NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do you keep saying I have chosen 'to not recognise' your non-medical dictionary?

Again - this is either obfuscation of dishonesty.

What I have said is, you cannot legitimately argue a medical issue, with a lay definition.

The same would be true for most anything that uses a specific 'vocabulary'... law, computer programming, engineering...

organism
(Science: biology) Any individual living thing, whether animal or plant.

A living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently.

A system considered analogous in structure or function to a living body; "the social organism".

Any living thing that exhibits living characteristics and is composed of one cell or more.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/organism

organism
(Science: biology) Any individual living thing, whether animal or plant.

A living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently.

A system considered analogous in structure or function to a living body; "the social organism".

Any living thing that exhibits living characteristics and is composed of one cell or more.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/organism

So, according to a biological definition, an 'organism' can be any 'living' thing of more than one cell, OR something non-living that RESEMBLES something living.

How do you think this helps?

So, according to a biological definition, an 'organism' can be any 'living' thing of more than one cell, OR something non-living that RESEMBLES something living.

How do you think this helps?

I think your refusal to accept the meaning of the medical dictionary's description for embryo says a lot, and is now simply you repeating over and over that you don't believe it is right and trying to assert that somehow it's not proven etc., is simply because it wasn't the answer you were anticipating it to be.

To resort to arguing that a human embryo=organism could somehow be interpreted as a non-human organism, or then to suggest that it is not a 'real' organism in some way, or to imply that when the medterm dictionary used the word organism they probably meant something other than what the dictionary says the word organism means ... it seems that you are the one trying to obfuscate the issue. Does your argument require your ability to deny what the evidence is revealing? That the embryo is an organism and an organism is a living entity? Is this a meet or break issue with your position that you dispute all sources that suggest that the opposite is true or that say something different?

Anyway:

or•gan•ism (ôr g -n z m)
n.
An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/organism

Biological Organization
~ Atoms
~ Molecule
~ Macromolecule
~ Organelle
~ Cell
~ Tissue
~ Organ
~ Organ System
~ Organism
http://open-encyclopedia.com/Organism

Notice that Organism is rated in a different space than cell, tissue and organ? Those levels are where ‘cancer’ for example, belong. Organism means ‘entity.’ Human entity in the case of a human embryo.

I think your refusal to accept the meaning of the medical dictionary's description for embryo says a lot, and is now simply you repeating over and over that you don't believe it is right and trying to assert that somehow it's not proven etc., is simply because it wasn't the answer you were anticipating it to be.

To resort to arguing that a human embryo=organism could somehow be interpreted as a non-human organism, or then to suggest that it is not a 'real' organism in some way, or to imply that when the medterm dictionary used the word organism they probably meant something other than what the dictionary says the word organism means ... it seems that you are the one trying to obfuscate the issue. Does your argument require your ability to deny what the evidence is revealing? That the embryo is an organism and an organism is a living entity? Is this a meet or break issue with your position that you dispute all sources that suggest that the opposite is true or that say something different?

Anyway:

or•gan•ism (ôr g -n z m)
n.
An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/organism

Biological Organization
~ Atoms
~ Molecule
~ Macromolecule
~ Organelle
~ Cell
~ Tissue
~ Organ
~ Organ System
~ Organism
http://open-encyclopedia.com/Organism

Notice that Organism is rated in a different space than cell, tissue and organ? Those levels are where ‘cancer’ for example, belong. Organism means ‘entity.’ Human entity in the case of a human embryo.

I haven't refused to "accept the meaning of the medical dictionary's description for embryo".

This is the second time that you have, in the direct face of my words to the contrary, stated something about my opinion that is not true.

And yet, you bristle at my use of word 'dishonesty'?


Further if you look at the definitions you posted from the biological source, I didn't claim it meant something not in the text, I claimed it means something otherr than WHAT YOU believe it means. Look, specifically, at the line of the definition that says "A system considered analogous in structure or function to a living body".

So - an 'organism' need only RESEMBLE a living entity, it needn't BE one.

Is this make or break for me? No, far from it. I am, indeed, wondering WHY you have chosen this particular prevarication... quibbling over terminology... when I have repeatedly stated that my opinion is based on the fact that it is not possible to PROVE that the 'living, human' foetus is ACTUALLY 'a human life'.

Show me a good scientific reason to believe that the amorphous blob of embryonic tissue SHOULD be considered a human being and I'll AGREE with your assertion that abortion is a 'contest of rights' between two individuals.

I haven't refused to "accept the meaning of the medical dictionary's description for embryo".

This is the second time that you have, in the direct face of my words to the contrary, stated something about my opinion that is not true.

And yet, you bristle at my use of word 'dishonesty'?

Look, I’ll show you how you are doing it.

Show me a good scientific reason to believe that the amorphous blob of embryonic tissue SHOULD be considered a human being and I'll AGREE with your assertion that abortion is a 'contest of rights' between two individuals.

That is how you are refusing to accept the meaning of the medical dictionary’s definition of Embryo.

Amorphous blob (your definition) = Embryo (Medical definition)
Human Embryo = Human Organism (medical definition)
Human Organism = Human life entity (medical definition)
Human life entity = Human Individual


when I have repeatedly stated that my opinion is based on the fact that it is not possible to PROVE that the 'living, human' foetus is ACTUALLY 'a human life'.

see above. Medical definition of Embryo proves the assertion to be incorrect. Human embryo is human individual.

Human life entity = Human Individual

Sure about this one?

I would suggest that abortion is simply being moved from being an acceptable practice, being moved from ‘justifiable manslaughter’ with no punishment, to something similar to assisted euthanasia (illegal in SD), for example.

All those complicit in assisted euthanasia (where it is illegal) would be prosecuted.

The person performing the crime, in the SD bill, is the person that ‘should know better.’ The person practicing medicine in SD should be the one that knows the legalities of their field and what they can and cannot do. Having different standards in different states.

Ignorance of the law is never an excuse. If abortion is actually considered to be killing a human being, *everyone* involved must be prosecuted, as everyone would be expected to know what was going on. Those who ask for it, those who do it, and those who help would all be part of a crime.

We make a distinction about death, how death and when death was done to a person, and when it is or is not justifiable, and who and how third or secondary persons are allowed to participate in that death. We have legal euthanasia in Oregon, but not in Michigan, we have negligent manslaughter in most states and we have medical malpractice suits from wrongful deaths in most as well. We have lots of laws that punish the resulting ‘death’ in many different ways, and some that don’t result in any punishment. Abortion laws already exist, what is a crime and what is not a crime is simply changing where is stands in the SD bill (theoretically, it’s not in action of course).

None of this changes the fact that there is no law that excuses a person who says, "I want you to kill someone for me," from prosecution. In fact, the person you ask never even has to do it for you to be prosecuted.

You are incorrect. We ‘know’ that if we raided certain neighborhoods, apartment by apartment, houses by house, we would find some type of narcotic or illegal contraband in nearly every single residence … But we don’t do it.

No, you don't know that.

Correct. They have a ‘life of the mother clause” AND they have a ‘treatment of the mother clause.’ If, in the treatment of the mother’s health, the embryo/fetus/baby is harmed, the medical professional will NOT be held liable for the life of the baby. So, the mother’s health can be treated in any way required, the same as now, but abortion itself is not an allowable treatment, the SD bill.

And sometimes the only possible way to protect the mother's health - to *treat* the mother, is to have an abortion. In other words, they have decided that women's health and lives are worth nothing.

“As we deem appropriate” is enough. That is how society works.

No, it isn't. If a right is to be restricted, just cause must be given. If society worked by, "As we deem appropriate," it would be perfectly legal to decide that we were going to execute all Mexican-born women born on a Tuesday. Of course, that isn't going to fly, no matter how many people decide it is "appropriate".

Laws that aren't based in some sort of logic are useless.

The SD abortion bill determines that an embryo in the womb is protected regardless if it is a chimera or a person or twins, but it does not declare a cancer growth in the uterus to be protected because it is not a zygote/embryo/fetus, it is a cancer growth.

And it does so using a rationale that would lead to a chimera to be two persons, twins to to be one, and cancer to be a person. Since the logic works that way, anyone could go before a judge, were this law to be passed, and argue that, since SD has declared anything with a full complement of DNA that is currently being used is a human life, that all of these things are true. A judge would have to hold it to be true, because it is a direct result of the SD definition of human life.

It’s a shame that you decided to attack them as a group simply because you disagree with them.

I didn't "attack" them. I just pointed out that I'm not surprised that there is essentially a mass exodus out of the state and no one trying to move there. They are putting together a place that most people would consider a hostile place to live. That isn't an attack - it's an observation.

It is equally true that lots of places have a declining population or a slower growth rate than other places, such as New York state or Germany for examples, would this suggest that they are less desirable places to live? No, it would not.

No, but the differences are not nearly as extreme, nor are those places (to my knowledge) constantly engaged in passing laws like these.

Anyway:

or•gan•ism (ôr g -n z m)
n.
An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.

Those various processes including sensing and responding to stimuli, something than an embryo cannot do as an entity - although a fetus after 10-12 weeks may qualify.

So, you have now presented conflicting evidence. One states that the embryo is an organism, but an embryo does not meet the definitoin of an organism.

This could be because medicine and biology do not always agree, or it could be a matter of using words differently. Medicine often uses things that are not really biologically correct (like saying that the kidneys are in the abdominal cavity - they actually are not), but are part of medicine by convention.

Notice that Organism is rated in a different space than cell, tissue and organ? Those levels are where ‘cancer’ for example, belong. Organism means ‘entity.’ Human entity in the case of a human embryo.

By your own definition, organism means much, much more than simply "entity". My kidney is an entity. It is not an organism.

http://hardhouse2.orcon.net.nz/phpBB2/images/smiles/dancingemote.gif

Those various processes including sensing and responding to stimuli, something than an embryo cannot do as an entity - although a fetus after 10-12 weeks may qualify.

So, you have now presented conflicting evidence. One states that the embryo is an organism, but an embryo does not meet the definitoin of an organism.

This could be because medicine and biology do not always agree, or it could be a matter of using words differently. Medicine often uses things that are not really biologically correct (like saying that the kidneys are in the abdominal cavity - they actually are not), but are part of medicine by convention.



By your own definition, organism means much, much more than simply "entity". My kidney is an entity. It is not an organism.

It is also important to note that biology uses organism to define life and they define organism very distinctly in order to include all possible organism and an embryo does not qualify for the qualification of organism and thus life. In medicine they do not use organism to define life but instead they use brain function so they use the term organism more loosely because they are ONLY dealing with humans. However, in their definition for life an embryo still does not qualify. Isn't it insteresting that in no profession that is responsible to decide such things is it widely held that an embryo qualifies for life no matter how they define the terms simply because the only way to qualify an embryo for life in ANY terms is to redefine the definition of life as it is held by nearly ALL experts.

You keep dropping the argument, but I'll ask it again. Why is the your definition for life different pre-birth and post-birth?

Again, you avoid this question like the plague, but the fact is that it shows the absolute hypocrisy of your argument. When are you going to answer why the definition of life is deferent before and after birth?

In fact, I've noticed that DubyaGoat largely avoids my arguments. It's no wonder why. It's the typical tact of his side - "Eeew, that's a hard one to answer, better skip it."

Those various processes including sensing and responding to stimuli, something than an embryo cannot do as an entity - although a fetus after 10-12 weeks may qualify.

So, you have now presented conflicting evidence. One states that the embryo is an organism, but an embryo does not meet the definitoin of an organism.
...


Of course it meets the requirements to be an 'organism.' (1) metabolism [cell changes begin at fertilization] (2) growth [growth begins at fertilization] (3) reaction to stimuli [embedding itself is one such "response to stimuli"] and (4) reproduction [it begins to produces replicant cells from the moment of conception]. The conceptus meets all four requirements to be an organism and alive and it's own individual.

This thread is way too long, but I guess if there's one state that needs some babies, it's South Dakota. China should send some of its leftover girls over. :p

Of course it meets the requirements to be an 'organism.' (1) metabolism [cell changes begin at fertilization] (2) growth [growth begins at fertilization] (3) reaction to stimuli [embedding itself is one such "response to stimuli"] and (4) reproduction [it begins to produces replicant cells from the moment of conception]. The conceptus meets all four requirements to be an organism and alive and it's own individual.

Dude, seriously? You think reproduction means the ability to produce more cells? that entire post suffers brain death on that one point alone.

Now why is the definition of life pre-birth different than that post-birth?

I have read quite a few posts stating that being adopted is a horrible thing. The fact is that many barren couples in the US have to travel abroad because there are not enough babies up for adoption and in many cases it is too expensive.
I support anyone who wants to kill themselves, but I don't support making that decision for them. If two people have consensual intercourse and pregnancy results, RU238 can prevent conception. If a woman does not discover that she is pregnant until after the stem cells turn into something specific, in MOST cases, she still chose to have sex.
It's kind of like the Iraq situation: I wasn't a fan of invading Iraq, but it is done now. After toppling their government, it is kind of our job to deal with those consequences, no matter how inconvenient. We owe it to the Iraquis to fix what we broke. You break it, you buy it.

This is a stupid waste of South Dakota taxpayer money. It's unconstitutional, and they're going to waste money defending this unconstitional bill - money that they could have spent preventing abortions by funding sex education. :headbang:

Even if Roe vs. Wade had been overturned before the creation of this bill, this criminalizes abortions in South Dakota. It does not prevent them, nor does it prevent women from driving out of state to get an abortion.

In my opinion, attacking Roe vs Wade is a scare tactic and a diversion from the real problems in our country.

Medical definition of Embryo proves the assertion to be incorrect. Human embryo is human individual.

Now continue to philosophy and again prove embryo=individual.
Do NOT use the existence of a soul as argument, unless you can give a precise definition of what a soul is as well as evidence of existence.
In fact, define every term you use in your proof, just to be on the safe side.

Good luck ;)

I have read quite a few posts stating that being adopted is a horrible thing. The fact is that many barren couples in the US have to travel abroad because there are not enough babies up for adoption and in many cases it is too expensive.
I support anyone who wants to kill themselves, but I don't support making that decision for them. If two people have consensual intercourse and pregnancy results, RU238 can prevent conception. If a woman does not discover that she is pregnant until after the stem cells turn into something specific, in MOST cases, she still chose to have sex.
It's kind of like the Iraq situation: I wasn't a fan of invading Iraq, but it is done now. After toppling their government, it is kind of our job to deal with those consequences, no matter how inconvenient. We owe it to the Iraquis to fix what we broke. You break it, you buy it.

