Abortion

I'll repeat in short text.

BOTH Wings can be correct on this issue.

The only thing stopping them is providing laws that prevent the necessity of Abortion, mostly opposed by the Right Wing.

Unfit parents shouldn't raise a child, they end up being the plague in our society, then the Right Wing cries and says "let them die"
 
Anti-Party said:
I'll repeat in short text.

BOTH Wings can be correct on this issue.

The only thing stopping them is providing laws that prevent the necessity of Abortion, mostly opposed by the Right Wing.

Unfit parents shouldn't raise a child, they end up being the plague in our society, then the Right Wing cries and says "let them die"
Click to expand...

Crap, I'll have to explain that because not everyone has common sense.

People get their life long values as a child. If they aren't taught that as a child, they decide routes;

A) Be just like their parents (most do)
B) Decide to be a better person. (I did)

It's why I don't hate blacks and I don't hit my kids. I still uphold the true redneck qualities.
 
apple0154 said:
It's not a point of science being mistaken the mother is 101 different human beings. It's the point that differing DNA samples do not mean there are different human beings. That's the point. Why can't you see that?

The scientist or the person doing the test has to know the differing DNA did not come from the same individual before it can make any other claim. Just the fact there are two unique DNA samples does not mean there are two unique human beings.
Click to expand...
But an individual cannot produce two different kinds of DNA. In the case where the two twins 'fused', the DNA came from two separate individuals. In every example you provided where one individual had two different sets of DNA, the other set originally came from a different individual. No one individual produced two sets of DNA by himself or herself. So it does mean that there were at one point two individuals involved if there are two separate sets of genetic code.
But anyways, you'll have to actually provide some credible science that an unborn is something other than an individual human being from the moment of conception, otherwise you're just operating off of your opinion.
 
WoLong said:
But an individual cannot produce two different kinds of DNA. In the case where the two twins 'fused', the DNA came from two separate individuals. In every example you provided where one individual had two different sets of DNA, the other set originally came from a different individual. No one individual produced two sets of DNA by himself or herself. So it does mean that there were at one point two individuals involved if there are two separate sets of genetic code.
But anyways, you'll have to actually provide some credible science that an unborn is something other than an individual human being from the moment of conception, otherwise you're just operating off of your opinion.
Click to expand...

How do we know that? Where is the data showing there were two separate fertilized cells or conceptions and one absorbed the other? Why didn't the absorbed set absorb the other one instead? How do we know the set of DNA that was absorbed contained all the necessary ingredients to become an individual? Maybe a missing element was the cause of it being absorbed. What do we really know? So many unanswered questions yet people jump to the conclusion it was an individual.

And what is an individual? What constitutes a human being? So many unanswered questions yet people are so willing to strip women of the right to their own body. In any other situation with such lack of knowledge on the subject people wouldn't even consider it.

They've just recently realized a fetus' cells can pass through the blood/brain barrier.

(Excerpt) Some women always have men on the brain. And some women literally have men in their brains. A new study in PloS ONE found that quite a few female brains contain male DNA. This genetic material presumably passes into a mother while she is pregnant with a male fetus. Although we already knew that fetal cells can enter a mother’s body, until now, it was unknown whether the cells could pass into the brain as well, because the blood brain barrier normally blocks large molecules and foreign substances from entering the brain. (End)
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2012/09/27/how-does-male-dna-get-into-a-womans-brain/

Then we have fetal cells that repair the mother's body. (Excerpt) How the Heck: The researchers started with two lines of mice: normal mice and mice genetically engineered to express green fluorescent protein (GFP), which glows a distinctive green when exposed to blue light, in their cells. They mated normal female mice with GFP-producing male mice. This meant that half the resulting fetuses had the GFP gene, too, making their cells glow, too. Twelve days later—a little less than two-thirds of the way through a normal mouse pregnancy—the researchers gave half the pregnant mice heart attacks.

