body, not a part of the body. This may not be a "medical" definition, but it is a valid common one.

So your claim is that you have shown parasite to innacurate even though you admit she is using it properly because you don't like that it is technical. *nods* I didn't realize we were required to pretend to be ignorant of certain things. I will keep this in mind.

I understand that, but the "technical reality" of a pregnancy is not the world of the parent who is having to deal with deciding motherhood, or abortion, or adoption or the morality of choices. And that's the position a lot of your opponents were arguing from.

Which is why we are saying that since we cannot objectively show that a fetus meets the biological or legal standards for life during the early part of pregnancy, that we cannot make a law that disallows the choice abortion at that stage of pregnancy. We are defending the individual's right to make a choice. If someone wants to take that right away from them, they better come with something better than 'I believe'.

Our opponents are not arguing from a position of their own morality. My morality would not let me get an abortion. They believe their morality is objective morality. Burn, strawman, burn. I'm amused that you make it sound as if our opponents are wish to be allowed to decide for themselves, when that is exactly what we're defending.

I was responding to that particular post.
And that sentiment couldn't be found in that particular post either. Your point is ridiculous. You defend people's right to choose according to their beliefs and then suggest that we have to allow people to force those beliefs on others. That's what we're talking about here or did you miss that. We aren't talking about using science to force abortions on people or to force their hand in how they deal with their own bodies and their own families (as would be scientism). Others in this thread tried to make up scientific reasons for why the embryo and fetus should be 'protected from abortion' and we showed them that their points are not valid. You suggest they should have stuck to their guns and made up 'scientific' definitions just as you're doing simply because their ignorant of the proper definitions. Educated people generally avoid jumping into a debate and argue from a platform they don't actually understand. You may do as you like, but to try and tell us that we shouldn't correct the bastardization of science and law is ridiculous.

No, you are making a technical discussion; there is a difference.

Well, we are talking about what can and cannot be made into law here. We need some sort of objective basis for that. If you would like to suggest another one, by all means, go ahead.

If that's how you define your body, then yes. Personally, my body stops at the skin/hair.

I know you like to think that all things are purely subjective. But when discussing the law, we have to all agree on the definitions to be used.

"On" your person, not a part of your person (but I was talking body, not person).

And a fetus is "in" a mother's body, but is not a "part" of her body, any more than a tapeworm is a "part" of a person's body.

Again with the "technically". I understand that this is the position you are debating from, but it is not the position everyone on this thread started out using, especially those not learned in the particulars of biology.

If they aren't learned in the particulars of biology, they shouldn't try to make arguments based in biology, and yet that's what everyone has been doing.

I have shown "parasite" to be inaccurate: it describes an organism that is foreign to the body, not a part of the body.

You haven't shown any such thing. Meanwhile, you have not shown an embryo or a fetus to be a part of the body, any more than a penny I swallow is a part of my body, or a tapeworm in my body is a part of my body.

The assigning of it is not what is random or arbitrary. It is based on a person's beliefs. The only arbitrariness here is the instance of your encountering people whose beliefs differ so radically from yours.

"Beliefs" have no place in the law. If you cannot demonstrate your belief from an objective basis, you have no business forcing it upon others.

I understand that, but the "technical reality" of a pregnancy is not the world of the parent who is having to deal with deciding motherhood, or abortion, or adoption or the morality of choices. And that's the position a lot of your opponents were arguing from.

Actually, that is the exact opposite of the position my opponents have been arguing from. None of them have been arguing from the point of view of the person making the choice, but have instead been arguing from the point of view of someone who wants to remove that choice entirely.....

A parasite is emotionally charged for your opponents who were discussing "a child", not a creature.

I'm sory? A child isn't a creature? That's news to me. What is it then? A rock?

I was responding to that particular post.

No, you weren't. I have never in my life expressed the idea that science is the end-all be-all of reality, or that it explains everything.

It is, however, an objective basis from which someone can choose to make their arguments for law, whereas subjective belief is simply that - subjective belief, with no place in law.

If someone can make a law that abortion should be banned based on nothing more than subjective belief, they can equally make a law that all women must wear a burqua, or that all black men must be sterilized, or .........

*snip*
If someone can make a law that abortion should be banned based on nothing more than subjective belief, they can equally make a law that all women must wear a burqua, or that all black men must be sterilized, or .........

Well, just to clarify a point, technically some views on rights are beliefs. However, the point is that the law errs on the side of protecting individual rights until an relatively object reason can be shown for doing otherwise. In this case, the only individual rights to the law can objectively recognize and protect is the rights of the woman. If people want to change that they must show from some at least relatively objective standpoint show how a embryo or fetus (depending on when they wish to outlaw it) should have more protection under the law than the mother. Since the embryo and fetus up to a point do not meet the biological definition for a living organism, science isn't going to help them.

Since legal precedent shows that even in adult humans the legal definition of the end of life is when the brain ceases to function (no significant brain waves). An objective argument that could be made is that when the brain begins to function (significant brain waves, the same waves that qualify an adult for life), life begins. If the only thing people need to use to change the law is "I believe" then we're going to have to change the law continuously.

Both the definition of a living organism and the definition of brain waves defining legal life were made independent of consideration for the human embryo, human fetus and the birth of a human child. These are objective ways to define the laws regarding abortion. Another way could be (I don't agree with it however) that a woman has the right to control her body and if you happen to be in it, human or not, living or not, cognitive or not, then watch out. This takes the approach of protecting a long recognized right to our person (slavery is outlawed, medical decisions are required to be informed, etc.). Again, objective.