Wow, I'm not sure where to begin here. First, please do a quick search and you'll find there are many children in our country waiting to be adopted. Thousands. Second, the drug you talked about does prevent conception. It prevents implantation, which would be a violation of the South Dakota law since it is after conception. Third, you haven't shown any reason why the women should go through a pregnancy simply because she chose to have sex. If I choose to hamburgers every day should I be denied the bypass I'll need simply because I CHOSE to eat hamburgers.

Look, I’ll show you how you are doing it.

That is how you are refusing to accept the meaning of the medical dictionary’s definition of Embryo.

Amorphous blob (your definition) = Embryo (Medical definition)
Human Embryo = Human Organism (medical definition)
Human Organism = Human life entity (medical definition)
Human life entity = Human Individual

see above. Medical definition of Embryo proves the assertion to be incorrect. Human embryo is human individual.

Personally, I think the medical source you provided is over-simplifying when it refers to an embryo as an organism... but,

...clearly, from the definition you DID present of 'organism', being a living, functional entity is NOT a requirement... as I have already shown. "A system considered analogous in structure or function to a living body".

It's right there, in black and white.


Further, even if that wild assertion WERE based on any kind of logic, it still does not AUTOMATICALLY follow that 'human life entity' is equivalent to 'human individual'.

Of course it meets the requirements to be an 'organism.' (1) metabolism [cell changes begin at fertilization] (2) growth [growth begins at fertilization] (3) reaction to stimuli [embedding itself is one such "response to stimuli"] and (4) reproduction [it begins to produces replicant cells from the moment of conception]. The conceptus meets all four requirements to be an organism and alive and it's own individual.

Actually, the conceptus doesn't carry out strict adherence to either requirement 3 or 4.

If you are going to use a biochemical feedback as a 'reaction to stimuli', then cancer cells qualify for that requirement, since they react to chemical changes. Similarly, if you wish to use SUCH a broad brush that you can paint 'cell division' as 'reproduction', again, cancer cells are organisms.

(Indeed, based on your ALL your interpretations, I believe you would logically have to ACCEPT cancer cells as 'organisms'.)

I have read quite a few posts stating that being adopted is a horrible thing. The fact is that many barren couples in the US have to travel abroad because there are not enough babies up for adoption and in many cases it is too expensive.

Sorry... I stopped reading here... because this part is so obviously not true...

Check your numbers before you post, friend.

Of course it meets the requirements to be an 'organism.' (1) metabolism [cell changes begin at fertilization] (2) growth [growth begins at fertilization] (3) reaction to stimuli [embedding itself is one such "response to stimuli"] and (4) reproduction [it begins to produces replicant cells from the moment of conception]. The conceptus meets all four requirements to be an organism and alive and it's own individual.

The requirements generally used by biologists for a given entity to be considered alive are:

(1) metabolism (taking in and using nutrients)
(2) growth and development
(3) excretion of wastes
(4) sensing and responding to stimuli

Reproduction is generally reserved for determining whether or not a given group of entities are a species - as we obviously do not declare the infertile, the old, or mules to simply not be alive.

Now, these things must be carried out as an entity. An individual cell can certainly do all of these things, it its way, and this is why single-celled organisms are considered alive. However, a conglomeration of single-celled organisms is not considered to be a larger organism. It is simply a group of organisms. The individual cells in my body are not considered to be organisms, even though they could do all of those things, because they make up an entity which can do all of those things - me. An embryo, on the other hand, does not respond as an entity. Each individual cell can certainly respond to stimuli - just like each individual cell in my body can do so, or each individual cell in a tumor can do so. Thus, an embryo is on the level of any other conglomeration of human cells. None of the cells is, in and of itself, an organism, and the entity itself is not an organism, because the entity itself does not meet all of these requirements.

Once the bloodstream is developed, there is an entity-wide mechanism for #1 and #3. #2 is rather obvious. However, #4 is not met by the entity as a whole until there is a rudimentary and functional nervous system.

I have read quite a few posts stating that being adopted is a horrible thing. The fact is that many barren couples in the US have to travel abroad because there are not enough babies up for adoption and in many cases it is too expensive.

Yes, "babies". There are, however, millions of children in this country awaiting adoption right now. Maybe the barren couples should stop being so selfish and take in one or two of the children already waiting.

If two people have consensual intercourse and pregnancy results, RU238 can prevent conception.

No, Plan B can do this - prevent implantation (at which some sources place the word "conception", while others place it at fertilization). RU238 is an actual abortion pill - it ends a pregnancy.


Sorry... I stopped reading here... because this part is so obviously not true...

Check your numbers before you post, friend.

Actually, it probably is true. There probably aren't enough infants awaiting adoption for all the couples who want one - even if you count the "unadoptable" ones. There are, however, many children awaiting adoption. It's really too bad that those seeking to adopt are only willing to take in a newborn.

Actually, it probably is true. There probably aren't enough infants awaiting adoption for all the couples who want one - even if you count the "unadoptable" ones. There are, however, many children awaiting adoption. It's really too bad that those seeking to adopt are only willing to take in a newborn.
I remember an article from a few months ago--New York Times Magazine, perhaps?--which noted that while there are huge waiting lists and high costs associated with adopting white babies in the US, the US is actually exporting African-American babies to Europe. I wonder how many of those "adoption, not abortion" bleaters are white people who would never dream of bringing a brown person into their families?

I remember an article from a few months ago--New York Times Magazine, perhaps?--which noted that while there are huge waiting lists and high costs associated with adopting white babies in the US, the US is actually exporting African-American babies to Europe. I wonder how many of those "adoption, not abortion" bleaters are white people who would never dream of bringing a brown person into their families?

Quite a few, I would guess. In another thread, I had someone telling me that, "They want to be able to pass the baby off as their own," as if that is actually some sort of explanation that says anything more than "They're freaking selfish bastards."

It's good to hear that *someone* is adopting them though. My fiance and I would like to adopt at some point - when we're more financially stable. His family would probably be a little weird about it if we adopted a child that wasn't Caucasian, but I don't intend to place stipulations like that.

Morals ae relative. To impose YOUR 'morals' on another, might be considered 'immoral'.
So killing a living being is not immoral to some???

So killing a living being is not immoral to some???

Well....when plants are indeed living beings, and we certainly kill a lot of those, I'd say, yeah, there's people out there.

So killing a living being is not immoral to some???

You could at least read the posts above your before making emotional pleas with loaded statements.

You could at least read the posts above your before making emotional pleas with loaded statements.
Aw come on now! You want him to actually read before he graces us with his wisdom? Where do you think you are?:D

Aw come on now! You want him to actually read before he graces us with his wisdom? Where do you think you are?:D

What? You mean this isn't Kansas?

Pleased to meet you, Judy Garland?

Actually, it probably is true. There probably aren't enough infants awaiting adoption for all the couples who want one - even if you count the "unadoptable" ones. There are, however, many children awaiting adoption. It's really too bad that those seeking to adopt are only willing to take in a newborn.

Do you think that's what he/she means? Actual newborns?

Even then, I'm not convinced. Maybe there are not enough WHITE babies...?

So killing a living being is not immoral to some???

You need to ask?

Well - if by 'living being', you mean ANY living entity, then considering THAT immoral is almost unheard of.

If you mean 'living being' to mean humans, there are a whole array of reasons why it MIGHT not be considered 'immoral'. Self-defence, for example. Execution of violent criminals. Killing during war.

If you look at assisted euthanasia as someone else 'killing a living being', you can probably find a fair number of people that would argue that NOT ONLY is it not 'immoral', but it MIGHT be the MORE 'moral' of a number of approaches.

The requirements generally used by biologists for a given entity to be considered alive are:

(1) metabolism (taking in and using nutrients)
(2) growth and development
(3) excretion of wastes
(4) sensing and responding to stimuli

Reproduction is generally reserved for determining whether or not a given group of entities are a species - as we obviously do not declare the infertile, the old, or mules to simply not be alive.

Now, these things must be carried out as an entity. An individual cell can certainly do all of these things, it its way, and this is why single-celled organisms are considered alive. However, a conglomeration of single-celled organisms is not considered to be a larger organism. It is simply a group of organisms. The individual cells in my body are not considered to be organisms, even though they could do all of those things, because they make up an entity which can do all of those things - me. An embryo, on the other hand, does not respond as an entity. Each individual cell can certainly respond to stimuli - just like each individual cell in my body can do so, or each individual cell in a tumor can do so. Thus, an embryo is on the level of any other conglomeration of human cells. None of the cells is, in and of itself, an organism, and the entity itself is not an organism, because the entity itself does not meet all of these requirements.

...

Not only does the zygote respond as a single cell entity, the blastocyst responds to stimuli as an entity for implantation, it isn’t just single cells of the organism responding:

Taken from the Abstract of the linked to report...
The preimplantation embryo floats freely within the oviduct and is capable of developing into a blastocyst independently of the maternal reproductive tract. While establishment of the trophoblast lineage is dependent on expression of developmental regulatory genes, further differentiation leading to blastocyst implantation in the uterus requires external cues emanating from the microenvironment. Recent studies suggest that trophoblast differentiation requires intracellular signaling initiated by uterine-derived growth factors and integrin-binding components of the extracellular matrix. The progression of trophoblast development from the early blastocyst stage through the onset of implantation appears to be largely independent of new gene expression. Instead, extrinsic signals direct the sequential trafficking of cell surface receptors to orchestrate the developmental program that initiates blastocyst implantation. The dependence on external cues could coordinate embryonic activities with the developing uterine endometrium. Biochemical events that regulate trophoblast adhesion to fibronectin are presented to illustrate a developmental strategy employed by the peri-implantation blastocyst.

http://www.med.wayne.edu/embryo/randy/Dev%20Bio%202005%20Armant-Review%20Article.pdf (WARNING 21 page .pdf file)

My point is summerized best here (pdf page 2 of the file, ):
“Blastocyst implantation is dependent on the intrinsic embryonic program, operating in conjunction with extrinsic signals emanating from the female reproductive tract”

Not only does the zygote respond as a single cell entity, the blastocyst responds to stimuli as an entity for implantation, it isn’t just single cells of the organism responding:

Actually, it is the single cells each responding to various biochemical signals. This process is mechanistically similar to many bodily processes, such as the regrowth of blood vessels in ischemic areas - each responding alone to chemical stimuli, but ending up working in concert. Are the cells that create new blood vessels in an adult an organism?

My point is summerized best here (pdf page 2 of the file, ):
“Blastocyst implantation is dependent on the intrinsic embryonic program, operating in conjunction with extrinsic signals emanating from the female reproductive tract”

...which doesn't in any way contradict what I said if you understand the biology behind it.


Do you think that's what he/she means? Actual newborns?

Possibly, possibly not, but I was taking it that way because it specifically said "babies" and not "children."

Even then, I'm not convinced. Maybe there are not enough WHITE babies...?

Well, we know this is true. I'm guessing if you looked at all the couples/singles on a waiting list for an infant (of any color) and mapped them to the actual number of available infants in this country, there would probably be more prospective adoptive parents. Of course, that has little to do with the many, many children who aren't infants (or white) awaiting adoption.

Well, we know this is true. I'm guessing if you looked at all the couples/singles on a waiting list for an infant (of any color) and mapped them to the actual number of available infants in this country, there would probably be more prospective adoptive parents. Of course, that has little to do with the many, many children who aren't infants (or white) awaiting adoption.

Exactly. The big flaw in the other poster's assumption was that, in order to have it make ANY kind of sense, you have to assume it means ONLY newborns, and then, ONLY the 'popular flavour'.

I don't buy it. While there are children awaiting adoption, I'm not buying that 'too many parents' line.

Not only does the zygote respond as a single cell entity, the blastocyst responds to stimuli as an entity for implantation, it isn’t just single cells of the organism responding:

Taken from the Abstract of the linked to report...
The preimplantation embryo floats freely within the oviduct and is capable of developing into a blastocyst independently of the maternal reproductive tract. While establishment of the trophoblast lineage is dependent on expression of developmental regulatory genes, further differentiation leading to blastocyst implantation in the uterus requires external cues emanating from the microenvironment. Recent studies suggest that trophoblast differentiation requires intracellular signaling initiated by uterine-derived growth factors and integrin-binding components of the extracellular matrix. The progression of trophoblast development from the early blastocyst stage through the onset of implantation appears to be largely independent of new gene expression. Instead, extrinsic signals direct the sequential trafficking of cell surface receptors to orchestrate the developmental program that initiates blastocyst implantation. The dependence on external cues could coordinate embryonic activities with the developing uterine endometrium. Biochemical events that regulate trophoblast adhesion to fibronectin are presented to illustrate a developmental strategy employed by the peri-implantation blastocyst.

http://www.med.wayne.edu/embryo/randy/Dev%20Bio%202005%20Armant-Review%20Article.pdf (WARNING 21 page .pdf file)

My point is summerized best here (pdf page 2 of the file, ):
“Blastocyst implantation is dependent on the intrinsic embryonic program, operating in conjunction with extrinsic signals emanating from the female reproductive tract”

I've actually already addressed this issue.

If you include chemical reactions, for example, as constituting a 'response', then cancers 'respond'.

Actually, it is the single cells each responding to various biochemical signals. This process is mechanistically similar to many bodily processes, such as the regrowth of blood vessels in ischemic areas - each responding alone to chemical stimuli, but ending up working in concert. Are the cells that create new blood vessels in an adult an organism?
...

The blood vessels you mentioned are a part of a living organism, they move and respond so long as the organism they are a part of lives and provides for them.

If your posit is advanced though, it could be argued, that ALL response to stimuli is nothing but a chemical reaction, Love, Hate, Anger, Hunger etc., are nothing but chemical reactions at the single cell level.

If your interpretation were advanced, than a flower bud opening to the sun and then closing again for the evening would NOT qualify as a
response to stimuli, when obviously, a flower bud opening and closing WAS indented to be able to meet the stipulation that was meant when they listed 'responds to stimuli' as a criteria.

An organism must respond to outside stimuli for the requirement, how big a response and what specific response to any given stimulation is irrelevant. The blastocyst responds to, and coincidentally contributes to, it’s environment. It meets the criteria.


I've actually already addressed this issue.

If you include chemical reactions, for example, as constituting a 'response', then cancers 'respond'.


Cancer cells are parts of, a section of, a piece of, a different organism. The ARE part of the living organism, they are cells that are nonfunctioning properly within the organism. As such, cells of an organism, their respond as life because they come from life, but they are not the organism themselves.