When the scientists examined the female mice’s heart tissue two weeks after the heart attacks, they found lots of glowing green tissue—cells that came from the fetus—in the mom’s heart. Mice who had heart attacks had eight times as many cells from the fetus in their hearts as mice who hadn’t had a heart attack did, meaning the high volume of fetal cells was a response to the heart attack.

What’s more, the embryo’s stem cells had differentiated into various types of heart tissue, including cardiomyocytes, the rhythmically contracting muscle cells that produce a heartbeat.

Doctors have observed that women who experience weakness of the heart during pregnancy or shortly after giving birth have better recovery rates than any other group of heart failure patients. This study suggests that fetal stem cells may help human mothers, as well as mice, recover from heart damage. It may also explain another curious clinical observation: The hearts of two women who suffered from severe heart weakness were later found to contain cells derived from the cells of a male fetus years after they gave birth to their sons.

The same thing seems to hold true for other organs. When pregnant women have damage in other organs, including the brain, lung, and liver, earlier studies have shown, fetal cells show up there, too. (End)
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/8...d-stem-cells-to-mom-to-fix-her-damaged-heart/

Fetal cells knowing there is damage to the mother's organs and going to fix it. And it's quite a trip. Through the umbilical cord to the placenta, then change trains and get on the the mommy transportation system and, finally, through the blood/organ barrier. Then, in certain cases, the fetal cell transforms into the type of cell that's required to fix the damage.

If fetal cells can transform into muscle cells, brain cells, heart cells, etc. and a fetus is composed of fetal cells then enough of them, working together, could build a human being. Of course, that begs a number of questions like, "How many cells are necessary to do that? While the fetus may have cells that can build a heart does it have ones that can build a kidney or a liver or a brain? Well, we know there are cases where the fetus does not have those cells such as in cases of anencephaly. And what about those 50% of conceptions that spontaneously abort? Knowing there are fetuses that are missing certain cells and/or certain "abilities" it's logical to conclude that may be a big factor in spontaneous abortions. Of course, we don't know and that's the point. We don't know and until we do the discussion isn't about a woman and another human being (fetus) because we don't even know if there is another human being.

And that's not just my opinion. It's a common sense and logical conclusion.
 
apple0154 said:
The scientist or the person doing the test has to know the differing DNA did not come from the same individual before it can make any other claim.
Click to expand...

so your claim that the fetus is not a unique human being is based upon the assumption that the person gathering the samples isn't smart enough to know whether he's collecting tissue from a fetus or the mother's liver?.......dude, we're talking about whether SCIENCE can distinguish between them.....even a butcher would be able to determine that much.....
 
apple0154 said:
How do we know that? Where is the data showing there were two separate fertilized cells or conceptions and one absorbed the other? Why didn't the absorbed set absorb the other one instead? How do we know the set of DNA that was absorbed contained all the necessary ingredients to become an individual? Maybe a missing element was the cause of it being absorbed. What do we really know? So many unanswered questions yet people jump to the conclusion it was an individual.

And what is an individual? What constitutes a human being? So many unanswered questions yet people are so willing to strip women of the right to their own body. In any other situation with such lack of knowledge on the subject people wouldn't even consider it.

They've just recently realized a fetus' cells can pass through the blood/brain barrier.

(Excerpt) Some women always have men on the brain. And some women literally have men in their brains. A new study in PloS ONE found that quite a few female brains contain male DNA. This genetic material presumably passes into a mother while she is pregnant with a male fetus. Although we already knew that fetal cells can enter a mother’s body, until now, it was unknown whether the cells could pass into the brain as well, because the blood brain barrier normally blocks large molecules and foreign substances from entering the brain. (End)
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2012/09/27/how-does-male-dna-get-into-a-womans-brain/

Then we have fetal cells that repair the mother's body. (Excerpt) How the Heck: The researchers started with two lines of mice: normal mice and mice genetically engineered to express green fluorescent protein (GFP), which glows a distinctive green when exposed to blue light, in their cells. They mated normal female mice with GFP-producing male mice. This meant that half the resulting fetuses had the GFP gene, too, making their cells glow, too. Twelve days later—a little less than two-thirds of the way through a normal mouse pregnancy—the researchers gave half the pregnant mice heart attacks.