They want to make up a biological definition that specifically applies to the human embryo and the definition is centered around making the embryo into a person legally and biologically. How is it inappropriate to inject law and biology into such a discussion?

Note: Dem, I'm not disagreeing with you. Just clarifying a point.

I know you like to think that all things are purely subjective. But when discussing the law, we have to all agree on the definitions to be used.
It's never been my position that all things are purely subjective. I just object when the subjective is dismissed in favour of 'all things being purely objective'. Both the objective and the subjective are valid perspectives, and while you are correct that laws should ideally be based on objective principles, in fact it does happen that the feelings of judges and constituencies come into play.

And a fetus is "in" a mother's body, but is not a "part" of her body, any more than a tapeworm is a "part" of a person's body.
A tapeworm came from outside the body.

If they aren't learned in the particulars of biology, they shouldn't try to make arguments based in biology, and yet that's what everyone has been doing.
I agree entirely. They shouldn't have tried to debate on those terms; thing is, most of them didn't start out doing that. They express ideas based on their understanding and level of knowledge.

I guess it's a no-win situation, when you have people who are experts in the fields discussed insisting everyone else be raised to their level of knowledge so that debate can continue there. Kind of spoils the fun.

You haven't shown any such thing. Meanwhile, you have not shown an embryo or a fetus to be a part of the body, any more than a penny I swallow is a part of my body, or a tapeworm in my body is a part of my body.
A penny and a tapeworm came from outside the body. The embryo/fetus does not.

"Beliefs" have no place in the law.
And yet, there they are. They are part of the legal cirriculum in Kansas. They are part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. They are there; you can't eliminate them.

If you cannot demonstrate your belief from an objective basis, you have no business forcing it upon others.
I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about repugnant terms on an Internet forum.

Actually, that is the exact opposite of the position my opponents have been arguing from. None of them have been arguing from the point of view of the person making the choice, but have instead been arguing from the point of view of someone who wants to remove that choice entirely.....
They (some of them, at least) were trying to fit themselves into that position. Their bad.

I'm sory? A child isn't a creature? That's news to me. What is it then? A rock?
I used the word in the negative context, as in a beast apart from the human. That you missed the context is your problem. (Now, you are probably going to throw some "technical" definition at me... this is my point! Scientism. I hate the way these discussions progress.)

No, you weren't. I have never in my life expressed the idea that science is the end-all be-all of reality, or that it explains everything.
I never said you did. I really was responding to that particular post made by Jocabia.

"The offspring is an organism when it fits the scientific definition for an organism since organism is a scientific term." In fact, it is a common word, likely used by parents and husbandrers since ages old. That is has been defined by biology is not the same as it being a term exclusive to science. That is the scientism I was referring to.

It is, however, an objective basis from which someone can choose to make their arguments for law, whereas subjective belief is simply that - subjective belief, with no place in law.

If someone can make a law that abortion should be banned based on nothing more than subjective belief, they can equally make a law that all women must wear a burqua, or that all black men must be sterilized, or .........
I'm really not sure how the discussion got steered to being about 'subjective belief's place in law', and I'm not here to argue that.

*Buys gun. Belatedly aborts self.*

A tapeworm came from outside the body.

So did the sperm that produced the embryo, your point?

A penny and a tapeworm came from outside the body. The embryo/fetus does not.

Yes they did. The embryocame from sperm entering thre body and meeting ms. egg. Than Mr. sperm killed his friends so only he could join with her :D

"The offspring is an organism when it fits the scientific definition for an organism since organism is a scientific term." In fact, it is a common word, likely used by parents and husbandrers since ages old. That is has been defined by biology is not the same as it being a term exclusive to science. That is the scientism I was referring to.

Common does not = correct.

Yes, and cooties are commonly held to be not real, but they do exist. The real term is head lice. And no kissing won't transfer head lice (directly lol).

So did the sperm that produced the embryo, your point?
The sperm is not an organism.

Common does not = correct.
And scientific does not make something more correct or reflective of "reality".

If it is commonly understood, then it is correct to use it.

"The offspring is an organism when it fits the scientific definition for an organism since organism is a scientific term." In fact, it is a common word, likely used by parents and husbandrers since ages old. That is has been defined by biology is not the same as it being a term exclusive to science. That is the scientism I was referring to.

Yes, I'm silly that way. When using a term in the context of science I like to use the scientific definition. You were arguing that his scientific use of the word parasite was inaccurate. You can and did say that it carries a connotation that makes it inappropriate for open debate, but you said that a fetus does not qualify as a organism until it is born and thus you can't call it a parasite. If you're going to tell him he used a term incorrectly when he used it in a scientific manner than your proofs need be scientific. That's not scientism, that's logic. What's next are we going to argue that two plus two isn't four in mathematics because two is really a color?

The sperm is not an organism.


And scientific does not make something more correct or reflective of "reality".

If it is commonly understood, then it is correct to use it.

Does this actually work? You pretend like you were the one using a term and WE were correcting YOU? You corrected his use of a term. Thus whether alternate uses are corrector not, if his use was correct then you were... bwah, bwah, bwah... wrong. No points for Willamena. You tried to use an incorrect definition of the term organism to prove her wrong. Bwah, bwah, bwah... wrong again. Still no points for Willamena.

