Thread: Planned Parenthood Bombed

I believe abortion is murder, yes. But i was replying to you when you said:

Originally Posted by Unique POV

But how many young ladies will die trying some herb combination they read about on the internet? Or how many will kill themselves because they can't face the shame of being pregnant? How many will be mamed by back alley butchers?

And i even asked you to clarify, when i said:

Originally Posted by Chloe

I assume the logic you're going with here, is that if abortions were outlawed, women would go into back streets to get them done, right?

So in that specific frame, i am referring to the possibility that abortion would be outlawed and then scenarios that follow. I see no need to help someone who is then committing an act of murder. Not just by my own interpretation, but that being the law of the land. So whilst i appreciate that you can respect my view that it is murder, i was also maintaining it from a legal aspect were it to be outlawed, which is where you started your reply, that i quoted:

But the fact that it is not legal, certainly does not prevent it from happening. Nor would making abortion illegal prevent it from happening. Just as banning guns would not prevent gun ownership, banning drugs hasn't prevented drug use... so forth and so on... ad infinitum. Bans simply DO NOT work. Period. We're NEVER going to be rid of abortion. It has been around in one form or another since women first learned the early signs of pregnancy... and it will always be around as long a people continue to reproduce. That is a FACT. Instead of arguing to make it illegal... and therefore by default less safe...

And on you went from there.

Follow?

I don't begrudge you being okay with abortion either, no. I can respect everyone having their own opinion and views. I think that you analogy about your recliner is not really accurate though because that is looking at the child you carry as materiel possession.

I think that if it is tolerable for you to terminate a child's life that grows inside you, then you cannot at the same time with good faith expect someone else to be charged with murder for doing the same thing unless you apparently would view what grows inside of you as your own property? Now of course, that is not to say i think murders should be allowed to kill pregnant women and their unborn either. I rather see some consistency in the law, and at the same time see women who do the same to their own offspring be given the exact same punishment.

Originally Posted by Chloe

I believe abortion is murder, yes. But i was replying to you when you said:



And i even asked you to clarify, when i said:



So in that specific frame, i am referring to the possibility that abortion would be outlawed and then scenarios that follow. I see no need to help someone who is then committing an act of murder. Not just by my own interpretation, but that being the law of the land. So whilst i appreciate that you can respect my view that it is murder, i was also maintaining it from a legal aspect were it to be outlawed, which is where you started your reply, that i quoted:



And on you went from there.

Follow?

I don't begrudge you being okay with abortion either, no. I can respect everyone having their own opinion and views. I think that you analogy about your recliner is not really accurate though because that is looking at the child you carry as materiel possession.

I think that if it is tolerable for you to terminate a child's life that grows inside you, then you cannot at the same time with good faith expect someone else to be charged with murder for doing the same thing unless you apparently would view what grows inside of you as your own property? Now of course, that is not to say i think murders should be allowed to kill pregnant women and their unborn either. I rather see some consistency in the law, and at the same time see women who do the same to their own offspring be given the exact same punishment.

Actually, I never stated I thought it would be murder if someone assaulted a pregnant woman and she lost her fetus as a result. I said it would be wrong. So yes... I do think it would be a crime, but murder not so much. Especially not in the earliest phases of pregnancy.

That's fine, and a lot of people who are not against abortion tend to see it that way from what i have read and heard. My post to you was not meant to demonize those who have abortions, but was in the context of abortions being illegal. At that point, i would be comfortable with them being stigmatized if they were murdering their unborn children, even defined as much by the law.

At the moment, it is legal to have an abortion so the anger is usually on a moral level.

I think you show consistency in not seeing as murder and that is admirable. However to women who do see it and view it as murder, especially if it came to their own child, it would be of no comfort. And to that extent, i would rather still see it charged as murder if someone else attacks the mother and unborn child, even though it is legally flawed when in conjunction with definitions of what rights the unborn has.

Ultimately, the weight of mothers who wish to raise their children and protect them as best they can come first in my consideration and priority of thought when it comes to the issue of abortion as a whole. That is perhaps a rather bias and sexist view but its the most moral position i feel i can hold in the current environment we have and the laws and way they are written.