An organism must response to outside stimuli for the requirement, how big a response and what specific stimulation is irrelevant. The blastocyst responds to and contributes to it’s environment. It meets the criteria.


I'd like to see this verified, especially the part I have 'bold' edited.

Cancer cells are parts of, a section of, a piece of, a different organism. The ARE part of the living organism, they are cells that are nonfunctioning properly within the organism. As such, cells of an organism, their respond as life because they come from life, but they are not the organism themself.

An organism can't be part of a larger organism?

An organism can't be part of a larger organism?

An organ can be a part of an organism. And organism can be divided into parts, but then you no longer have the organism, you have parts.

The blood vessels you mentioned are a part of a living organism, they move and respond so long as the organism they are a part of lives and provides for them.

Hmmmm... kind of like the embryo does so long as the organism it is a part of, the woman, provides for it. Why are you making arguments for the embryo NOT being an organism. That doesn't seem to help you.

Cancer cells are parts of, a section of, a piece of, a different organism. The ARE part of the living organism, they are cells that are nonfunctioning properly within the organism. As such, cells of an organism, their respond as life because they come from life, but they are not the organism themselves.

You are using circular logic. You see your definition must show what is an organism and what is not. You can't say well this is an organism so it counts and this over here is not so it doesn't. The definition must include all organisms and exclude all non-organisms or it is flawed. Your use of the definition is flawed because a heart meets all of the criteria in the same flawed way your embryo does. Unless you can put your criteria on a heart/cancer/kidney/skin and eliminate it and on an embryo and include it, then you are using a flawed definition. And you are using a flawed definition.

The blood vessels you mentioned are a part of a living organism, they move and respond so long as the organism they are a part of lives and provides for them.

Yup. So they aren't an actual organism in and of themselves, even though the basis of their response is exactly the same as that of the individual cells in an embryo. Good to know you agree.

If your posit is advanced though, it could be argued, that ALL response to stimuli is nothing but a chemical reaction, Love, Hate, Anger, Hunger etc., are nothing but chemical reactions at the single cell level.

I never said that response to stimuli isn't or can't be a chemical reaction. At its base, all of our bodily processes are chemical reactions. The difference is that all of the many individual cell reactions, in a human being, add up to a response of the entire entity, rather than one of a single cell.

If your interpretation were advanced, than a flower bud opening to the sun and then closing again for the evening would NOT qualify as a
response to stimuli, when obviously, a flower bud opening and closing WAS indented to be able to meet the stipulation that was meant when they listed 'responds to stimuli' as a criteria.[/quote

Actually, there is nothing I have said that could possibly be "advanced" to this. The flower has entire systems developed to respond to this stimuli - as a flower. It is not simply each cell doing it's own thing.

[quote]Cancer cells are parts of, a section of, a piece of, a different organism. The ARE part of the living organism, they are cells that are nonfunctioning properly within the organism. As such, cells of an organism, their respond as life because they come from life, but they are not the organism themselves.

Irrelevant to the point you are trying to make.

I can't wait until the day we are all divided into two factions and we just start senselessly killing one another just because we can't agree on shit.

...
Actually, there is nothing I have said that could possibly be "advanced" to this. The flower has entire systems developed to respond to this stimuli - as a flower. It is not simply each cell doing it's own thing.
...

As the flower with petals has different systems, the blastocyst also has different cell types as part of it's organism.

AS to the example though, and why what you said implied flower petals don't work:

When light hits outer flower petals it triggers a chemical called auxin that causes each cell to grow and expand, individually. It is exactly like you said about the blastocyst's reaction to stimuli, it is the single cells each responding to various biochemical signals and finishing with each responding alone to chemical stimuli, but ending up working in concert.

The flower petal reaction from the the single cells working in unison to a common stimuli causes the flower to open, in the same manner, the loss of that stimuli causes them individually to shrink and close and 'in unison' they close the flower. That's why I used it as an example of how your analogy was incorrect for the purpose of dismissing the stimuli response methodology.

The blastocyst does respond to stimuli, the same as the flower petal responds, and both meet the criteria of the stipulation of responding to stimuli.

As the flower with petals has different systems, the blastocyst also has different cell types as part of it's organism.

AS to the example though, and why what you said implied flower petals don't work:

When light hits outer flower petals it triggers a chemical called auxin that causes each cell to grow and expand, individually. It is exactly like you said about the blastocyst's reaction to stimuli, it is the single cells each responding to various biochemical signals and finishing with each responding alone to chemical stimuli, but ending up working in concert.

The flower petal reaction from the the single cells working in unison to a common stimuli causes the flower to open, in the same manner, the loss of that stimuli causes them individually to shrink and close and 'in unison' they close the flower. That's why I used it as an example of how your analogy was incorrect for the purpose of dismissing the stimuli response methodology.

The blastocyst does respond to stimuli, the same as the flower petal responds, and both meet the criteria of the stipulation of responding to stimuli.

Ok, since you're not following how does the embryo's cells communicate with each other (the flower does this)? Care to explain the mechanism where your evidence of the blastocyst acting in concert is? It doesn't. It can't. A flower does and can. You fail.

Abortion is about the right to choose. AS SAID BEFORE, IF U DON'T AGREE IN freedom of choise, dont do it...
maybe more restrictions after the 8th week, when the fetus are starting to "feel stuff" etc, but before that, I see NO OBJECTION what so ever. :D

I hate stupid bullshit religious morality, thats for sure:upyours: ;)

As the flower with petals has different systems, the blastocyst also has different cell types as part of it's organism

There is a difference between systems and cell types. There are many different cell types in my bone marrow, but they do not make up a system.

Was it really necessary to write a great big post that does nothing but result in simple name calling, used seemingly as justification for your belittling of people who hold a different opinion than yourself?

Well, thanks for sharing.
Yes, actually it was, because what you call "belittling" is actually a reduction of your argument by analysis of the debate so far. You may be offended by having the emptiness of your arguments summarized like that, but I don't really care.

My great big post consisted entirely of an analysis of the anti-choice arguments that have been offered so far in this thread and the ways in which they have been knocked down by reasonable and factually supported counter-arguments. You have failed to defend your argument against a single one of those counter-arguments. That is not my fault. I only summarized it because the thread is so long, I felt a summary was in order. If I had not posted it, your failures would still be here for all to see. Being offended at me for pointing it out is a waste of your time.

As for my conclusion, which is what you're offended about: you are right -- it is a dismissal. This is because, when we strip away all the failed justifications for your argument, we are left with only one likely effective result of the kinds of restrictions/bans against abortion that you espouse: that women will be told how to live by you, for no practical reason at all and with no particular desired result other than to have everyone obey your rules even if we are harmed by it. I believe I am within my rights to say the hell with that.

Now if you actually can persuade me that there will be some benefit to me in obeying your rules, please feel free to lay it out. And please note that continuous repetition of "proofs" that have already been proved false will not persuade me. Offer me some real facts and I will listen. Keep up with the propaganda and I will dismiss you as a self-serving liar -- just like I did.

I once had the most posts in this thread. I see now I have been severely overtaken.

I have read quite a few posts stating that being adopted is a horrible thing. The fact is that many barren couples in the US have to travel abroad because there are not enough babies up for adoption and in many cases it is too expensive.
I support anyone who wants to kill themselves, but I don't support making that decision for them. If two people have consensual intercourse and pregnancy results, RU238 can prevent conception. If a woman does not discover that she is pregnant until after the stem cells turn into something specific, in MOST cases, she still chose to have sex.
It's kind of like the Iraq situation: I wasn't a fan of invading Iraq, but it is done now. After toppling their government, it is kind of our job to deal with those consequences, no matter how inconvenient. We owe it to the Iraquis to fix what we broke. You break it, you buy it.
Read more of the posts, please -- getting adopted is great. Not getting adopted sucks. That's our argument. Also, please read the posts about non-elective, medically necessary abortions as well.

There is a difference between systems and cell types. There are many different cell types in my bone marrow, but they do not make up a system.

Trophoblast stem cells are capable of converting to assorted phenotypes, dependent on where in the conceptus they are situated. But how does the location of the cell determine the cell behavior IF the blastocyst doesn’t respond to outside stimuli? It cannot. It must, as a system, respond to the embedding process. First, it must ‘wait’ for the conditions to be right for embedding before activating the trophoblast cells to become ‘sticky’ and THEN it must respond the the successful implanting by assigning cells to perform different actions based on their location within the system.

Yes there is outside-in trafficking of proteins, but there is also inside-out messaging. The blastocyst is very aware of it’s surroundings as it prepares for implanting and locations of cells and form.

Please feel free to re-read the report here.

http://www.med.wayne.edu/embryo/randy/Dev%20Bio%202005%20Armant-Review%20Article.pdf

Trophoblast stem cells are capable of converting to assorted phenotypes, dependent on where in the conceptus they are situated. But how does the location of the cell determine the cell behavior IF the blastocyst doesn’t respond to outside stimuli? It cannot. It must, as a system, respond to the embedding process. First, it must ‘wait’ for the conditions to be right for embedding before actifating the truphoblast cells to become ‘sticky’ and THEN it must respond the the successful implanting by assigning cells to perform different actions based on their location within the system.

Yes there is outside-in trafficking of proteins, but there is also inside-out messaging. The blastocyst is very aware of it’s surroundings as it prepares for implanting and locations of cells and form.

Please feel free to re-read the report here.

http://www.med.wayne.edu/embryo/randy/Dev%20Bio%202005%20Armant-Review%20Article.pdf

It doesn't do it any moreso than the egg does alone. It's not a process that requires it to react as an organism. Now why is the definition of life different at that stage than at every other stage of the life cycle of a human? Is there are reason you can't answer that question? Perhaps because you made up the definition to include a non-person?

Trophoblast stem cells are capable of converting to assorted phenotypes, dependent on where in the conceptus they are situated. But how does the location of the cell determine the cell behavior IF the blastocyst doesn’t respond to outside stimuli? It cannot.

There's this thing called diffusion. You should look it up. The blastocyst does not have to respond as an entity. The location of each individual cell will determine its acess to various factors.

I could take an individual trophoblast cell in culture, recreate the exact environment it would see within the blastocyst, and get it to respond exactly as it would within the embryo. I could probably, with the right environment and construct, cause a mini-placenta to form in culture. I could not, however, take a single cell, and get a multicellular organism response (ie. a flower petal opening), nor could I "build" an entire organism - systems must be present for that.

Trophoblast stem cells are capable of converting to assorted phenotypes, dependent on where in the conceptus they are situated. But how does the location of the cell determine the cell behavior IF the blastocyst doesn’t respond to outside stimuli? It cannot. It must, as a system, respond to the embedding process. First, it must ‘wait’ for the conditions to be right for embedding before activating the trophoblast cells to become ‘sticky’ and THEN it must respond the the successful implanting by assigning cells to perform different actions based on their location within the system.

Yes there is outside-in trafficking of proteins, but there is also inside-out messaging. The blastocyst is very aware of it’s surroundings as it prepares for implanting and locations of cells and form.

Please feel free to re-read the report here.

http://www.med.wayne.edu/embryo/randy/Dev%20Bio%202005%20Armant-Review%20Article.pdf

Did you read it? It says the coordination is external, not internal. You gave more evidence that the blastocyst could be considered part of the woman's body.

There's this thing called diffusion. You should look it up. The blastocyst does not have to respond as an entity. The location of each individual cell will determine its acess to various factors.

I could take an individual trophoblast cell in culture, recreate the exact environment it would see within the blastocyst, and get it to respond exactly as it would within the embryo. I could probably, with the right environment and construct, cause a mini-placenta to form in culture. I could not, however, take a single cell, and get a multicellular organism response (ie. a flower petal opening), nor could I "build" an entire organism - systems must be present for that.

It actually says the coordination is external in the very first paragraph. Not sure how he missed that.

There's this thing called diffusion. You should look it up. The blastocyst does not have to respond as an entity. The location of each individual cell will determine its acess to various factors.

I could take an individual trophoblast cell in culture, recreate the exact environment it would see within the blastocyst, and get it to respond exactly as it would within the embryo. I could probably, with the right environment and construct, cause a mini-placenta to form in culture. I could not, however, take a single cell, and get a multicellular organism response (ie. a flower petal opening), nor could I "build" an entire organism - systems must be present for that.

At this point, you are arguing with their findings, not my posit.

At this point, you are arguing with their findings, not my posit.

I'm not arguing with their findings at all. The fact is that their findings don't back up your posit at all.

At this point, you are arguing with their findings, not my posit.

You don't understand their findings. Their findings support us. It says the coordination is done externally. That defies your claims. If it wasn't a PDF I'd quote it for you, but you can see a reference to external coordination in the very first paragraph. The coordination of the heart muscle is more internal than this action.

I'm not arguing with their findings at all. The fact is that their findings don't back up your posit at all.

Have you noticed how their is this tendency among all who would argue against the science to list references that actually deny their argument and then when we point out the flaw in the way they are using the reference they act like our beef is with the source instead of his interpretation. It's amusing.

I'm not arguing with their findings at all. The fact is that their findings don't back up your posit at all.

Blastocyst implantation is dependent on the intrinsic embryonic program, operating in conjunction with extrinsic signals emanating from the female reproductive tract (Fig. 1A). Uterine-derived signals maintain the pace of blastocyst development and mobilize embryonic receptors used for subsequent signaling (Armant et al., 2000). Decidualization of the endometrium is, in turn, regulated by the blastocyst (Psychoyos, 1973). The presence of a blastocyst is required for uterine expression of heparinbinding EGF-like growth factor (HB-EGF), followed by production of betacellulin, epiregulin, neuregulin-1, and cyclooxygenase-2 as the blastocyst attaches to the luminal epithelium (Dey et al., 2004). This molecular dialogue serves to synchronize embryonic and maternal tissues during the peri-implantation period. Like the mature oocyte, the blastocyst is primed to advance in development only after it receives an external signal.
Page 3 (http://www.med.wayne.edu/embryo/randy/Dev%20Bio%202005%20Armant-Review%20Article.pdf), of the .pdf file.

Pay particular attention to the parts bolded. They are saying that the organism is responding to stimuli. Thus, it meets the criteria of the requirement. It responds and reacts to stimuli, and prepares for an event before the stimuli has been introduced. It reacts to it’s environment. Their findings, not mine.

Pay particular attention to the parts bolded. They are saying that the organism is responding to stimuli. Thus, it meets the criteria of the requirement. It responds and reacts to stimuli, and prepares for an event before the stimuli has been introduced. It reacts to it’s environment. Their findings, not mine.