Now would you like to try again or accept your losses?

Those "zoological terms" define a parasite.

I have read all the posts about parasite, and have come to the conclusion that what is really meant is that the fetus is parasitic. That does not make it a parasite.

Even by your medical definition, the fetus is not an organism that enters or penetrates another body to feed, or feeds off its surface.

Hmmm... let's see. Who attempted to suggest that in medical and scientific terms the use of the word parasite was incorrect. Ding, ding, ding! It's Willamena. She's a sassy, little gal who doesn't remember what she's talking about. Willamena, take a bow!

Wow. 213 pages and still rollin.

Is there a limit (like 255) to the number of pages on a thread?

As for my two cents regarding the thread, even though I said it before like 100 pages ago :

A woman has the right to have a sex life. She has the right to live that sex life without a Damocles' sword hanging over her head should her birth control measures fail. I feel that abortion, or rather the debate on making it illegal, is at least as much(if not moreso) about control over women and their sexuality.

A woman doesn't have to be enslaved so that an embryo/fetus may live. Maybe she could be convinced that getting that pregnancy to term and then giving the child to adoption is preferable. Maybe she could decide to keep it. But that would be her decision and hers alone, because utimately it's her body we're talking about.

Personally, I very much dislike abortion. But I also dislike slavery and infringements on civil rights. The best way to protect civil rights AND lower abortion rates is to keep abortion legal and teach how to effectively use birth control, thus rendering abortion mostly obsolete. Abortion should never be used as a contraceptive; but it can be used as a last resort action when all other means (condom, BC pills, etc.) fails.

The sperm is not an organism.
Neither is the egg of a common parasite Pinworm, which is how humans are infected with it. It becomes an organism inside of a person's body, much like fetus does. I suppose it must not be a parasite either.

I was just wondering earlier, is there a word to describe someone who believes woman shouldn't have the right to choose to get an abortion, but abortion should be mandated in certain cases. For example, everyone under the poverty line would not be allowed to procreate. Personally, I think the question is whether the fetus is a human yet, if so they are protected under the Constitution, if not, then certainly woman should be able to kill their babies if they so chose.

*snip* then certainly woman should be able to kill their babies if they so chose.

*chafes teeth*

Certainly that is only the result of poor wording.

Embryoes and fetuses are not babies. I certainly oppose the killing of babies. If they're out of the woman's body, they get to live without the woman's consent, because someone else can take care of them.

Wow. 213 pages and still rollin.

Is there a limit (like 255) to the number of pages on a thread?

As for my two cents regarding the thread, even though I said it before like 100 pages ago :

A woman has the right to have a sex life. She has the right to live that sex life without a Damocles' sword hanging over her head should her birth control measures fail. I feel that abortion, or rather the debate on making it illegal, is at least as much(if not moreso) about control over women and their sexuality.

A woman doesn't have to be enslaved so that an embryo/fetus may live. Maybe she could be convinced that getting that pregnancy to term and then giving the child to adoption is preferable. Maybe she could decide to keep it. But that would be her decision and hers alone, because utimately it's her body we're talking about.

Personally, I very much dislike abortion. But I also dislike slavery and infringements on civil rights. The best way to protect civil rights AND lower abortion rates is to keep abortion legal and teach how to effectively use birth control, thus rendering abortion mostly obsolete. Abortion should never be used as a contraceptive; but it can be used as a last resort action when all other means (condom, BC pills, etc.) fails.

Thanks, it has been a while and has to be restated at semi-regular intervals.

I was just wondering earlier, is there a word to describe someone who believes woman shouldn't have the right to choose to get an abortion, but abortion should be mandated in certain cases. For example, everyone under the poverty line would not be allowed to procreate. Personally, I think the question is whether the fetus is a human yet, if so they are protected under the Constitution, if not, then certainly woman should be able to kill their babies if they so chose.

Sure. It's "totalitarianism".

Thanks, it has been a while and has to be restated at semi-regular intervals.

Which is why I pop in once in a while to emphazise it.

At least it helps prevent the Dirty Whore(tm) argument being used.

and then what about the rights of the child? doesn't it have the right to live?


Yes but it is not ''alive'' yet.

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.

Here's my view. Yes, you can swear up and down a fetus is a person, has a soul, and all that. But there are people who disagree with you. My fiance (I don't agree with him on this) doesn't believe you attain a soul until you can think and have memories. At what point is that? Well, he postulates it is sometime after birth and the growth of cognitive ability. Therefore, to him, abortion isn't homicide, it's the termination of an unwanted pregnancy. I don't totally agree with him. I think a fetus has a soul, but it isn't my place to force another woman to believe that. Also, I'd rather abortion remain legal so that women who need/want an abortion, for whatever reason they want it, can safely get one. If abortion became illegal again, not only would unwanted babies die, but many times their mother's would as well. I may not be able to protect the life of an unwanted fetus, but I can certainly help protect the life of it's mother. If you want to protect these unwanted babies, why don't you go offer to adopt every single baby of every single woman who goes to your nearest abortion clinic. Tell me, at the end of a week, if you could have raised and cared for all those babies. If your entire family or pro-life friends, as a collective, could care for all of those babies. That's a lot of money, a lot of care, that maybe these mother's just can't give, and many feel they have no where else to turn. I also believe that women who suffer from rape or similar incidents have the right to an abortion. The pain of carrying a child that is the product of such an act is like the rapist got to take another shot at her. The pain and humiliation from that alone makes me want to keep abortion safe and legal, because not every woman wants to go to the police and admit she was raped, she'd rather deal with her pain alone and silently, which is a sad state, as it allows the rapist to do it again, but at least safe abortions will help prevent her from a second shame. So I'm pro-choice, not because I would ever have an abortion, but because I believe that women have the right to rid themselves of an unwanted child they have no inclination to care for or love. There aren't enough people willing to adopt these unwanted children, and I'd rather not see a rise in the number of garbage can babies. Even safe haven laws don't seem to help that problem.