In my perfect world.... Science is able to accurately determine when the first brain activities take place, and in my opinion that is when a fetus becomes a person. In my perfect world... Abortion is legal until that point, and after that only in cases of jeopardy to the mother. It's not that I don't value the fetus before that. I still find it a sad occasion... As does I'm sure the vast majority of women who have actually had abortions. But up until that point I do not see it as killing a person. I see it as ending the potential of a fetus to become a person. A fetus with no brain activity has no sense of awareness. No pain. Even the most profoundly retarded person ever born is self aware. It may be too philosophical for some... But for me that would be the ideal tipping point.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

In my perfect world.... Science is able to accurately determine when the first brain activities take place, and in my opinion that is when a fetus becomes a person. In my perfect world... Abortion is legal until that point, and after that only in cases of jeopardy to the mother. It's not that I don't value the fetus before that. I still find it a sad occasion... As does I'm sure the vast majority of women who have actually had abortions. But up until that point I do not see it as killing a person. I see it as ending the potential of a fetus to become a person. A fetus with no brain activity has no sense of awareness. No pain. Even the most profoundly retarded person ever born is self aware. It may be too philosophical for some... But for me that would be the ideal tipping point.

In the real world, science can determine that the child you think isn't worthy to live, is equally a member of the same species. A human being.

That is indisputable.

Your defense is to call it "not a person", well history has many examples of some human beings being defined by others as "non-persons" or "less than human", always to their detriment.

Originally Posted by 9aces

In the real world, science can determine that the child you think isn't worthy to live, is equally a member of the same species. A human being.

That is indisputable.

Your defense is to call it "not a person", well history has many examples of some human beings being defined by others as "non-persons" or "less than human", always to their detriment.

You are free to believe as you do... as am I. Let's look at the opposite end. I've had a terrible illness or injury and am now braindead. Everything that made me me, is dead. Please feel free to take out the shell that once housed me. The earliest stages of a fetus are also the shell that will one day house an individual. I think... therefore I am.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

You are free to believe as you do... as am I. Let's look at the opposite end. I've had a terrible illness or injury and am now braindead. Everything that made me me, is dead. Please feel free to take out the shell that once housed me. The earliest stages of a fetus are also the shell that will one day house an individual. I think... therefore I am.

A comatose patients doctor talks with family ... "Well generally "family member" someone with these particular injuries will recover in ex period of time. Recovery is approx. x%. Or maybe no expected recovery or brain activity.

As a timeline ... the respect we show a "born" comatose human is to determine when and if they will be thinking again. Much effort is put forth to determine that point in time.

As a timeline ... the respect we show an unborn is not to acknowledge they will be thinking in 9 months. No effort is put forth to acknowledge this determined point in time.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

You are free to believe as you do... as am I. Let's look at the opposite end. I've had a terrible illness or injury and am now braindead. Everything that made me me, is dead. Please feel free to take out the shell that once housed me. The earliest stages of a fetus are also the shell that will one day house an individual. I think... therefore I am.

I think, therefore I am is a subjective way to determine what is human. Genetics and Biology don't do subjective very well, they are quite black and white on the issue. A is A.

You are free to decide what becomes of you, what you are choosing however, is what becomes of another human being. Without their choice, without their ability to even protest their own death.

You are stating you believe you have superior rights to another human being.

Originally Posted by michael h

Thats the importance of reading and understanding. I reread it and I see no "opening" ... yet I've read more to understand the topic:

Basically reading is fundamental to understanding : Some topics discussed in the link I gave you.

WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR DISTINGUISHING
DIFFERENT TYPES OF CELLS?

Okay, let's take a look at your topics:

In considering the question of when the life of a new human being commences, we
must first address the more fundamental question of when a new cell, distinct from
sperm and egg, comes into existence: when during the interactions of sperm and egg
do we observe the formation of a new cell with both a material composition and a
developmental pathway (i.e., a pattern of cell behavior) that are distinct from the
cells giving rise to it?

WHY must we take a look at when a new cell distinct from a sperm and egg comes into existence? The only reason I see for this in that topic is that the writer already made the arbitrary decision that the sperm/egg combo is not a 2-celled human organism. I say it is arbitrary because the writer does not explain in that topic why it is so.

HOW DOES THE ZYGOTE DIFFER
FROM SPERM AND EGG?