And nothing in there suggests that it acts as an entity, rather than as each individual cell doing its own thing - something you were supposedly trying to prove. You were trying to demonstrate that it works like an entity-wide response, such as a flower petal opening or me jerking my hand back when I touch something hot. Thus far, you have yet to show that.

Throughout that passage, they are referring to blastocyst in the same way that I might refer to a culture of cells responding to the changes I might make in its environment or the hormones I might add to the organ culture of an artery. No one has suggested that the blastocyst is not an entity - simply that it does not meet the requirements of an organism. At the point described in this paper, it doesn't even have an entity-wide mechanism with which to obtain nutrients or excrete wastes, much less an entity-wide mechanism with which to sense and respond to stimuli.

And nothing in there suggests that it acts as an entity, rather than as each individual cell doing its own thing - something you were supposedly trying to prove. You were trying to demonstrate that it works like an entity-wide response, such as a flower petal opening or me jerking my hand back when I touch something hot. Thus far, you have yet to show that.

You must be forgetting the complexity of trophoblast differentiation? Differentiation occurs based on location within the system. If you were correct, all of the same cells of the same type in the organism would respond to the different signals when they were given, but they do not, cell differentiation occurs. Thus, the system responds to stimuli, not just the individual cells.

...
Throughout that passage, they are referring to blastocyst in the same way that I might refer to a culture of cells responding to the changes I might make in its environment or the hormones I might add to the organ culture of an artery. No one has suggested that the blastocyst is not an entity - simply that it does not meet the requirements of an organism. At the point described in this paper, it doesn't even have an entity-wide mechanism with which to obtain nutrients or excrete wastes, much less an entity-wide mechanism with which to sense and respond to stimuli.

The medical description for the embryo is organism, you are disputing the medterm's definition. You don't like that they used the word organism, that's how we got into reviewing the blastocyst as an entity/organism at all.

The fetus is an older embryo, it did not come from an embryo, it is the embryo, and similarly, the embryo is the planted blastocyst, the blastocyst IS the unplanted embryo. The blastocyst does not leave or make way for the embryo, it is the unplanted embryo. And then it is the young fetus and the fetus is the baby.

You must be forgetting the complexity of trophoblast differentiation? Differentiation occurs based on location within the system. If you were correct, all of the same cells of the same type in the organism would respond to the different signals when they were given, but they do not, cell differentiation occurs. Thus, the system responds to stimuli, not just the individual cells.

All of the cells of the same type *are* responding to the different signals they have been given. They respond in different ways because the signals in different places are different, not because of some magic behind it all.

You seem to think that cell differentiation somehow means that it must respond as an entity. I can culture embryonic stem cells and each cell will differentiate as per its particular environment. Does that mean that the entire culture responds as an entity?

The medical description for the embryo is organism, you are disputing the medterm's definition. You don't like that they used the word organism, that's how we got into reviewing the blastocyst as an entity/organism at all.

And you have yet to show how the embryo meets the general definition of organism. Thus, the medterm definition remains in dispute, unless it is using a non-standard definition of organism.

The fetus is an older embryo, it did not come from an embryo, it is the embryo, and similarly, the embryo is the planted blastocyst, the blastocyst IS the unplanted embryo, it does not make way for the embryo is the young fetus, the fetus is the baby.

What does this have to do with the price of eggs in China? ((Meanwhile, a fetus is not an embryo, any more than a house is a pile of bricks and wood, or an adult is a child.))

And you have yet to show how the embryo meets the general definition of organism. Thus, the medterm definition remains in dispute, unless it is using a non-standard definition of organism.

How does it remain in dispute? Did you find a medical source definition that disputes it, or are you simply choosing not to accept it yourself. Where is your source of validating your claim that it is in dispute?

What does this have to do with the price of eggs in China? ((Meanwhile, a fetus is not an embryo, any more than a house is a pile of bricks and wood, or an adult is a child.))

But it is. If you were correct, you could show me the pile of bricks that the blastocyst will use to build the house. There is no pile of material to be changed, the blastocyst IS the house, the house is merely small, using your analogy.

All of the cells of the same type *are* responding to the different signals they have been given. They respond in different ways because the signals in different places are different, not because of some magic behind it all.

There is no magic behind it, no one said there was. The organism is working an entity wide response to the signal.

You seem to think that cell differentiation somehow means that it must respond as an entity. I can culture embryonic stem cells and each cell will differentiate as per its particular environment. Does that mean that the entire culture responds as an entity?

Two cells of the same type NOT working together should respond to the same environment in the same way. Two cells working together may differentiate as a response, proving that they are working together and not as individuals. And that is what is being described in the paper. because that is what blastocysts do, they respond as an organism.

How does it remain in dispute? Did you find a medical source definition that disputes it, or are you simply choosing not to accept it yourself. Where is your source of validating your claim that it is in dispute?

It is in dispute based on the definition of organism that you yourself brought forth - one that requires that the entity in question meet all the requirements to be deemed a living thing.

But it is. If you were correct, you could show me the pile of bricks that the blastocyst will use to build the house. There is no pile of material to be changed, the blastocyst IS the house, the house is merely small, using your analogy.

Of course there is a "pile of material to be changed". The stem cells that start off the entire growth into an organism change quite a bit over the course of development. The embryo is a set of material that becomes something else. Thus, what it becomes is not the unchanged material.


There is no magic behind it, no one said there was. The organism is working an entity wide response to the signal.


You keep saying that, but have yet to demonstrate it.

Two cells of the same type NOT working together should respond to the same environment in the same way. Two cells working together may differentiate as a response, proving that they are working together and not as individuals. And that is what is being described in the paper. because that is what blastocysts do, they respond as an organism.

Once again, you demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about, for several reasons.

First of all, you assume that the two cells are in the exact same environment. They are not. Cells respond not only to the macroenvironment, but to the microenvironment, which can be very, very different, even if two cells are right next to each other. Much of human development is based on what we call gradients. An entire somite, for intsance, is in a macroenvironment that you would say was the same for all cells, but this would be incorrect. The cells on the outside of the somite, for instance, in their micronenvronment, have much greater concentrations of certain factors that will affect their differentiation. You aren't thinking on the microscale here.

Second of all, you assume that two cells responding to each other (not necessarily working *with& one another, but certainly responding to their own microenvironment, which includes signals from other cells) constitutes a system-wide response. Bring any two cells, embryonic or not, into contact and they will respond to each other. If one is giving off certain signals, the other will respond to them, and vice versa. That does not, in and of itself, equal a system-wide response. Once again, you fall into the trap of defining an entity-wide response as something I can easily replicate in my culture dish in the lab right now - but I am sure you would not term my culture dish as an organism.

I once had the most posts in this thread. I see now I have been severely overtaken.

I'm quite impressed that Jocabia is responsible for more than a tenth of ALL the posts in the thread... good going, Jocabia!

I'm quite impressed that Jocabia is responsible for more than a tenth of ALL the posts in the thread... good going, Jocabia!

How did you figure that out? Do you notice DubyaGoat is ignoring me? I'm so hurt. Like we can't all see that he has no answer for the dropped argument. Why is it that anti-choicers can't see the flaw in defining human life differently just to make abortion illegal. Because they don't claim it should be defined that way at every other stage of development.

How did you figure that out? Do you notice DubyaGoat is ignoring me? I'm so hurt. Like we can't all see that he has no answer for the dropped argument. Why is it that anti-choicers can't see the flaw in defining human life differently just to make abortion illegal. Because they don't claim it should be defined that way at every other stage of development.

Everyone defines human life differently. Even planned parenthood stated that life begins at conception.

It depends on what you want to believe.

In truth, I believe there really is no right or wrong answer.

Everyone defines human life differently. Even planned parenthood stated that life begins at conception.

It depends on what you want to believe.

In truth, I believe there really is no right or wrong answer.

No, everyone doesn't. Do you think every doctor decides differently when your grandmother passes?

If we can arbitrarily define life. I declare you dead and I'm taking your stuff. The definition has been decided for a very long time. It is y'all who are trying to redefine it.

No, everyone doesn't. Do you think every doctor decides differently when your grandmother passes?

That really is hitting to close to home since I do know what my grandmother died from and her original doctor pegged it before transfering her to UMPC Presby where she ultimately died :(

And I wasn't talking about doctors.

How did you figure that out? Do you notice DubyaGoat is ignoring me? I'm so hurt. Like we can't all see that he has no answer for the dropped argument. Why is it that anti-choicers can't see the flaw in defining human life differently just to make abortion illegal. Because they don't claim it should be defined that way at every other stage of development.

On the 'general page', you'll see that the 'number of posts' in the thread is underlined. Click it, it's a link to a pop-up window that tells you who the posters are, and how many posts they have in that thread.

I did notice that DubyaGoat argued himself (herself?) into a corner, by referring to a process governed OUTSIDE the cell, as evidence of 'organism' status for his argument....

I've noticed that people that are willing to redefine life for the purpose of their anti-choice platform, are often the same people who argue special exception for scripture, to remove THAT from being 'debatable', also. It must just be a certain mindset.

That really is hitting to close to home since I do know what my grandmother died from and her original doctor pegged it before transfering her to UMPC Presby where she ultimately died :(

And I wasn't talking about doctors.

Shouldn't they be the ones to decide? You're trying to make law. Laws shouldn't be based on some arbitrary decision that will affect millions of people against their will.

Shouldn't they be the ones to decide? You're trying to make law. Laws shouldn't be based on some arbitrary decision that will affect millions of people against their will.

I'm not trying to make any law yet as I am not in Congress or the courts.

However, we all have our own opinions in this case, both in regards to when life ultimately begins and on abortion.

I've noticed that people that are willing to redefine life for the purpose of their anti-choice platform, are often the same people who argue special exception for scripture, to remove THAT from being 'debatable', also. It must just be a certain mindset.

There are other parallels to scripture that I've noticed as well. People often tend to read what they want into scripture, and then won't even admit the suggestion that there might be an alternate interpretation - even of the exact translation they are using. I've noticed the same thing with Dubya and Adriatica II, who find quotes that they truly think support them, but that don't necessarily do so. Adriatica has an entire list of them.

Well, all that will do is you'll have the creepy guy in a back alley giving abortions without sterilized materials, and they'll kill women from infection. Good job South Dakota! :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Well, all that will do is you'll have the creepy guy in a back alley giving abortions without sterilized materials, and they'll kill women from infection. Good job South Dakota! :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

*gives Wanderjar 2 tylenal for the headache*

I'm not trying to make any law yet as I am not in Congress or the courts.

However, we all have our own opinions in this case, both in regards to when life ultimately begins and on abortion.

The fact that there are so many varied opinions is precisely the reason that we need a more objective definition. Whatever definition is put into law, it can't simply be an arbitrary, "It happens.....wait for it.....wait for it.....HERE!" type law. We need a definition of life that works no matter what you are looking at. Making up an entirely new definition that will be applied only to embryos/fetuses while applying a different definition to all born human beings is simply illogical - and demonstrates clearly that the made-up definition was devised solely for use in this debate.

I'm not trying to make any law yet as I am not in Congress or the courts.

However, we all have our own opinions in this case, both in regards to when life ultimately begins and on abortion.

Well, most of us like to base those opinions on something not completely arbitrary.

The fact that there are so many varied opinions is precisely the reason that we need a more objective definition. Whatever definition is put into law, it can't simply be an arbitrary, "It happens.....wait for it.....wait for it.....HERE!" type law. We need a definition of life that works no matter what you are looking at. Making up an entirely new definition that will be applied only to embryos/fetuses while applying a different definition to all born human beings is simply illogical - and demonstrates clearly that the made-up definition was devised solely for use in this debate.

Here I will agree with you 100% Dempublicents1

Here I will agree with you 100% Dempublicents1
Well, that's what we're arguing.

Well, that's what we're arguing.

And I'll agree with you there as well.

There are other parallels to scripture that I've noticed as well. People often tend to read what they want into scripture, and then won't even admit the suggestion that there might be an alternate interpretation - even of the exact translation they are using. I've noticed the same thing with Dubya and Adriatica II, who find quotes that they truly think support them, but that don't necessarily do so. Adriatica has an entire list of them.

"Turn the other cheek" is a parallel for medical definitions of 'organisms'.

It doesn't matter HOW many times you 'explain', they know damn well what they believe, and they aren't about to be persuaded by something as trivial as 'logic' or 'facts'.

... Once again, you fall into the trap of defining an entity-wide response as something I can easily replicate in my culture dish in the lab right now - but I am sure you would not term my culture dish as an organism.

Of course you can stimulate cell growth in a dish, how is that relevant to the issue?

Changes in trophoblast membrane around the blastocyst function in a coordinated and regulated manner that is required for attachment to take place. Cues for these changes come from external stimuli, while the changes themselves are directed from internal signals, thus, they are a response to stimuli.

One of several changes that take place via the give and take signals of the relationship is the documented changes of the trophoblast cell-cell adhesion during implantation. I'm of course refering to it’s increased permeability of the trophoblast cell layer and how it allows diffusion of oxygen and nutrients to the embryo. But these developments could not take place without the combination of inside directions and outside stimuli (signals). Amino acid signaling to the embryo IS regulated through the uterine environment, most likely by amino acid transporter activity. This process provides the methodology for how the uterus and the blastocyst/embryo coordinate the implantation. When the uterus recognizes the existence of the blastocyst/embryo it prepares itself and then it in turn signals the blastocyst/embryo to progress to an invasive phenotype (which doesn’t happen without the signal), there is cross directional signalling going on.


It is an organism…More sources which call Embryo an organism:

General: an organism in early stages of development, before hatching from an egg.

Human: A fertilized egg that has begun cell division, often called a pre-embryo (for pre-implantation embryo). An embryo is now defined as a later stage, i.e. at the completion of" the pre-embryonic stage, which is considered to end at about day 14. The term, embryo, is used to describe the early stages of fetal growth, from conception to the eighth week of pregnancy.
http://www.everythingbio.com/glos/definition.php?word=Embryo

"
I did notice that DubyaGoat argued himself (herself?) into a corner, by referring to a process governed OUTSIDE the cell, as evidence of 'organism' status for his argument....
...

How is it a corner? To show that the organism responds to outside stimuli is evidence that it meets the criteria of being an organism AND proves that it is alive before attachment. As a matter of fact, it seems it puts to rest the argument that the embryo organism is a part of the mother at all (which has to be about the least scientific argument any pro-choice person could posit anyway).

How is it a corner? To show that the organism responds to outside stimuli is evidence that it meets the criteria of being an organism AND proves that it is alive before attachment. As a matter of fact, it seems it puts to rest the argument that the embryo organism is a part of the mother at all (which has to be about the least scientific argument any pro-choice person could posit anyway).