I just object when the subjective is dismissed in favour of 'all things being purely objective'.

No one is doing that. In fact, many of us have expressed our subjective opinions that abortion is generally wrong. The only place in which the subjective is being dismissed in favor of objectivity is the question of whether or not those subjective opinions should become law.

A tapeworm came from outside the body.

As Jocabia points out, many parasites are not yet parasites (as they are not yet organisms) when they enter the body. They become organisms, and thus parasites, as they develop.

I agree entirely. They shouldn't have tried to debate on those terms; thing is, most of them didn't start out doing that. They express ideas based on their understanding and level of knowledge.

If you had read the thread, you would find that those who have simply said, "Hey, I think abortion is wrong, but I won't try to force my opinion on anyone," were either left alone completely, or patted on the back. It was only those who said, themselves, from the start, "I am against abortion and I can objectively prove it is wrong," who have been argued with.

They started out trying to prove something objectively. We have objectively shown how their ideas were based on a flawed understanding.

I guess it's a no-win situation, when you have people who are experts in the fields discussed insisting everyone else be raised to their level of knowledge so that debate can continue there. Kind of spoils the fun.

Hardly. I rather enjoy debates in which others are experts in the field. I get to learn things and thus reexamine my opinions based on the facts I'm being given. Call me crazy, but I think opinions should be based on the best available evidence.

I don't expect someone to have a college-level understanding of biology in order to have an opinion on abortion. I do expect them to have it when they start trying to force their opinions which are based in a flawed understanding of biology onto other people through legislation.

Would you equally say, "It's ok if our Congressmen don't understand the situation. They should make laws on it anyways! It's no fun if they actually have to understand what they are talking about!"

A penny and a tapeworm came from outside the body. The embryo/fetus does not.

Actually, part of it does. A sperm comes from outside the body and transforms an egg into an embryo, which later becomes a fetus. Without something from outside the body, there is no embryo.

And yet, there they are. They are part of the legal cirriculum in Kansas. They are part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. They are there; you can't eliminate them.

Yes, you can. And people are trying to do so in favor of more a objective basis for law. It is rather likely that someone will challenge the curriculum in Kansas and have it thrown out.

I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about repugnant terms on an Internet forum.

No, you were talking about how you think I should avoid using terms that are completely correct, but that somebody might find offensive because of the connotations they personally apply to words. If people have an aversion to a word, that is their problem, not mine.

I used the word in the negative context, as in a beast apart from the human. That you missed the context is your problem. (Now, you are probably going to throw some "technical" definition at me... this is my point! Scientism. I hate the way these discussions progress.)

This isn't even scientism - it is language. There is no inherent negativity to the word creature in its definition, scientific or not. You chose to add that negativity. I did not - I went by the definition, pure and simple. Your negativity is not my problem.

I'm really not sure how the discussion got steered to being about 'subjective belief's place in law', and I'm not here to argue that.

But that, my dear, is the entire argument! You bitched that we somehow forced the discussion into technical terms. The reason for this is that the only basis one can give for removing rights from a human being is objective. Otherwise, all they have is a subjective point of view. The entire reason that the conversation became technical is that people realize that they cannot legislate their subjective religious and philosophical views outside of a theocracy. Thus, they are trying to objectively back them up.

Problem is, thus far, all of the "objective" reasonings have been based on a flawed understanding of biology. So we've had to correct their premises.

Which is why I pop in once in a while to emphazise it.

At least it helps prevent the Dirty Whore(tm) argument being used.

:D

Actually, people here seem to have forgotten about the woman completely. The last 25 or so pages have been entirely about the embryo/fetus/parasite/child/alien/offspring/demonic-soulsucking-creature-thing. I'm waiting for people to tire of talking about it so we can get back to the issue.

Remember someone ages ago that said this was among the 5 longest threads in the board? I wonder if it made first place yet...

Here's my view. Yes, you can swear up and down a fetus is a person, has a soul, and all that. But there are people who disagree with you. My fiance (I don't agree with him on this) doesn't believe you attain a soul until you can think and have memories. At what point is that? Well, he postulates it is sometime after birth and the growth of cognitive ability. Therefore, to him, abortion isn't homicide, it's the termination of an unwanted pregnancy. I don't totally agree with him. I think a fetus has a soul, but it isn't my place to force another woman to believe that. Also, I'd rather abortion remain legal so that women who need/want an abortion, for whatever reason they want it, can safely get one. If abortion became illegal again, not only would unwanted babies die, but many times their mother's would as well. I may not be able to protect the life of an unwanted fetus, but I can certainly help protect the life of it's mother. If you want to protect these unwanted babies, why don't you go offer to adopt every single baby of every single woman who goes to your nearest abortion clinic. Tell me, at the end of a week, if you could have raised and cared for all those babies. If your entire family or pro-life friends, as a collective, could care for all of those babies. That's a lot of money, a lot of care, that maybe these mother's just can't give, and many feel they have no where else to turn. I also believe that women who suffer from rape or similar incidents have the right to an abortion. The pain of carrying a child that is the product of such an act is like the rapist got to take another shot at her. The pain and humiliation from that alone makes me want to keep abortion safe and legal, because not every woman wants to go to the police and admit she was raped, she'd rather deal with her pain alone and silently, which is a sad state, as it allows the rapist to do it again, but at least safe abortions will help prevent her from a second shame. So I'm pro-choice, not because I would ever have an abortion, but because I believe that women have the right to rid themselves of an unwanted child they have no inclination to care for or love. There aren't enough people willing to adopt these unwanted children, and I'd rather not see a rise in the number of garbage can babies. Even safe haven laws don't seem to help that problem.