Okay, they differ. So what? Let's assume the zygote is further along the stages of development towards an adult human than a sperm/egg combo is. Once again no mention of why a sperm/egg combo cannot be a 2-celled individual organism.

IS THE ZYGOTE MERELY A NEW HUMAN CELL OR
IS IT A NEW HUMAN INDIVIDUAL

Ah yes, my favorite part. She gives 2 definitions of "organism," but she admits that only one comes from a medical dictionary. The first could apply to just about anything, like a church or corporation for example.

“(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate
elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function
in the whole

And she even claims that the “goal” of both sperm and egg is to find each other and to fuse, implying that they are interdependent elements with relations and properties determined by their function in the whole. So ignoring for a moment that the definition is not really a "medical" one but a general one from a regular English dictionary, it can be applied to the sperm/egg combo based on her own statements.

Now the second definition, one which she is quite proud of apparently, does come from a more relevant source.

an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by
means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being

Ah, organ. Let's use the same source to define that word:

a differentiated structure (as a heart or kidney) consisting of cells and tissues and performing some specific function in an organism

Obviously, a heart or kidney is made up of millions of cells, and in fact, the definition requires that it be made up of cells. A zygote is a single cell and thus cannot contain any organs, as they are made up of millions of cells.

Her own source blows her theory out of the water, but of course she won't admit that.

WHY ISN’T SYNGAMY THE BEGINNING
OF A NEW HUMAN LIFE?

Why is this important? Did I say that syngamy was the beginning of human life? No.

WHAT ARE PARTHENOTES, HYDATIDIFORM
MOLES, AND CLONES?

Once again, the relevance of this to our discussion is...what? I can see how the first few sections are relevant, but this?

DOES A HUMAN BEING CONTROL
ITS OWN DEVELOPMENT OR IS
IT “MANUFACTURED”?

And again, this appears to argue against the ideas that life begins at the end of embryogenesis or at birth, which is not what we're talking about. The earlier sections address what we're talking about, so I don't see why you needed to post this. Does copying and pasting more text give you a feeling of accomplishment?

Here is a link for anyone interested in the science: http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/...life_print.pdf

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Nope. Nothing of the sort. I even demonstrated how one of your own quote in a post backed me up. It's not my fault you cannot understand something so simple. Your analysis is horrible and I've given you a metric shit-ton of better definitions. Your comprehension is not my responsibility.

I've already shown how the paper's own source contradicts itself, not to mention that it uses a general definition from merriam-webster to support its point and take attention away from the medically-focused definition.

Originally Posted by Slon

Okay, let's take a look at your topics:

In considering the question of when the life of a new human being commences, we
must first address the more fundamental question of when a new cell, distinct from
sperm and egg, comes into existence: when during the interactions of sperm and egg
do we observe the formation of a new cell with both a material composition and a
developmental pathway (i.e., a pattern of cell behavior) that are distinct from the
cells giving rise to it?

WHY must we take a look at when a new cell distinct from a sperm and egg comes into existence? The only reason I see for this in that topic is that the writer already made the arbitrary decision that the sperm/egg combo is not a 2-celled human organism. I say it is arbitrary because the writer does not explain in that topic why it is so.Okay, they differ. So what? The zygote is further along the stages of development towards an adult human than a sperm/egg combo is. Once again no mention of why a sperm/egg combo cannot be a 2-celled individual organism.Ah yes, my favorite part. She gives 2 definitions of "organism," but she admits that only one comes from a medical dictionary. The first could apply to just about anything, like a church or corporation for example.

“(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate
elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function
in the whole

And she even claims that the “goal” of both sperm and egg is to find each other and to fuse, implying that they are interdependent elements with relations and properties determined by their function in the whole. So ignoring for a moment that the definition is not really a "medical" one but a general one from a regular English dictionary, it can be applied to the sperm/egg combo based on her own statements.

Now the second definition, one which she is quite proud of apparently, does come from a more relevant source.

an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by
means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being

Ah, organ. Let's use the same source to define that word:

a differentiated structure (as a heart or kidney) consisting of cells and tissues and performing some specific function in an organism

Obviously, a heart or kidney is made up of millions of cells, and in fact, the definition requires that it be made up of cells. A zygote is a single cell and thus cannot contain any organs, as they are made up of millions of cells.