Watch out, that's your nice paint you're walking on.

It has been illustrated to you, by much more patient persons than I, how your ridiculous claim that it 'shows the organism responds to outside stimuli' is mere hyperbole. What it shows is that uterine chemistry 'does something' to the conceptus.

Your argument is like saying a piece of metal 'responds to the stimulus' of a hammer.

The mere fact that a thing external to the material CAUSES something to happen to it, proves neither that the piece of beaten metal is 'an organism' NOR that it is 'alive'.

Speculation. Prevarication. Obfuscation.

You trot out the same old comentaries, no matetr HOW many times they are shown to be fatally flawed... like, maybe we'll forget we pwned you, if you leave it six pages...

You bring nothing to the table, my friend.

Watch out, that's your nice paint you're walking on.

It has been illustrated to you, by much more patient persons than I, how your ridiculous claim that it 'shows the organism responds to outside stimuli' is mere hyperbole. What it shows is that uterine chemistry 'does something' to the conceptus.

And, it shows that the conceptus does something to the uterus. That the two must work in unison to produce the proper timing for both to be ready for the embedding.

Your argument is like saying a piece of metal 'responds to the stimulus' of a hammer.

Only if the sheet of metal is telling the hammer to get ready and then where it is going to be hit, and then prepares a soft spot for the anticipated hammer hit and then imbeds permanently into the hammer so that the two become attached at the cellular level… then, okay, there might be a way to use that analogy. Provided both the hammer and the sheet of metal are alive and sending signals to each other.

The mere fact that a thing external to the material CAUSES something to happen to it, proves neither that the piece of beaten metal is 'an organism' NOR that it is 'alive'.
What is does in this case is synchronizes the ‘timers’ of both systems to prepare for the impact. It is evidence that both systems are aware of the other and that both respond to stimuli. And this is possible, of course, because both are systems sending signals to each other.

Speculation. Prevarication. Obfuscation.

You trot out the same old comentaries, no matetr HOW many times they are shown to be fatally flawed... like, maybe we'll forget we pwned you, if you leave it six pages...

You bring nothing to the table, my friend.

You must have forgotten about the outside sources that say an embryo IS an organism and other sources that show how that relationship works, OR you are saying that, that is nothing to the table, then fine. Produce a medical source that shows an embryo is NOT an organism, I certainly have not seen any.

As to the 'pwned,' or not, stuff … I thought we've been having a pretty decent exchange of ideas, viewpoints and a sharing of raw physical data. I didn’t realize, or I failed to see how it was intended to anything other than that. Perhaps a ‘shout-down contest’ is what you came here for, to ‘PWN’ someone, but not I.

The fact that there are so many varied opinions is precisely the reason that we need a more objective definition. Whatever definition is put into law, it can't simply be an arbitrary, "It happens.....wait for it.....wait for it.....HERE!" type law. We need a definition of life that works no matter what you are looking at. Making up an entirely new definition that will be applied only to embryos/fetuses while applying a different definition to all born human beings is simply illogical - and demonstrates clearly that the made-up definition was devised solely for use in this debate.

That's very interesting, it sounds exactly like you are talking about the current system, the Roe Vs. Wade decision defining when and what week the embryo/fetus becomes 'more' human and begins to have rights. I agree we need a better definition of life, I haven't seen you provide one that works inside and outside of the womb and does NOT apply to include the self same fetus two hours before 'any given moment' takes place. The SD bill seems to at least pick a moment that can clearly be defined (conception).

"Turn the other cheek" is a parallel for medical definitions of 'organisms'.

It doesn't matter HOW many times you 'explain', they know damn well what they believe, and they aren't about to be persuaded by something as trivial as 'logic' or 'facts'.

That, perhaps, could be applied in both directions. When our own arguments require that medical dictionaries and biology definitions must be wrong, perhaps it's time to reassess our position?

Of course you can stimulate cell growth in a dish, how is that relevant to the issue?

And I could stimulate the exact responses described in embryonic development with trophoblastic cells in culture. "Cell growth" is hardly all that can be stimulated in a dish. All of the cellular responses you have thus far described in an embryo could be stimulated in a dish as well.

Changes in trophoblast membrane around the blastocyst function in a coordinated and regulated manner that is required for attachment to take place. Cues for these changes come from external stimuli, while the changes themselves are directed from internal signals, thus, they are a response to stimuli.

Changes in myoblasts in culture function in a coordinated and regulated manner that is required for cell fusion to take place. Cues for these changes come from external stimuli, while the changes themselves are directed from internal signals (ie. DNA).

Of *course* they are a response to stimuli. However, it is a response to stimuli at a cellular level, much like the response to stimuli seen in fusing myoblasts, not a system-wide mechanism of response.

One of several changes that take place via the give and take signals of the relationship is the documented changes of the trophoblast cell-cell adhesion during implantation. I'm of course refering to it’s increased permeability of the trophoblast cell layer and how it allows diffusion of oxygen and nutrients to the embryo.

All sorts of cells change permeability and allow diffusion of oxygen and nutrients to a given set of cells. Does that make them all lives?

It is an organism…More sources which call Embryo an organism:

...without a definition of "organism" from the same sources, that is rather useless. We need to know exactly what definition of organism, and even what definition of life, is being used. Often, much like other medical conventions, it seems that the definitions lack internal consistency, meaning that they cannot be absolutely relied upon.

And, it shows that the conceptus does something to the uterus. That the two must work in unison to produce the proper timing for both to be ready for the embedding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
Your argument is like saying a piece of metal 'responds to the stimulus' of a hammer.

Only if the sheet of metal is telling the hammer to get ready and then where it is going to be hit, and then prepares a soft spot for the anticipated hammer hit and then imbeds permanently into the hammer so that the two become attached at the cellular level… then, okay, there might be a way to use that analogy. Provided both the hammer and the sheet of metal are alive and sending signals to each other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
The mere fact that a thing external to the material CAUSES something to happen to it, proves neither that the piece of beaten metal is 'an organism' NOR that it is 'alive'.
What is does in this case is synchronizes the ‘timers’ of both systems to prepare for the impact. It is evidence that both systems are aware of the other and that both respond to stimuli. And this is possible, of course, because both are systems sending signals to each other.


Only if the sheet of metal is telling the hammer to get ready and then where it is going to be hit, and then prepares a soft spot for the anticipated hammer hit and then imbeds permanently into the hammer so that the two become attached at the cellular level… then, okay, there might be a way to use that analogy. Provided both the hammer and the sheet of metal are alive and sending signals to each other.

You cannot assume your conclusion in an attempt to demonstrate your conclusion, my friend. It's a bit like me saying, "The embryo is a dog, therefore the embryo is a dog."

You must have forgotten about the outside sources that say an embryo IS an organism and other sources that show how that relationship works, OR you are saying that, that is nothing to the table, then fine. Produce a medical source that shows an embryo is NOT an organism, I certainly have not seen any.

You personally provided a definition of organism that, try as you might, you cannot make the embryo meet.

That's very interesting, it sounds exactly like you are talking about the current system, the Roe Vs. Wade decision defining when and what week the embryo/fetus becomes 'more' human and begins to have rights.

And said definitions were based upon developmental landmarks - the same as what I am talking about. They are a bit more general than I would like, but that wouldn't be hard to fix these days, where we could certainly test for things like nervous system and brain activity without a need for invasive measures.

I agree we need a better definition of life, I haven't seen you provide one that works inside and outside of the womb and does NOT apply to include the self same fetus two hours before 'any given moment' takes place.

Then you haven't been watching. I have provided the biological definition of life more than once, and demonstrated the points at which it is met.

Meanwhile, the definition I am using was not developed in response to the abortion argument, as the "conception" argument has been. It was developed completely outside of that debate and is thus not a made-up definition devised simply for the debate itself.


That, perhaps, could be applied in both directions. When our own arguments require that medical dictionaries and biology definitions must be wrong, perhaps it's time to reassess our position?

My argument has been entirely based in the biological definition. I find it hard to imagine that you missed that.

That, perhaps, could be applied in both directions. When our own arguments require that medical dictionaries and biology definitions must be wrong, perhaps it's time to reassess our position?

Your tactics are brilliant. I mean, some people may not actually read the link so you keep telling them it says something it doesn't, and they might buy it. Let's face it, that's really the only way you're going to convince anyone. Now, if they read just as far as the first paragraph they'll see the only coordination these cells show is coordinated outside of the cell group.

That's very interesting, it sounds exactly like you are talking about the current system, the Roe Vs. Wade decision defining when and what week the embryo/fetus becomes 'more' human and begins to have rights. I agree we need a better definition of life, I haven't seen you provide one that works inside and outside of the womb and does NOT apply to include the self same fetus two hours before 'any given moment' takes place. The SD bill seems to at least pick a moment that can clearly be defined (conception).

I can. Brain function. If the brain is not functioning (which can be tested) then there is no human life. More importantly, my definition has been held outside of the abortion debate for much of US History. The brain's function is the marker for life at every stage of development. It makes a 1-year-old alive, a late-term fetus alive and an elderly person alive. That's called consistency. Try it. You keep making these assertions that completely defy what people are ACTUALLY saying and it's bad form.

Your tactics are brilliant. I mean, some people may not actually read the link so you keep telling them it says something it doesn't, and they might buy it. Let's face it, that's really the only way you're going to convince anyone. Now, if they read just as far as the first paragraph they'll see the only coordination these cells show is coordinated outside of the cell group.

He seems to think that "using their own DNA and responding to their individual microenvironments" equates to "being a system which responds together."

*Shrug* I guess that means that my cells in culture are a system, that myoblasts that fuse are a system and therefore alive, that neurons forming synapses in culture are systems that are therefore alive, etc.

He seems to think that "using their own DNA and responding to their individual microenvironments" equates to "being a system which responds together."

Close enough. If the system is using it's own DNA to determine a proper response to specific stimuli and then signals a specific response to that stimuli, then yes, it would likely qualify.

*Shrug* I guess that means that my cells in culture are a system, that myoblasts that fuse are a system and therefore alive, that neurons forming synapses in culture are systems that are therefore alive, etc.

Not knowing what types of 'cells' you are using or their source (s), then yes, they might be single cell organisms or multi-cell organisms OR simply pieces of a different organism that responding to your input of stimuli.

And I could stimulate the exact responses described in embryonic development with trophoblastic cells in culture. "Cell growth" is hardly all that can be stimulated in a dish. All of the cellular responses you have thus far described in an embryo could be stimulated in a dish as well.

The lives (or life) of entire organisms can be sustained in dish, that doesn’t make them non-organisms.


Of *course* they are a response to stimuli. However, it is a response to stimuli at a cellular level, much like the response to stimuli seen in fusing myoblasts, not a system-wide mechanism of response.

Response to stimuli is not disproved because it is on the cellular level. We are, at this point, talking about a cellular organism. Response of the cellular organism must be a cellular response.

All sorts of cells change permeability and allow diffusion of oxygen and nutrients to a given set of cells. Does that make them all lives?

If they are a part of an organism while they do so, then yes, they are alive, as the organism is alive.

...without a definition of "organism" from the same sources, that is rather useless. We need to know exactly what definition of organism, and even what definition of life, is being used. Often, much like other medical conventions, it seems that the definitions lack internal consistency, meaning that they cannot be absolutely relied upon.

If you find ANY source that says either, Embryo doe NOT equal organism OR that Organism might NOT mean life, then submit it here as evidence of your conclusion (overall posit that the embryo is not an organism or alive).

You cannot assume your conclusion in an attempt to demonstrate your conclusion, my friend. It's a bit like me saying, "The embryo is a dog, therefore the embryo is a dog."

I did not assume my conclusion, I showed that the signals of the ‘hit’ must be transmitted and received and acted upon BEFORE the hit took place. Showing in the end, the error of the analogy. The hammer/sheet-metal analyses fails because it does not account for the preparation of both parties to ‘accept’ the impact, like the embryonic relationship required to be a proper analogy.

You personally provided a definition of organism that, try as you might, you cannot make the embryo meet.

I entirely disagree. You choose not to accept it, you have shown no contrary evidence whatsoever to this specific issue.

Then you haven't been watching. I have provided the biological definition of life more than once

As have I…

, and demonstrated the points at which it is met.

As have I again.

Response to stimuli is not disproved because it is on the cellular level. We are, at this point, talking about a cellular organism. Response of the cellular organism must be a cellular response.
So it doesn't bother you that the heart meets the definition of organism as you're using it? In fact, your definition makes every cell a seperate organism.

Close enough. If the system is using it's own DNA to determine a proper response to specific stimuli and then signals a specific response to that stimuli, then yes, it would likely qualify.[quiote]

In that case, every single cell in my body is, in and of itself, a human organism.

[quote]Not knowing what types of 'cells' you are using or their source (s), then yes, they might be single cell organisms or multi-cell organisms OR simply pieces of a different organism that responding to your input of stimuli.

Well, they aren't. The cells in the lab are either human embryonic stem cells - not organisms, mouse bone marrow cells - not organisms, mouse muscle progenitors/muscle cells - not organisms, or mouse neural precursors/neurons - again, not organisms.

However, thus far, they all meet all of the requirements you have placed for something to be termed a multicellular organism - which is exactly the problem. Your definition includes things that are not considered living organisms. Thus, your definition is insufficient.

The lives (or life) of entire organisms can be sustained in dish, that doesn’t make them non-organisms.

No, it doesn't. But the cells that I keep in a dish are non-organisms, and they can do the things you take to be the definition of a living organism. Hence, the problem.

Response to stimuli is not disproved because it is on the cellular level.

It is if you are trying to talk about a multicellular organism. By the definitions you are using, every single cell in my body is, in and of itself, a human organism. They are not, however, because the cells in my body make up a multicellular organism - me - that can meet all of the requirements of life as an entity.

We are, at this point, talking about a cellular organism.

All organisms are cellular organisms. However, meeting the requirements at an individual cell level only works for single-celled organisms. Are you attempting to claim that the embryo is a collection of many single-celled organisms that eventually become a multicellular organism?

If they are a part of an organism while they do so, then yes, they are alive, as the organism is alive.

Way to skirt the question. I didn't ask if they were alive. I asked if they were, in and of themselves, living organisms.

If you find ANY source that says either, Embryo doe NOT equal organism OR that Organism might NOT mean life, then submit it here as evidence of your conclusion (overall posit that the embryo is not an organism or alive).

Your own definition of organism - the one you posted - precludes embryos.