Welcome to the thread. Say, you wouldn't happen to be a biologist or a doctor or an embryologist, would you? We're having some biology debates and our side can always use another expert.

No one is doing that. In fact, many of us have expressed our subjective opinions that abortion is generally wrong. The only place in which the subjective is being dismissed in favor of objectivity is the question of whether or not those subjective opinions should become law.



As Jocabia points out, many parasites are not yet parasites (as they are not yet organisms) when they enter the body. They become organisms, and thus parasites, as they develop.



If you had read the thread, you would find that those who have simply said, "Hey, I think abortion is wrong, but I won't try to force my opinion on anyone," were either left alone completely, or patted on the back. It was only those who said, themselves, from the start, "I am against abortion and I can objectively prove it is wrong," who have been argued with.

They started out trying to prove something objectively. We have objectively shown how their ideas were based on a flawed understanding.



Hardly. I rather enjoy debates in which others are experts in the field. I get to learn things and thus reexamine my opinions based on the facts I'm being given. Call me crazy, but I think opinions should be based on the best available evidence.

I don't expect someone to have a college-level understanding of biology in order to have an opinion on abortion. I do expect them to have it when they start trying to force their opinions which are based in a flawed understanding of biology onto other people through legislation.

Would you equally say, "It's ok if our Congressmen don't understand the situation. They should make laws on it anyways! It's no fun if they actually have to understand what they are talking about!"



Actually, part of it does. A sperm comes from outside the body and transforms an egg into an embryo, which later becomes a fetus. Without something from outside the body, there is no embryo.



Yes, you can. And people are trying to do so in favor of more a objective basis for law. It is rather likely that someone will challenge the curriculum in Kansas and have it thrown out.



No, you were talking about how you think I should avoid using terms that are completely correct, but that somebody might find offensive because of the connotations they personally apply to words. If people have an aversion to a word, that is their problem, not mine.



This isn't even scientism - it is language. There is no inherent negativity to the word creature in its definition, scientific or not. You chose to add that negativity. I did not - I went by the definition, pure and simple. Your negativity is not my problem.



But that, my dear, is the entire argument! You bitched that we somehow forced the discussion into technical terms. The reason for this is that the only basis one can give for removing rights from a human being is objective. Otherwise, all they have is a subjective point of view. The entire reason that the conversation became technical is that people realize that they cannot their subjective religious and philosophical views outside of a theocracy. Thus, they are trying to objectively back them up.

Problem is, thus far, all of the "objective" reasonings have been based on a flawed understanding of biology. So we've had to correct their premises.
Argh! You and your scientism!!

:D

Actually, people here seem to have forgotten about the woman completely. The last 25 or so pages have been entirely about the embryo/fetus/parasite/child/alien/offspring/demonic-soulsucking-creature-thing. I'm waiting for people to tire of talking about it so we can get back to the issue.

Wait the issue is whether women are Dirty Whore(tm)s ? :p


Here I thought it was whether abortion was logical.

:D

Actually, people here seem to have forgotten about the woman completely. The last 25 or so pages have been entirely about the embryo/fetus/parasite/child/alien/offspring/demonic-soulsucking-creature-thing. I'm waiting for people to tire of talking about it so we can get back to the issue.

People on the anti-choice side often don't seem to think that the woman ever factors into it. Thus, to argue with them, you often have to argue almost entirely about the embryo/fetus. You would think that the fact that their arguments always leave her out would be a sign of some sort that something is wrong, but *shrug*.

Wait the issue is whether women are Dirty Whore(tm)s ? :p


Here I thought it was whether abortion was logical.

Oh, come on, we all know this thread was started as just a means to call women dirty whores!

People on the anti-choice side often don't seem to think that the woman ever factors into it. Thus, to argue with them, you often have to argue almost entirely about the embryo/fetus. You would think that the fact that their arguments always leave her out would be a sign of some sort that something is wrong, but *shrug*.

They really don't get it... It's sad.

Welcome to the thread. Say, you wouldn't happen to be a biologist or a doctor or an embryologist, would you? We're having some biology debates and our side can always use another expert.

Nope, I just try to be well informed. I tried to be pro-life once, it didn't work. I can't agree with taking away people's rights to get rid of a kid they don't want. Want to hear another one of my arguments? No, too bad, I'm sharing. I'd rather a drug addict who refuses to quit get an abortion than give the world another suffering crack baby. Crack babies = worse than abortion.

Oh, come on, we all know this thread was started as just a means to call women dirty whores!

Not all women, just the dirty whores.

People on the anti-choice side often don't seem to think that the woman ever factors into it. Thus, to argue with them, you often have to argue almost entirely about the embryo/fetus. You would think that the fact that their arguments always leave her out would be a sign of some sort that something is wrong, but *shrug*.