Her own source blows her theory out of the water, but of course she won't admit that.

Why is this important? Did I say that syngamy was the beginning of human life? No.Once again, the relevance of this to our discussion is...what? I can see how the first few sections are relevant, but this?And again, this appears to argue against the ideas that life begins at the end of embryogenesis or at birth, which is not what we're talking about. The earlier sections address what we're talking about, so I don't see why you needed to post this. Does copying and pasting more text give you a feeling of accomplishment?

I pretty much rely on rational thought processes. I had a parent who worked at MIT tell me man never went to the moon ... it was all fabricated. Now I've personally machined parts for the RL-10 and have no reason to believe technology was substandard enough for a moon trip not to happen. I also know God exists and have no rational or scientific reason to believe different. Now rationally why should I discard current scientific knowledge because you say its wrong? I've no reason to believe the scientific knowledge of biology is fabricated.

How are you qualified to help me reconsider my position of trusting current scientific knowledge?

At best your in a sociology class where the assignment is to convince someone to disregard rational thought and science. Whats your qualifications?

Originally Posted by michael h

I pretty much rely on rational thought processes. I had a parent who worked at MIT tell me man never went to the moon ... it was all fabricated. Now I've personally machined parts for the RL-10 and have no reason to believe technology was substandard enough for a moon trip not to happen. I also know God exists and have no rational or scientific reason to believe different. Now rationally why should I discard current scientific knowledge because you say its wrong? I've no reason to believe the scientific knowledge of biology is fabricated.

How are you qualified to help me reconsider my position of trusting current scientific knowledge?

At best your in a sociology class where the assignment is to convince someone to disregard rational thought and science. Whats your qualifications?

First of all, this is not the worldwide entirety of current scientific knowledge. This is one paper written by one person.

Second, why do you need my qualifications? Am I asking you to take my word for it? No. I'm using the text of this paper and the sources cited by it to discredit it.

For example, the author writes that an organism is defined as ... an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being. She writes that The second definition is also given verbatim by the National Library of Medicine, administered by the National Institutes of Health (Medical Dictionary: MedlinePlus). She makes sure to point it out and also uses that definition in a critical part of her paper. This tells me that she considers it a reputable source or at least wants her readers to consider it as such. Let's take a look at that again:

organism: an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being. (source: medlineplus)

organ: a differentiated structure (as a heart or kidney) consisting of cells and tissues and performing some specific function in an organism (source: medlineplus)

So according to the medical source that she used, an organism consists of organs, which consist of cells. A single cell, a zygote, cannot contain organs made up of cells. Cells means more than 1. One cell cannot contain organs made up of millions of cells. It's logically impossible. Thus a zygote cannot be an organism, but the author writes that it is, using that very definition, nonetheless.

Her conclusion in that relevant section:

Based on a scientific description of fertilization, fusion of sperm and egg in the
“moment of conception” generates a new human cell, the zygote, with composition
and behavior distinct from that of either gamete. Moreover, this cell is not merely a
unique human cell, but a cell with all the properties of a fully complete (albeit immature)
human organism; it is “an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life
by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.”25

Ah yes, the single cell that contains organs made up of millions of cells.



Notice that I used strictly this woman's paper and a loudly touted and quoted source of her choice to discredit what she said. I also made sure to use that source and apply it to the same sentence she used it for.

I'm looking rational relevance. If you had a new study stating something different then current science ... I'd consider it. There is nothing new here.

What makes you qualified to dispense with current scientific knowledge?

Originally Posted by michael h

I'm looking rational relevance. If you had a new study stating something different then current science ... I'd consider it. There is nothing new here.

What makes you qualified to dispense with current scientific knowledge?

This is not "current scientific knowledge." This is one woman's paper and opinion. What you're doing now is engaging in ad hominem and misuse of authority. I explained to you why the document is faulty. Instead of reading what I wrote and making your own conclusions (which are pretty simple to make IMO), you're engaging in logical fallacy and voluntary ignorance.

I also quoted an expert sperm researcher who has made discoveries in fields very relevant to our discussion. Are you really telling me that this "white paper," which I have shown to be faulty, trumps the document I quoted simply because this white paper is more recent?