I did not assume my conclusion, I showed that the signals of the ‘hit’ must be transmitted and received and acted upon BEFORE the hit took place. Showing in the end, the error of the analogy. The hammer/sheet-metal analyses fails because it does not account for the preparation of both parties to ‘accept’ the impact, like the embryonic relationship required to be a proper analogy.

And your last sentence, the one that was bolded, said that any analogy had to use two living organisms - thus assuming your conclusion that the embryo is a living organism.

I entirely disagree. You choose not to accept it, you have shown no contrary evidence whatsoever to this specific issue.

It isn't a matter of "choosing not to accept it." By your definition, every single cell in my body is a living organism. In addition, my heart is a living organism, rather than just an organ. Your definition is internally inconsistent. I am simply demonstrating how these terms are actually used, such that every individual cell of a multicellular organism is not considered to be an organism in and of itself.

As have I…

No, you haven't. You have provided definitions of embryo and definitions of organism. I am the only one who has gone to the biological definition of life.

As have I again.

No, you have demonstrated the points at which you want it to be met.

...
By your definition, every single cell in my body is a living organism. In addition, my heart is a living organism, rather than just an organ. Your definition is internally inconsistent. I am simply demonstrating how these terms are actually used, such that every individual cell of a multicellular organism is not considered to be an organism in and of itself.
...

In the end, this seems to summarize the extent of your last post.

But no, in several places in this thread I've stated and quoted sources that show how 'organs' are located in the steps 'before' organism. And as you know, single cells taken from your body do NOT constitute the entirety of themselves, they are not single cell entities (despite the fact that you can or cannot keep them alive indefinately in a dish or clone them in a tube).

You seem to have forgotten that the organs must also pass the rest of the quantifiers before they could be considered their own 'organisms.' (1) metabolism (taking in and using nutrients) (2) growth and development (3) excretion of wastes (4) sensing and responding to stimuli (5) reproduction.

In as much as responding to stimuli is only one of the test, the rest of your analogies do not work either. Organs do NOT qualify as organisms/entities.

Organs, yet alive and possessing and thus sometimes passing 'life' tests, do not constitute organisms. They don't qualify for organism in the medical terminology that I've been talking about either. Your saying that in 'my' version they do is not a correct analyses of ‘my’ position, even though what you call ‘my position, is in fact the medical term definition of both life, organism and embryo.

The multicelled organism of us, starts as a single cell zygote, the blastocycst/embryo is a multicelled stage of us between zygote and maturity. A single cell in you body is not a zygote (regardless that we could clone it, it is not an entity, it is a part of an entity/organism).

Biological Organization
~ Atoms
~ Molecule
~ Macromolecule
~ Organelle
~ Cell
~ Tissue
~ Organ
~ Organ System
~ Organism

(hearts, blood and other cells from an organism belong in the steps before organism)

embryo:
<embryology, gynaecology> In animals, those derivatives of the fertilized ovum that eventually become the offspring, during their period of most rapid development, i.e., after the long axis appears until all major structures are represented.
In man, the developing organism is an embryo from about two weeks after fertilization to the end of seventh or eighth week.
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=embryo


or•gan•ism (ôr g -n z m)
n.
An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/organism

ALSO
organism:
<biology> Any individual living thing, whether animal or plant.
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?organism

life:
1. The state of being which begins with generation, birth, or germination, and ends with death; also, the time during which this state continues; that state of an animal or plant in which all or any of its organs are capable of performing all or any of their functions; used of all animal and vegetable organisms.
(many more examples also listed)
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=life

germination:
The process where a seed, spore, or zygote begins to sprout, grow, or develop, usually after it has been dormant for a time while waiting for the right growing conditions.
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?germination

death:
1. The cessation of all vital phenomena without capability of resuscitation, either in animals or plants.
(many more examples also listed)
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?death

death:
1. The cessation of all vital phenomena without capability of resuscitation, either in animals or plants.
(many more examples also listed)
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?death

Yes, but you have to reverse this to explain the beginning of life. Pre-life would be never having had the conditions for life, brain activity. However, life has the same definition no matter what. It requires brain activity. Bodies that are dead can be put on machines and every part of the body can often be put back into motion and the body can react to all the stimulus that does not require the brain. However, the brain never starts back up. And without brain activity, we don't call that a person or a human life. Prior to a particular fetal stage the fetus and embryo have less of the qualifications for life than the former living person that is on those machines.

Lets all make no note that those are written by biased doctors or dictionary writers, and are probably scientific definitions. What the average idiot has proven time and again he doesn't know squat about is the difference between a scientific concept and the lay version of that concept.

In the end, this seems to summarize the extent of your last post.

But no, in several places in this thread I've stated and quoted sources that show how 'organs' are located in the steps 'before' organism. And as you know, single cells taken from your body do NOT constitute the entirety of themselves, they are not single cell entities (despite the fact that you can or cannot keep them alive indefinately in a dish or clone them in a tube).

This is *exactly* my point, although you fail to see it. You know that organ systems are somehow less than an organism, but you fail to see that the reasons why also apply to an embryo. This is your failing in this discussion.

You seem to have forgotten that the organs must also pass the rest of the quantifiers before they could be considered their own 'organisms.' (1) metabolism (taking in and using nutrients) (2) growth and development (3) excretion of wastes (4) sensing and responding to stimuli (5) reproduction.

As I have already pointed out, reproduction is not generally a requirement at the organism level, but at the species level. However, each and every one of my organs does all of the rest of these things in pretty much the same way as an embryo. That is the entire point.

In as much as responding to stimuli is only one of the test, the rest of your analogies do not work either. Organs do NOT qualify as organisms/entities.

They do by your definition, as they meet these requirements in the exact same way as an embryo.

*snip*

You do realize that you are simply making my point for me, don't you?

The multicelled organism of us, starts as a single cell zygote, the blastocycst/embryo is a multicelled stage of us between zygote and maturity. A single cell in you body is not a zygote (regardless that we could clone it, it is not an entity, it is a part of an entity/organism).

And herein lies the flaw in your argument. You see the definition and the application of the definition is what allows us to know what is an organism and what is a part of another organism. You act as if we set the distinctions first and then apply the definition. It is flawed us of the definition designed to set the distinctions not be applied after it is set. It helps us know the difference between parasites, organs, and symbionts. These seperations are all inherent to the definition when used properly.

You can't simply say this is an organ so it can't be an organism or this is a part of an organism so it can't be an organism. You have to show why this is so using the definition of organism. The way you are applying the definition it would be impossible to make these distinctions without arbitrarily setting them. This is evidence that you are applying the definition of organism incorrectly.

You fail to recognize it but everyone that is better versed in the applications of these tests knows that what you are saying shows a failure to understand the tests of what consitutes an organism.

EDIT: Let me correct my wording. I intended to say that it shows that the difference between an organ and an organism that resides inside of another like a symbiont or parasite. I did not mean to imply that the definition of organism alone shows the difference between a symbiont and a parasite. Also, for clarification we are talking about the biological definition of an organism.

How did you figure that out? Do you notice DubyaGoat is ignoring me? I'm so hurt. Like we can't all see that he has no answer for the dropped argument. Why is it that anti-choicers can't see the flaw in defining human life differently just to make abortion illegal. Because they don't claim it should be defined that way at every other stage of development.
Don't feel bad. He's ignoring me more than he's ignoring you, and I'm the only one still willing to argue philosophy and social issues with him, rather than science. Can it be that he's even less equipped to argue non-science than science? I wouldn't have thought that possible.

I'm happy!
i hope the same happens where i live. (north Dakota)

Wow, I'm not sure where to begin here. First, please do a quick search and you'll find there are many children in our country waiting to be adopted. Thousands. Second, the drug you talked about does prevent conception. It prevents implantation, which would be a violation of the South Dakota law since it is after conception. Third, you haven't shown any reason why the women should go through a pregnancy simply because she chose to have sex. If I choose to hamburgers every day should I be denied the bypass I'll need simply because I CHOSE to eat hamburgers.

Pretty much all orphans in the US are either disabled or over 3 months old. I think that the law not providing a clause for rape is evil. Third, having sex is ALL the reason to have to go through pregnancy. Just because I am too lazy to work doesn't mean that I should go hungry, right? I am pro choice: people can choose to do ANYTHING that they want as long as it does not limit the choices of others. They can't, however, expect to do this and be able to choose the consequenses. According to the AG Institution, fifty percent of women who have abortions use it as their sole means of birth control (3). This is one example of how abortion practice is being taken advantage of and used for the wrong reasons. In addition, approximately 45% of all abortions in the United States are done by women ages 19 and under. Why is this? Based on a survey of 1900 women in this country, the two most common reasons for abortion are: 1) the woman can not afford to keep the baby, (ADOPTION) and 2) the woman is not ready for the responsibility. (It would be far to inconvenient to sacrifice for another human being, especially one created by my own actions) These responses accounted for nearly 42% of all answers. However, these reasons are far from legitimate because these issues can be easily fixed. There are too many contraceptives and other forms of birth control to allow these excuses to be justifiable.
According to Planned Parenthood most abortions are performed after the first trimester. By the time of the first ultrasound which is usually performed at 20 weeks, the "tissue" is conscious, can feel pain, has a heart beat, etc... That is way more human than Terri S, and probably more than Ted Kennedy... =)

How is a 20 week old less of a human than you or I? Lack of anomocity?

i say after the first bit of tissue forms its alive.
i hate abortion in every way!
(but if you are raped and get pregnant then i guess so...)

You hypocri-- I mean "pro-lifers" DO realize that SCOTUS may very well simply refuse to hear the case, don't you?

Pretty much all orphans in the US are either disabled or over 3 months old. I think that the law not providing a clause for rape is evil. Third, having sex is ALL the reason to have to go through pregnancy. Just because I am too lazy to work doesn't mean that I should go hungry, right? I am pro choice: people can choose to do ANYTHING that they want as long as it does not limit the choices of others. They can't, however, expect to do this and be able to choose the consequenses. According to the AG Institution, fifty percent of women who have abortions use it as their sole means of birth control (3). This is one example of how abortion practice is being taken advantage of and used for the wrong reasons. In addition, approximately 45% of all abortions in the United States are done by women ages 19 and under. Why is this? Based on a survey of 1900 women in this country, the two most common reasons for abortion are: 1) the woman can not afford to keep the baby, (ADOPTION) and 2) the woman is not ready for the responsibility. (It would be far to inconvenient to sacrifice for another human being, especially one created by my own actions) These responses accounted for nearly 42% of all answers. However, these reasons are far from legitimate because these issues can be easily fixed. There are too many contraceptives and other forms of birth control to allow these excuses to be justifiable.
According to Planned Parenthood most abortions are performed after the first trimester. By the time of the first ultrasound which is usually performed at 20 weeks, the "tissue" is conscious, can feel pain, has a heart beat, etc... That is way more human than Terri S, and probably more than Ted Kennedy... =)

How is a 20 week old less of a human than you or I? Lack of anomocity?

First, sources? You cite a lot of statistics with no sources. Statistics have exactly the value of the sources you cite.

Second, the vast majority of abortions occur long before 20 weeks, so you should ecstatic. At 27 weeks, almost every state makes abortion non-elective. Coincidentally this is also supposed to be the time that the brain begins to operate at the level we require for life at every other stage of development. We require brain function for humanity, for the life of a person. Now if you'd like to compare your brain function to that of a 20-week-old, feel free, but it's not a compliment.

You hypocri-- I mean "pro-lifers" DO realize that SCOTUS may very well simply refuse to hear the case, don't you?

They'll hear the case. They'll have to actually. Since this is a state law, it'll have to go through the state courts before it arrives at the Supreme Court.

They'll hear the case. They'll have to actually. Since this is a state law, it'll have to go through the state courts before it arrives at the Supreme Court.

Only if it makes it there.

They'll hear the case. They'll have to actually. Since this is a state law, it'll have to go through the state courts before it arrives at the Supreme Court.
They don't have to hear the case, if they see no problem with the decision of lower courts. SCOTUS declines to hear lots of cases on the basis that the lower court decisions are correct or that the appeal to SCOTUS lacks merit.

They don't have to hear the case, if they see no problem with the decision of lower courts. SCOTUS declines to hear lots of cases on the basis that the lower court decisions are correct or that the appeal to SCOTUS lacks merit.

Yes that's true however it takes 4 people to get a case on the docket I believe. Thomas, Scalia, and probably Alito will vote for it. Alito I do not know about. Roberts might as well. There's the 4 votes to get the case heard if all 4 of them go that route.

Now that isn't necessarily how they'll vote if this case is actually heard though.

Pretty much all orphans in the US are either disabled or over 3 months old. [1] I think that the law not providing a clause for rape is evil. [2] Third, having sex is ALL the reason to have to go through pregnancy. Just because I am too lazy to work doesn't mean that I should go hungry, right? I am pro choice: people can choose to do ANYTHING that they want as long as it does not limit the choices of others. They can't, however, expect to do this and be able to choose the consequenses. According to the [3] AG Institution, fifty percent of women who have abortions use it as their sole means of birth control (3). This is one example of how abortion practice is being taken advantage of and used for the wrong reasons. In addition, approximately 45% of all abortions in the United States are done by women ages 19 and under. Why is this? Based on a survey of 1900 women in this country, the two most common reasons for abortion are: 1) the woman can not afford to keep the baby, (ADOPTION) and 2) the woman is not ready for the responsibility. (It would be far to inconvenient to sacrifice for another human being, especially one created by my own actions) These responses accounted for nearly 42% of all answers. However, these reasons are far from legitimate because these issues can be easily fixed. There are too many contraceptives and other forms of birth control to allow these excuses to be justifiable.
According to Planned Parenthood most abortions are performed after the first trimester. By the time of the first ultrasound which is usually performed at 20 weeks, the "tissue" is conscious, can feel pain, has a heart beat, etc... That is way more human than Terri S, and probably more than Ted Kennedy... =)

How is a 20 week old less of a human than you or I? Lack of anomocity?
1. Good. I agree. Now what about women who did want to be pregnant but later suffered injuries or were diagnosed with conditions that make it dangerous for them to carry a pregnancy? Should they be forced to risk their health for the rest of their lives? After all, they did choose to have sex. What about cases in which congenital conditions are detected in the fetus which will guarantee that the baby will be either stillborn or born with such terrible defects that it will only live a few weeks and those in terrible pain? Should those babies be punished because their mothers chose to have sex?

2. Pregnancy is a price only women pay. What price are men required to pay for having sex? Or are you suggesting that women deserve to be punished for having sex but men don't?

3. I googled "AG Institution" and all I got were academic or government entities that study agriculture. Please provide a link.