I imagine it's because they believe the woman has a voice and can defend herself, but a fetus is unable to speak for itself. Either that, or they are big on the fact that any woman who would abort a baby is a dirty souless heathen who should be stoned and has no right to be argued for or against.

People on the anti-choice side often don't seem to think that the woman ever factors into it. Thus, to argue with them, you often have to argue almost entirely about the embryo/fetus. You would think that the fact that their arguments always leave her out would be a sign of some sort that something is wrong, but *shrug*.

I know. It's amazing to me that we have a person that NO QUESTION is a person and her rights don't matter at all. But time and again we've been told we have to err on the side of the embryo that fits no objective definition of the term and in some cases isn't even believed to be a person by the people making the argument.

I also think it's amazing that people will make the argument that if women didn't want to have babies they shouldn't have sex (no such requirement on the men apparently), but then they say abortion still shouldn't be allowed in cases of rape or molestation either. Nothing better than some logical inconsistency for you. Except we all know what that's about right. They don't have to be dirty whores for us to order them to carry out the pregnancy but we still don't want to miss an opportunity to mention what dirty whores they are.

Nope, I just try to be well informed. I tried to be pro-life once, it didn't work. I can't agree with taking away people's rights to get rid of a kid they don't want. Want to hear another one of my arguments? No, too bad, I'm sharing. I'd rather a drug addict who refuses to quit get an abortion than give the world another suffering crack baby. Crack babies = worse than abortion.

Another good point.

Not all women, just the dirty whores.

Of course, just the ones that had sex. Whether they wanted to or not.

Of course, just the ones that had sex. Whether they wanted to or not.
Please, Dirty Whores (tm) can't help themselves. It is like an addiction. :D

Of course, just the ones that had sex. Whether they wanted to or not.


How dare you question the judgement of the supreme Avalon (may his superiority never waver)!!! Evil sluts....provocative dressing....leading poor, innocent men on.....deserve to be shot....burn in hell......want it really.......blah blah blah....continue ad infinitum and et nauseum.

Of course, just the ones that had sex. Whether they wanted to or not.

Oh, they wanted to. Did you see that look in her eyes? She just couldn't wait to be clubbed and dragged back to the cave.

I also think it's amazing that people will make the argument that if women didn't want to have babies they shouldn't have sex (no such requirement on the men apparently),

In truth, I have to admit, I don't think people who absolutely do not want children should have sex without first being sterilized. Of course, I'm not trying to legislate that on them, as I realize it is my own view, and I'll hold to it. I don't expect others to just go, "You know what, Dem's view is supreme so we're all going to follow it..."

=)

You're killing me.

In the absence of babies to murder I feel the need to kill something.:mad:

Wow, my post count was barely 500 when I started posting on this thread. The dead horse was not beaten in vain.

How dare you question the judgement of the supreme Avalon (may his superiority never waver)!!! Evil sluts....provocative dressing....leading poor, innocent men on.....deserve to be shot....burn in hell......want it really.......blah blah blah....continue ad infinitum and et nauseum.

No, I would never question the supreme Avalon. His wisdom is greater than any earthly philosphy (civil rights *scoff*).

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.

Oh, good, you just say "blame the woman." If you feel that way, I hope you've NEVER had sex without the very specific purpose of creating a child.

Asshole.

In truth, I have to admit, I don't think people who absolutely do not want children should have sex without first being sterilized. Of course, I'm not trying to legislate that on them, as I realize it is my own view, and I'll hold to it. I don't expect others to just go, "You know what, Dem's view is supreme so we're all going to follow it..."

=)

And at what age do you think doctors should sterilize people? Considering how people have this annoying habit of changing their minds.

Random question. Why do pro-lifers who get abortions, whatever their reasons, automatically feel their reasons for an abortion are better than pro-choice women? Why don't they view their choice to get an abortion a vote for pro-choice and their own hypocrisy? I can think of more than one instance where I heard about/knew a pro-lifer who got an abortion and assumed it was just ok for them because somehow their circumstance was 'special.' Even if it was identical to that of so many other women who had gotten an abortion, they still believed that the other woman had 'options' that somehow they didn't have. Anyone understand the logic (or internal fallacy) behind that? What makes them so superior to pro-choice people?

Wow, my post count was barely 500 when I started posting on this thread. The dead horse was not beaten in vain.

Mine was 0 when I started posting here. This is my home. :rolleyes:

To be truthful, I've been posting quite a bit on other threads too. But this one has easily 400-500 of my posts.

In truth, I have to admit, I don't think people who absolutely do not want children should have sex without first being sterilized. Of course, I'm not trying to legislate that on them, as I realize it is my own view, and I'll hold to it. I don't expect others to just go, "You know what, Dem's view is supreme so we're all going to follow it..."

=)

I actually agree with that, however, even sterilization occasionally fails. It's true that only abstinence is 100%. That's why the idea that women are incubators and are not allowed to be sexual beings has to be accepted before you can totally outlaw abortion.

And at what age do you think doctors should sterilize people? Considering how people have this annoying habit of changing their minds.

Notice how she said 'absolutely don't want children' not 'might want children later but not now'. Also, nowadays sterilization is becoming a reversable procedure.