Yes that's true however it takes 4 people to get a case on the docket I believe. Thomas, Scalia, and probably Alito will vote for it. Alito I do not know about. Roberts might as well. There's the 4 votes to get the case heard if all 4 of them go that route.

Now that isn't necessarily how they'll vote if this case is actually heard though.
Yes, of course, there's no guarantee of how any of the justices will vote on any case. If it were otherwise, we'd be better off having this conversation in some other country.

But, as the man said, "the race does not always go to the swift, nor the victory to the strong, but that's the way you bet." The court is drastically slanted to the right by appointees who were hand-picked for their politics. I'm not optimistic about their ethics. However, I won't bet just yet, because Roberts and Alito haven't been SC justices long enough to predict if they'll be good little party-lads, or if they'll put the law first.

I am pro choice: people can choose to do ANYTHING that they want as long as it does not limit the choices of others.

Then they can have abortions. *shrug*

They can't, however, expect to do this and be able to choose the consequenses. According to the AG Institution, fifty percent of women who have abortions use it as their sole means of birth control

CDC statistics place it at more like 40% of women who were not using other contraception. Of course, you have to wonder how many women who have abortions become obsessive about contraception afterwards. I've certainly known women who did.

According to Planned Parenthood most abortions are performed after the first trimester.

You're going to have to actually cite this, considering that CDC statistics state that over 60% occur before 8 weeks and over 80% before 13.

By the time of the first ultrasound which is usually performed at 20 weeks, the "tissue" is conscious, can feel pain, has a heart beat, etc... That is way more human than Terri S, and probably more than Ted Kennedy... =)

I think you're a bit confused on all of this - the first ultrasound is often performed well before 5 months, and studies have shown that 20 weeks is pretty much the earliest that pain *might* be felt. Generally, brain waves indicating consciousness aren't seen until a bit later - more like 22 weeks.

Banning abortion is possibly one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. It's her baby, let her choose if she wants it or not.

Pretty much all orphans in the US are either disabled or over 3 months old.

Source?

I think that the law not providing a clause for rape is evil.

If abortion is murder, then why is it okay to 'murder' if someone else commits a crime?

Third, having sex is ALL the reason to have to go through pregnancy. Just because I am too lazy to work doesn't mean that I should go hungry, right?

So whether it is life or not, you think a woman should punished for having sex by being treated as an incubator? I certainly hope you're not saying that. If it's about life argue about the life. Otherwise, leave the 'dirty whore' argument at home. Pregnancy is a consequence of sex that can be dealt with. You need to show why women shouldn't be allowed to deal with it as they see fit.

I am pro choice: people can choose to do ANYTHING that they want as long as it does not limit the choices of others.

Right, so you should not be permitted to limit the choices of women. Agreed.

They can't, however, expect to do this and be able to choose the consequenses. According to the AG Institution, fifty percent of women who have abortions use it as their sole means of birth control (3).

You clearly copied this off of a webpage since we can see the citation. You should have included the citation. The Arthur Guttmacher Institute and the statistics from the CDC have it at much less. See below.

This is one example of how abortion practice is being taken advantage of and used for the wrong reasons. In addition, approximately 45% of all abortions in the United States are done by women ages 19 and under. Why is this? Based on a survey of 1900 women in this country, the two most common reasons for abortion are: 1) the woman can not afford to keep the baby, (ADOPTION)

Given the dramatic inaccuracy of your figures, I'm going to assume these figures are spurious as well, but feel free to reveal your source. However, adoption does not make the cost of pregnancy free. It doesn't change the abortion in the first trimester is dramatically safer than pregnancy. It doesn't change the fact that even if the mother doesn't die in pregnancy her body is damage irreparably. These women don't want to be pregnant. You pretend like incubating a baby just to give it away is no big deal. Your claims are ridiculous.

and 2) the woman is not ready for the responsibility. (It would be far to inconvenient to sacrifice for another human being, especially one created by my own actions)

Prove it's another human being.

These responses accounted for nearly 42% of all answers. However, these reasons are far from legitimate because these issues can be easily fixed. There are too many contraceptives and other forms of birth control to allow these excuses to be justifiable.
According to Planned Parenthood most abortions are performed after the first trimester. By the time of the first ultrasound which is usually performed at 20 weeks, the "tissue" is conscious, can feel pain, has a heart beat, etc... That is way more human than Terri S, and probably more than Ted Kennedy... =)

How is a 20 week old less of a human than you or I? Lack of anomocity?


Here is the link from AG Institute -

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3422602.html

http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/prevention.html#use

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-abortion-first-trimestert.xml

They disagree with you on almost everything.

According to Planned Parenthood most abortions are performed after the first trimester.

According to AGI 88% of abortions occur in the first trimester. For those doing the math that 9 out of 10. AGI does the statistical analysis for planned parenthood. In other words, Planned Parenthood not only disagrees with your claim, but 12% compared to your 'most' makes you off by at least a factor of four.

According to the AG Institution, fifty percent of women who have abortions use it as their sole means of birth control (3).

The CDC has it at below 40% and AGI has it at 45%. Both disagree with you, but this mistake isn't as ridiculous as most of your completely spurious numbers.

In addition, approximately 45% of all abortions in the United States are done by women ages 19 and under

According to the AGI, the number is actually around 20%. Again, you're off by a huge margin. One might even gather that you or someone else simply made these numbers up. Dishonesty? in the anti-choice camp? IMPOSSIBLE.

There are too many contraceptives and other forms of birth control to allow these excuses to be justifiable.

According to AGI, 9 in 10 women who are sexually active and do not wish to get pregnant are using birth control regularly (that means always). Considering about 2 in 5 pregnancies are unwanted, it's clear your assertions are not reflective of reality.

Either you are being intentionally deceptive or you, yourself, have been deceived. Either way, educate yourself and then return to the table when you have support for your position that is not made up. It's not enough to put a bunch of statistics up that support your position. They have to actually be reflective of reality, my friend.

Then they can have abortions. *shrug*



CDC statistics place it at more like 40% of women who were not using other contraception. Of course, you have to wonder how many women who have abortions become obsessive about contraception afterwards. I've certainly known women who did.



You're going to have to actually cite this, considering that CDC statistics state that over 60% occur before 8 weeks and over 80% before 13.



I think you're a bit confused on all of this - the first ultrasound is often performed well before 5 months, and studies have shown that 20 weeks is pretty much the earliest that pain *might* be felt. Generally, brain waves indicating consciousness aren't seen until a bit later - more like 22 weeks.

You inspired me to craft a better response. Thank you. His post (and let's face it, we all know it's a he) was so chocked full of spurious statistics that I didn't know where to begin, but I decided to do some research after seeing your post.

They don't have to hear the case, if they see no problem with the decision of lower courts. SCOTUS declines to hear lots of cases on the basis that the lower court decisions are correct or that the appeal to SCOTUS lacks merit.

Even if they don't hear it, it could still decide it one way or another. If the S. Dakota state supreme court upholds the law and the SCOTUS declines to hear it then they've essentially given the law their thumbs up.

I am pro choice: people can choose to do ANYTHING that they want as long as it does not limit the choices of others.

They can't, however, expect to do this and be able to choose the consequenses. According to the AG Institution, fifty percent of women who have abortions use it as their sole means of birth control

The AG Institution? What does that stand for, Absolute Gibberish?

This is an absolutly incredible claim. I've gone looking for this fantastic institute, and as far as I can tell it was simply made up as a makebelieve source. e.g. According to Convenient Statistics for My Arguments 73% of all regular church goers suffer from early onset alzheimers, as well as paranoid schizophrenia. If one includes those suffering from only one of the two disorders, the numbe rises to 93% Those church goers suffering from some sort of digestive ailment fair little better, with a staggering 84% of them suffering from bipolar disorder as well as uncontrolled hypoglycemia. This makes it very dangerous to go basing your beliefs on anything that they have to tell you. It is most likely based on very shakey logical ground.

The AG Institution? What does that stand for, Absolute Gibberish?

This is an absolutly incredible claim. I've gone looking for this fantastic institute, and as far as I can tell it was simply made up as a makebelieve source. e.g. According to Convenient Statistics for My Arguments 73% of all regular church goers suffer from early onset alzheimers, as well as paranoid schizophrenia. If one includes those suffering from only one of the two disorders, the numbe rises to 93% Those church goers suffering from some sort of digestive ailment fair little better, with a staggering 84% of them suffering from bipolar disorder as well as uncontrolled hypoglycemia. This makes it very dangerous to go basing your beliefs on anything that they have to tell you. It is most likely based on very shakey logical ground.

Um, actually that is the Institute that supplies all of the statistics to Planned Parenthood. I provided links above. However, they entirely disagree with the statistics cited on their behalf by our friend there.

Dang that really pisses me off its easy if u dont want to have a baby instead of killing the child. DON'T HAVE SEX!!! for fun.:mad:

Dang that really pisses me off its easy if u dont want to have a baby instead of killing the child. DON'T HAVE SEX!!! for fun.:mad:

I will respond to your point when you learn how to use punctuation.

"According to Planned Parenthood most abortions are performed after the first trimester. "

Where in the hell did you get that crap? Certainly not from planned parenthood.
This is from parenthoods site:

When are abortions performed?

Most abortions — nearly 90 percent — are provided in the first trimester — the first three months of pregnancy. Fewer than 11 percent take place in the second trimester. Abortion is very rare and only done for serious health reasons after 24 weeks.

Yes, of course, there's no guarantee of how any of the justices will vote on any case. If it were otherwise, we'd be better off having this conversation in some other country.

Agreed.

But, as the man said, "the race does not always go to the swift, nor the victory to the strong, but that's the way you bet." The court is drastically slanted to the right by appointees who were hand-picked for their politics. I'm not optimistic about their ethics. However, I won't bet just yet, because Roberts and Alito haven't been SC justices long enough to predict if they'll be good little party-lads, or if they'll put the law first.

Hopefully they'll put the law first.

You inspired me to craft a better response. Thank you. His post (and let's face it, we all know it's a he) was so chocked full of spurious statistics that I didn't know where to begin, but I decided to do some research after seeing your post.

Thanks. =) I actually didn't have time to look up the AG institute earlier, so thanks for doing that. I figured he was either quoting an anti-choice site with no credibility or misquoting statistics in the first place.

Even if they don't hear it, it could still decide it one way or another. If the S. Dakota state supreme court upholds the law and the SCOTUS declines to hear it then they've essentially given the law their thumbs up.


I didn't make my point clearly enough. My fault. I'm guessing (but could be wrong) that the lower courts, up to and including the district court with jurisdiction, will strike it down, then SCOTUS will refuse to hear it. Just my gut feeling, and quite frankly, what I hope happens.

Dang that really pisses me off its easy if u dont want to have a baby instead of killing the child. DON'T HAVE SEX!!! for fun.:mad:

That really pisses you off?

The fact that the world STILL has trade in slaves. The fact that, even in the 'first world' people starve. The fact that children sleep on streets. The fact that some people are FORCED to sell sex. The fact that there are wars fought for political reasons. The fact that governments still debate whether torture is wrong. The fact that, in this world, there are people dying, in the name of 'pornography'. The fact that, in some places, a woman gets a beating because a man can see her legs.

Sorry friend, but in the REAL world in which we live, in terms of things that should 'really piss you off', abortion in the first trimestre SHOULD be way down the list.

perhaps they should pass another law and make it mandatory sterlization for all males regardless of age - a little snip here - or a casteration ring - by the way i'm a male - i would liike to know which politician will formerly apologize to the family or families in grieving when their loved one died from a botched backlane abortion - how many men out there would fight the law in order to keep their testies - after all it is theirs and the governments which has no rights to their bodies - just the same as the womens body - unless we are all deemed incompetent by the government -

Huh. Crazy moralistic fundamentalists with their holier than thou attitudes. You Americans (given that this law was based on South Dakota after all), have no idea how good you have it. I come from a place where people like you (not so crazy, but just as bad fundamentalists) are in power and you know what? It's tons worse.

Moral squads where non governmental groups are encouraged by political parties to go about and spy on people and report them to actual moral police. Not to mention the fact that they have the power to arrest you for 'immoral' activities.

And on the issue of abortion, it's illegal here for just about every case except medical emergencies. Added to this is the stigma that automatically attaches itself to any non-wed pregnant woman that she's some kind of slut, etc, etc. Guess what this leads to. A lot of back alley abortions. And not just that. Since the kind of people who provide that black market service are rare, just about every other week, we get to read about babies that were actually born and dumped.

Literally dumped. I mean plastic bags, rubbish bins, left outside hospitals just after birth. And they're usually dead. You want to argue about killing a life that hasn't even been born, this one happens AFTER it is born because the fundies had their way.

It's plain and simple. If the woman doesn't want the baby, then she will damn well get rid of it one way or another. You fundies and your "punish the woman and not the man for having sex" mentality only just increase the anguish and suffering for all parties involved.

You want to talk about compassion? You don't even know the meaning of the word.

well put - i take my hat off to you - the killing of the soul for the one who had to endure -

2. Pregnancy is a price only women pay. What price are men required to pay for having sex? Or are you suggesting that women deserve to be punished for having sex but men don't?

other than financially, you mean. 'Cause there's an ongoing debate on this very forum that would tell you how a pregnancy can affect a man's right.

other than financially, you mean. 'Cause there's an ongoing debate on this very forum that would tell you how a pregnancy can affect a man's right.

Mere money is hardly comparable to the effects of pregnancy, though, is it?

other than financially, you mean. 'Cause there's an ongoing debate on this very forum that would tell you how a pregnancy can affect a man's right.

The financial requirements of men and women to the pregnancy and the child, if there is one, are equal so that argument has very little weight, if any.

The financial requirements of men and women to the pregnancy and the child, if there is one, are equal so that argument has very little weight, if any.
Someone claims there is no effect on the man if there's a pregnancy or not.
I proved the contrary: specifically, there's a huge financial difference between the two outcomes.

The fact that the financial aspect of the thing is a minor quibble in the grand scheme of things doesn't change the fact that it is still there.

So Muravyet's (sp?) claim that there is no difference for the man is false. See if I care how much weight it has or if the woman has the same financial burden. That was not what I was responding to.

Mere money is hardly comparable to the effects of pregnancy, though, is it?
Of course not (unless it is your money who's being taken away for 18 years on a decision you had no say in). But that was not what Muravyet argued, so it is a moot point.

For more information, see my response to Jocabia

Someone claims there is no effect on the man if there's a pregnancy or not.
I proved the contrary: specifically, there's a huge financial difference between the two outcomes.

Actually, I believe they were saying there are no special effects on the man that the woman doesn't face. And the effects you list are an effect of the birth not the pregnancy. If she is pregnant with no birth, those effects don't exist. M was actually arguing for the justice of a financial burden so I doubt s/he was ignoring it.

The fact that the financial aspect of the thing is a minor quibble in the grand scheme of things doesn't change the fact that it is still there.

So Muravyet's (sp?) claim that there is no difference for the man is false. See if I care how much weight it has or if the woman has the same financial burden. That was not what I was responding to.
There is no basis for claiming the man has a decision about the continuation of pregnancy. A woman gives birth, both people have the same responsibilty. However, the reponsibilty for dealing with the pregnancy falls completely on the woman (with the exception that some men split the bills).

Actually, I believe they were saying there are no special effects on the man that the woman doesn't face. And the effects you list are an effect of the birth not the pregnancy. If she is pregnant with no birth, those effects don't exist. M was actually arguing for the justice of a financial burden so I doubt s/he was ignoring it.


There is no basis for claiming the man has a decision about the continuation of pregnancy. A woman gives birth, both people have the same responsibilty. However, the reponsibilty for dealing with the pregnancy falls completely on the woman (with the exception that some men split the bills).
We've had this conversation before, so I'm not about to repeat it. Suffice to say that, as a man, I feel I am powerless in the even of a pregnancy. But I fully understand that it is not my decision to make as it is not my body. I find the actual system lack a way out for the case of a man not wanting the pregnancy while the woman insist on having the baby, but I know I won't be able to convince you that a provision has to be made.

But from what I've read of the post, M was saying there is no repercussion to a pregnancy for the man which is patently false. Apart from the financial side of things, there is a huge psychological repercussion in facing the situation. I just wanted to point out that fact.

We've had this conversation before, so I'm not about to repeat it. Suffice to say that, as a man, I feel I am powerless in the even of a pregnancy. But I fully understand that it is not my decision to make as it is not my body. I find the actual system lack a way out for the case of a man not wanting the pregnancy while the woman insist on having the baby, but I know I won't be able to convince you that a provision has to be made.

But from what I've read of the post, M was saying there is no repercussion to a pregnancy for the man which is patently false. Apart from the financial side of things, there is a huge psychological repercussion in facing the situation. I just wanted to point out that fact.

The psychologic part is an excellent point. I do believe that was overlooked and shouldn't have been. The financial part is assumed since it's the purpose of making the argument.

On the rest, I understand the frustration and I feel it too. Along with other results of biology like a woman I am married to/sleeping with/dating/whatever can get pregnant and since I believe we are monotonous I can end up caring for a child that is not mine, but she will never fact the opposite. I could possibly impregnate someone that never notifies me that I have a child in the world, but the opposite could never happen. I can end with a child I don't want or want a child I don't get and women won't have that same burden. We can't experience the miracle of childbirth. We can't have the connection to the child that is inherent between a mother and a child. We can't breastfeed. We can't be lesbians.

My lack of access to all of these things frustrates me. And some of them can be in some ways rectified by social or legal efforts or perhaps inventions. However, some just can't without unfairly affecting an unrepresented third party, like the child. I'll tell you, if I could carry a child, I'd probably have one already. But I can't and there are side-effects to this fact that we all must face and accept. Creating a legal document or agreement that affects the rights of the child without representation of the child's interests does not rectify the issue.

At the same time, women can't experience have a child that is genetically there without A) being rich or B) being pregnant and men don't have that problem. Women can end up with a baby and not know who the father is, and we don't have that problem. Women can end up pregnant and not know how to find the father and we don't have to face that problem. Women can die in childbirth and we can't. Women have periods and we don't. Women have breasts that leak when they've recently had a baby and we don't. Women suffer all kinds of traumas and indignities as a result of pregnancy and child-birth and we don't. Women can get pregnant from rape and we can't. Women are more likely to contract STD's from unprotected sex because of the nature of insertion and ejaculation.

I'm certain they are frustrated by biology as much as we are, but this is just something we have to accept and stop trying to make laws to create equality where it CANNOT exist.

Someone claims there is no effect on the man if there's a pregnancy or not.
I proved the contrary: specifically, there's a huge financial difference between the two outcomes.

The fact that the financial aspect of the thing is a minor quibble in the grand scheme of things doesn't change the fact that it is still there.

So Muravyet's (sp?) claim that there is no difference for the man is false. See if I care how much weight it has or if the woman has the same financial burden. That was not what I was responding to.
Don't put words in my mouth, please.

I was specifically responding to a post that said pregnancy is the price paid for having sex. But women don't get pregnant from masturbation or lesbianism, so obviously there's a man is involved in every pregnancy.

The person who claimed women have to pay a price for choosing to have sex said nothing about whether men have to pay any similar price. I consider that a sexist attitude that has nothing to do with money and everything to do with punishing women for not being virgins. I challenged the writer to prove me wrong by dishing out equal punishment for both sexes. He hasn't, so I guess I'm right -- it's a sexist argument. Please note that the person was referring to a moral price, not a financial one.

As for your issue, it's completely off topic. To bring it back to the topic, if you think men should not be forced to be financially responsible for pregnancies/babies, can I assume you are in favor of women's right to choose abortion?

Actually, I believe they were saying there are no special effects on the man that the woman doesn't face. And the effects you list are an effect of the birth not the pregnancy. If she is pregnant with no birth, those effects don't exist. M was actually arguing for the justice of a financial burden so I doubt s/he was ignoring it.


There is no basis for claiming the man has a decision about the continuation of pregnancy. A woman gives birth, both people have the same responsibilty. However, the reponsibilty for dealing with the pregnancy falls completely on the woman (with the exception that some men split the bills).
This response is for East Canuck as well:

I wasn't arguing finances at all. I was responding to a post that promoted the usual anti-choice "Scarlet Letter" argument that pregnancy is the price women have to pay for choosing to have sex. This is not a practical argument dealing with money or anything else. It's a moral argument. In this argument, pregnancy is a punishment -- 9 months hard labor for being a slut. It is telling, in my opinion, that the people who promote this idea never, ever say that men are morally guilty of choosing to have sex and never, ever propose any punishment for men who are not virgins. All the blame that exists in their weird little moralistic heads falls on the woman exclusively. By asking what price men have to pay in the imagination of the person I was responding to, I was attempting to expose the sexism in their argument.

Personally, I reject any notion that consensual sex between adults is something that should carry any kind of moral price or punishment whatsoever.

As for financial responsibility for children, that's an entirely different topic and, as we are discussing abortion here, I think any discussion of what to do with kids is irrelevant, since the point of abortion is not to have a kid.

As for your issue, it's completely off topic. To bring it back to the topic, if you think men should not be forced to be financially responsible for pregnancies/babies, can I assume you are in favor of women's right to choose abortion?
yes.

I might have jumped the gun in reading your posts, but to say that there is no consequences for the man during a pregnancy is forgetting the psychological aspect of the the situation. There is an effect for the man when he impregnate a woman, albeit no physical side to it. But anguish, stress, worry or guilt is by no mean easy to deal with.

As for your assertion that people don't expect the man to be punished for having sex and impregnating a woman, I say: again, your a wrong. I hear the same arguments (personal responsibility, he should abstain from sex, hard cheese!) when I argue that the man is being treated unfairly when it comes to paying for a child he didn't want in the first place. (see how the financial aspect was in topic, in a way?) So I wonder why some people use the double standard that women should have the option of abortion because sex is not an agreement to have babies but men don't.

So yeah, the man is punished too if abortion is banned.

Of course not (unless it is your money who's being taken away for 18 years on a decision you had no say in). But that was not what Muravyet argued, so it is a moot point.

For more information, see my response to Jocabia

Which would still be irrelevent.

Let's look at the distribution of 'cost'?

Okay: The guy has to go through the INCREDIBLY difficult task of ejaculating.

The girl has to (if conception ensues) EITHER abort, suffer a miscarriage, or carry the product to term... at least two of which three, require surgical or surgical-like procedures.

If the girl carries to term, she has to accomodate another lifeform of increasing mass, inside her for nine months... a mass which could easily be 10 lbs by the end of the pregnancy... shifting her internal organs around, bending her spine (you ever thought about the pain that might be involved in something as 'simple' as having your spine forcibly relocated?), making her feel sick, leeching minerals out of her own tissues and bone, incresing her risk of forms of illness, increasing her risks of permanent damage, increasing her risk of 'accidenatal' death.

After she's got that mass out of her, she has psychological risks to deal with, she has the physical relocation of her body to deal with, she has a massive change in body hormones to deal with, and she may well have a CONTINUED 'leeching' effect, if she breastfeeds.

On top of which, her body no longer LOOKS like it used to, or functions like it used to. Not least being the fact that she may NEVER be able to 'hold it' when she needs to pee, again.

Then - after all the biological stuff is out of the way, if she is single - she has to look after herself and her new baby, financially.

If she is single, the 'father' (if identified by paternity testing or otherwise) also has to 'look after her and the baby', financially.

So - aside from an orgasm (which, as we all know, is such a hardship), the guy MUST contribute something that the girl ALSO contributes... money.

But the guy often doesn't have to do the 'caring for' the child. Usually, it is the mother who has the sleepless nights, the worries when the child is sick, etc.

On balance, EVEN in a 'joint-relationship', the mother is the one that is 'paying the lion's share'... even if it isn't ALL financial.

Guys make me sick, with this constant bitching and whining. Yeah, sure, you could 'accidentally get a girl pregnant'... but even if you DO... apart from some of your income, who is REALLY putting in all the work, who is really feeling all the 'pain'?

Which would still be irrelevent.

Let's look at the distribution of 'cost'?

Okay: The guy has to go through the INCREDIBLY difficult task of ejaculating.

The girl has to (if conception ensues) EITHER abort, suffer a miscarriage, or carry the product to term... at least two of which three, require surgical or surgical-like procedures.

If the girl carries to term, she has to accomodate another lifeform of increasing mass, inside her for nine months... a mass which could easily be 10 lbs by the end of the pregnancy... shifting her internal organs around, bending her spine (you ever thought about the pain that might be involved in something as 'simple' as having your spine forcibly relocated?), making her feel sick, leeching minerals out of her own tissues and bone, incresing her risk of forms of illness, increasing her risks of permanent damage, increasing her risk of 'accidenatal' death.

After she's got that mass out of her, she has psychological risks to deal with, she has the physical relocation of her body to deal with, she has a massive change in body hormones to deal with, and she may well have a CONTINUED 'leeching' effect, if she breastfeeds.

On top of which, her body no longer LOOKS like it used to, or functions like it used to. Not least being the fact that she may NEVER be able to 'hold it' when she needs to pee, again.

Then - after all the biological stuff is out of the way, if she is single - she has to look after herself and her new baby, financially.

If she is single, the 'father' (if identified by paternity testing or otherwise) also has to 'look after her and the baby', financially.

So - aside from an orgasm (which, as we all know, is such a hardship), the guy MUST contribute something that the girl ALSO contributes... money.

But the guy often doesn't have to do the 'caring for' the child. Usually, it is the mother who has the sleepless nights, the worries when the child is sick, etc.

On balance, EVEN in a 'joint-relationship', the mother is the one that is 'paying the lion's share'... even if it isn't ALL financial.

Guys make me sick, with this constant bitching and whining. Yeah, sure, you could 'accidentally get a girl pregnant'... but even if you DO... apart from some of your income, who is REALLY putting in all the work, who is really feeling all the 'pain'?
Someone claim there's no repercussion for the man.

I point to one.

You argue that the repercussion is small so it doesn't matter.

I say to you : it's irrelevant what the size of the repercussion is. The point is that there is one. The poster said there wasn't.

End of story.

Now if you want to argue about the cost and how it is small in regard to what the woman has to go through , I say your entirely right. It still doesn't change the fact that there IS some repercussions for the man.

Someone claim there's no repercussion for the man.

I point to one.

You argue that the repercussion is small so it doesn't matter.

I say to you : it's irrelevant what the size of the repercussion is. The point is that there is one. The poster said there wasn't.

End of story.

Now if you want to argue about the cost and how it is small in regard to what the woman has to go through , I say your entirely right. It still doesn't change the fact that there IS some repercussions for the man.

But the 'repercussion for the man' is NOT something that ONLY the man has. The woman has the SAME 'costs', and more.

Overall then, there is no repurcussion that is ONLY for the man... and, in fact, they are getting of pretty damn easy, no?

This response is for East Canuck as well:

I wasn't arguing finances at all. I was responding to a post that promoted the usual anti-choice "Scarlet Letter" argument that pregnancy is the price women have to pay for choosing to have sex. This is not a practical argument dealing with money or anything else. It's a moral argument. In this argument, pregnancy is a punishment -- 9 months hard labor for being a slut. It is telling, in my opinion, that the people who promote this idea never, ever say that men are morally guilty of choosing to have sex and never, ever propose any punishment for men who are not virgins. All the blame that exists in their weird little moralistic heads falls on the woman exclusively. By asking what price men have to pay in the imagination of the person I was responding to, I was attempting to expose the sexism in their argument.

Personally, I reject any notion that consensual sex between adults is something that should carry any kind of moral price or punishment whatsoever.

As for financial responsibility for children, that's an entirely different topic and, as we are discussing abortion here, I think any discussion of what to do with kids is irrelevant, since the point of abortion is not to have a kid.
Fair enough. Sorry for misinterpreting your post.

yes.

I might have jumped the gun in reading your posts, but to say that there is no consequences for the man during a pregnancy is forgetting the psychological aspect of the the situation. There is an effect for the man when he impregnate a woman, albeit no physical side to it. But anguish, stress, worry or guilt is by no mean easy to deal with.

As for your assertion that people don't expect the man to be punished for having sex and impregnating a woman, I say: again, your a wrong. I hear the same arguments (personal responsibility, he should abstain from sex, hard cheese!) when I argue that the man is being treated unfairly when it comes to paying for a child he didn't want in the first place. (see how the financial aspect was in topic, in a way?) So I wonder why some people use the double standard that women should have the option of abortion because sex is not an agreement to have babies but men don't.

So yeah, the man is punished too if abortion is banned.
Well, then, let's not dilute the issue by arguing with each other over something that's not really germane. When you say the man is expected to be punished, you're talking about current family law in most states, not abortion rights. Your statements don't negate my statement that the
anti-choice crowd calls for moral punishments against women but not against men. Remember that I'm not talking about the burdens actually borne by people. I'm talking about what a moralistic minority want to do to women.