Random question. Why do pro-lifers who get abortions, whatever their reasons, automatically feel their reasons for an abortion are better than pro-choice women? Why don't they view their choice to get an abortion a vote for pro-choice and their own hypocrisy? I can think of more than one instance where I heard about/knew a pro-lifer who got an abortion and assumed it was just ok for them because somehow their circumstance was 'special.' Even if it was identical to that of so many other women who had gotten an abortion, they still believed that the other woman had 'options' that somehow they didn't have. Anyone understand the logic (or internal fallacy) behind that? What makes them so superior to pro-choice people?

What? Someone pro-life got an abortion? Please tell me that she was stoned to death by her pro-life friends.

No, I would never question the supreme Avalon. His wisdom is greater than any earthly philosphy (civil rights *scoff*).

The Book of Avalon (may his superiority never waver), 74:81
'For the wise and mighty Avalon (may his superiority never waver) spake unto the people of the Earth with a voice as clear and resonant as a really clear, resonant thingie: "She doesn't need free speach to fetch my slippers, cook my meals and have my babies" and the people rejoiced.'

I actually agree with that, however, even sterilization occasionally fails. It's true that only abstinence is 100%. That's why the idea that women are incubators and are not allowed to be sexual beings has to be accepted before you can totally outlaw abortion.

What about the virgin Mary? Not even abstinence is 100% :p

Notice how she said 'absolutely don't want children' not 'might want children later but not now'. Also, nowadays sterilization is becoming a reversable procedure.

Yeah, and the funny thing about people changing their minds is that they do it even if a while ago they were absolutely sure.

The Book of Avalon (may his superiority never waver), 74:81
'for the wise and mitey Avalon (may his superiority never waiver) spakd unto the people of the Earth with a voice as clear and ressonant as a really clear ressonant thingie: "she doesnt need free speach to fetch my slippers cook my meals and half my babies" and the people rejoiced.'

There. I fixed it. :p

and then what about the rights of the child? doesn't it have the right to live?



FIrst of all a child has no rights. They dont do anything for society, they cant because they havent developed the ability to, its like giving a dog a right to vote in a human democracy, u cant make a child understand the rights. Second its up to the women whether or not they want to have the child, its going to grow in their body, not yours, cause them pain and many other health problems, abortion should be the choice of the women who have to let it grow inside them not the many men who have no idea what kind sufferring women have to go through, i think this arguement shouldnt be made by men at all cause it doesnt concern us, face it guys no matter how we try we cant have kids.

What? Someone pro-life got an abortion? Please tell me that she was stoned to death by her pro-life friends.

Those would be her pro death pro life friends?! :D


personally, i think everyone should have abortions, then there'd be no people and i could finally get some rest!

What? Someone pro-life got an abortion? Please tell me that she was stoned to death by her pro-life friends.

Afraid not. My favorite was told by a "escort volunteer" (person who protects women coming to the clinic from being mobbed by protesters) about a woman who came to the clinic every week to protest. One day this woman shows up with her teenage daughter who has an abortion and this escort has to walk them into the clinic. The escort asks her if this experience has changed her position on abortion. Her reply? "Of course not! My daughter has a very special circumstance!" The woman was back protesting the next day.

Yeah, and the funny thing about people changing their minds is that they do it even if a while ago they were absolutely sure.

Yes, that's where that thing some people refer to as 'accepting the consequences of your actions' comes into play.

There. I fixed it. :p

Are you questioning the infallibility of Avalon (may his superiority never waver)? Hey, look over there!!!

*hurriedly edits post*

I can't see any typo, what are you talking about?:p

The Book of Avalon (may his superiority never waver), 74:81
'For the wise and mighty Avalon (may his superiority never waver) spake unto the people of the Earth with a voice as clear and resonant as a really clear, resonant thingie: "She doesn't need free speech to fetch my slippers, cook my meals and have my babies" and the people rejoiced.'

Amen. Glory to the mighty Avalon (may his self-righteousness never flicker).

And at what age do you think doctors should sterilize people? Considering how people have this annoying habit of changing their minds.

As far as I am concerned, if an adult asks to be sterilized, they should be able to have it done. If they later change their minds, well, they were adults - the should have thought about that possibility and factored it into their decision.


I actually agree with that, however, even sterilization occasionally fails. It's true that only abstinence is 100%. That's why the idea that women are incubators and are not allowed to be sexual beings has to be accepted before you can totally outlaw abortion.

This is certainly true, and a big part of the reason I don't even begin to try and apply my own convictions to other people. I don't have sex without protection (I'm on the pill and will remain so until they tell me to get off of it or I want to plan for a child). However, I wouldn't have sex at all if I didn't know that, if I were to get pregnant, I would be able and willing to carry to term and to raise the child. It isn't something I'm planning for right now, but it is something I could do and would do in that circumstance.


Notice how she said 'absolutely don't want children' not 'might want children later but not now'. Also, nowadays sterilization is becoming a reversable procedure.

In truth, I really did mean, "Absolutely don't want children now." My outlook has always been that if there were no way I would be able and willing to carry to term and have a child at the time, then I would refrain from having sex.

What? Someone pro-life got an abortion? Please tell me that she was stoned to death by her pro-life friends.

She probably didn't tell them. My aunt is one of the most staunchly anti-chioce people I know. She once took her 1st-grade daughter out of school to travel to DC in the cold for an anti-abortion march (as if a 1st-grader even knows the beginning of the issues involved). And yet, once upon a time, before she was married, guess who had an abortion? She doesn't actually know I know this. She doesn't tell anyone. It's her "dark little family secret." I have been tempted to ask her though, why it was ok for her and not for others, or if she's decided it actually wasn't ok for her either.

Those would be her pro death pro life friends?! :D


personally, i think everyone should have abortions, then there'd be no people and i could finally get some rest!

Pro-death? No, the embryo was already killed. It's not like the woman's life counts for anything.

Afraid not. My favorite was told by a "escort volunteer" (person who protects women coming to the clinic from being mobbed by protesters) about a woman who came to the clinic every week to protest. One day this woman shows up with her teenage daughter who has an abortion and this escort has to walk them into the clinic. The escort asks her if this experience has changed her position on abortion. Her reply? "Of course not! My daughter has a very special circumstance!" The woman was back protesting the next day.

Holy &#@#*&@$@!

Yes, that's where that thing some people refer to as 'accepting the consequences of your actions' comes into play.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have to accept it, but doctors aren't going to sterilize young people. They won't risk the lawsuits and what-not.

As far as I am concerned, if an adult asks to be sterilized, they should be able to have it done. If they later change their minds, well, they were adults - the should have thought about that possibility and factored it into their decision.

I agree, but do doctors generally think this way?

Those would be her pro death pro life friends?! :D


personally, i think everyone should have abortions, then there'd be no people and i could finally get some rest!
Just a second; I have to go somehow get a uterus and ovary implant, vaginoplasty, hormone treatment and get pregnant first.

Obviously you don't mean everyone have abortions. Just those who have use of them. >_>;

Just a second; I have to go somehow get a uterus and ovary implant, vaginoplasty, hormone treatment and get pregnant first.

Obviously you don't mean everyone have abortions. Just those who have use of them. >_>;

Actually, you could just have an embryo implanted in your abdomen, and then have it aborted. They've had women whose embryo's implanted in their abdominal cavity outside the uterus that they simply had to c-sec, and were healthy at term. So actually, you could go have an abortion for the hell of it if you could get a hold of someone who was willing to implant an embryo for you. :D

I agree, but do doctors generally think this way?

No, they don't, and I think that is a problem. If a person signs informed consent, anyone who later sues that the doctor sterilized them too young should be laughed out of court.

The real problem is that moral absolutes are based in the idea that, as Ishmael the gorrilla (see Dan Simmons' books if you haven't heard of him) would say, "If people were better than they've ever been...."

People will get sterilized, change their minds later, and try to sue the doctor - and thus the doctors have to take that into account in their decisions. The world would be a wonderful place if adults always took responsibility for their own decisions unless they were actually deceived, but that isn't the case.

On the other hand, doctors will be convinced that no one can possibly truly never want children, and will assume that any 20-something who walks into a clinic wanting to be sterilized will eventually change his mind. The world would be a wonderful place if everyone would and could take other adults at their word, instead of assuming their views to be "abnormal" or "misplaced", but that isn't the case.

*shrug* If people were better than they've ever been...."

No, they don't, and I think that is a problem. If a person signs informed consent, anyone who later sues that the doctor sterilized them too young should be laughed out of court.

The real problem is that moral absolutes are based in the idea that, as Ishmael the gorrilla (see Dan Simmons' books if you haven't heard of him) would say, "If people were better than they've ever been...."

People will get sterilized, change their minds later, and try to sue the doctor - and thus the doctors have to take that into account in their decisions. The world would be a wonderful place if adults always took responsibility for their own decisions unless they were actually deceived, but that isn't the case.

On the other hand, doctors will be convinced that no one can possibly truly never want children, and will assume that any 20-something who walks into a clinic wanting to be sterilized will eventually change his mind. The world would be a wonderful place if everyone would and could take other adults at their word, instead of assuming their views to be "abnormal" or "misplaced", but that isn't the case.

*shrug* If people were better than they've ever been...."

*sigh*

I'm really hoping this Essure (http://www.essure.com/consumer/c_homepage.aspx) thing will make it possible for me to be sterilized by age 25. Of course, it'll have to reach Brazil first...

She probably didn't tell them. My aunt is one of the most staunchly anti-chioce people I know. She once took her 1st-grade daughter out of school to travel to DC in the cold for an anti-abortion march (as if a 1st-grader even knows the beginning of the issues involved). And yet, once upon a time, before she was married, guess who had an abortion? She doesn't actually know I know this. She doesn't tell anyone. It's her "dark little family secret." I have been tempted to ask her though, why it was ok for her and not for others, or if she's decided it actually wasn't ok for her either.

That one's easy, and I'm not going to jump into this thread of beasts of propaganda and innuendo... however, it keeps popping up so I’ve read a few sections of it from time to time...

Anyway. Change that legal abortion situation to any other type of self-deprecating one time legal behavior, like going to an opium house was once upon a time a legal option, and after using it for several years (or whatever) you've then realized that it was SUCH a mistake, that you don't think the very OPTION of it should be available to seduce anyone ever again. You think of the action as having no redeeming factors and it is like falling in an open manhole. After you’ve fallen in and instead of thinking that everyone else that walks down that road should have the chance to fall in it and learn their own lessons for themselves, after you've crawled back out of the hole you go find a manhole cover to stop anyone else from ever having to fall down that hole again.

You aunt thinks of Abortion like that. It's such a 'pit' in her mind, she doesn’t think it should be an option for someone else to fall into it... It's not that hard to understand really, she's not even a hypocrite for that.