When the scientists examined the female mice’s heart tissue two weeks after the heart attacks, they found lots of glowing green tissue—cells that came from the fetus—in the mom’s heart. Mice who had heart attacks had eight times as many cells from the fetus in their hearts as mice who hadn’t had a heart attack did, meaning the high volume of fetal cells was a response to the heart attack.

What’s more, the embryo’s stem cells had differentiated into various types of heart tissue, including cardiomyocytes, the rhythmically contracting muscle cells that produce a heartbeat.

Doctors have observed that women who experience weakness of the heart during pregnancy or shortly after giving birth have better recovery rates than any other group of heart failure patients. This study suggests that fetal stem cells may help human mothers, as well as mice, recover from heart damage. It may also explain another curious clinical observation: The hearts of two women who suffered from severe heart weakness were later found to contain cells derived from the cells of a male fetus years after they gave birth to their sons.

The same thing seems to hold true for other organs. When pregnant women have damage in other organs, including the brain, lung, and liver, earlier studies have shown, fetal cells show up there, too. (End)
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/8...d-stem-cells-to-mom-to-fix-her-damaged-heart/

Fetal cells knowing there is damage to the mother's organs and going to fix it. And it's quite a trip. Through the umbilical cord to the placenta, then change trains and get on the the mommy transportation system and, finally, through the blood/organ barrier. Then, in certain cases, the fetal cell transforms into the type of cell that's required to fix the damage.

If fetal cells can transform into muscle cells, brain cells, heart cells, etc. and a fetus is composed of fetal cells then enough of them, working together, could build a human being. Of course, that begs a number of questions like, "How many cells are necessary to do that? While the fetus may have cells that can build a heart does it have ones that can build a kidney or a liver or a brain? Well, we know there are cases where the fetus does not have those cells such as in cases of anencephaly. And what about those 50% of conceptions that spontaneously abort? Knowing there are fetuses that are missing certain cells and/or certain "abilities" it's logical to conclude that may be a big factor in spontaneous abortions. Of course, we don't know and that's the point. We don't know and until we do the discussion isn't about a woman and another human being (fetus) because we don't even know if there is another human being.

And that's not just my opinion. It's a common sense and logical conclusion.
Click to expand...
Yet again in all of your examples one individual simply possesses genetic code that came from another individual. In none of your examples has an individual produced two sets of DNA on their own. Human genetic code can only come from an individual human being, one individual cannot produce two sets of genetic code on their own.

Your position is based on your opinion that an unborn is not an individual human being, an opinion that's contrary to endless amounts of credible science.
 
WoLong said:
There is a hierarchy of rights, and the right to life trumps every other right. Simply because an unborn is growing in a mother's body does not give her the right to end its life. The law already forbids everyone in this country from taking life, I fail to see why you think a pregnant woman has the right to kill.
Click to expand...

There is a hierarchy of humans, too. Kids don't get to disobey their parents, and vegetables get their lung machines turned off by others. How does that fit in? I'll tell you how. If you have no brain, you are not a sentient being, even if you are human.
 
Paul Siraisi said:
There is a hierarchy of humans, too. Kids don't get to disobey their parents, and vegetables get their lung machines turned off by others. How does that fit in? I'll tell you how. If you have no brain, you are not a sentient being, even if you are human.
Click to expand...

Rights are granted to Persons, not sentient beings. By the way, a baby is usually not sentient until about 15-18 months. Do you support allowing the mother to legally end its life until it attains sentience?
 
WoLong said:
Rights are granted to Persons, not sentient beings. By the way, a baby is usually not sentient until about 15-18 months. Do you support allowing the mother to legally end its life until it attains sentience?
Click to expand...

Show me a non-sentient person.

And yes I do.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so your claim that the fetus is not a unique human being is based upon the assumption that the person gathering the samples isn't smart enough to know whether he's collecting tissue from a fetus or the mother's liver?.......dude, we're talking about whether SCIENCE can distinguish between them.....even a butcher would be able to determine that much.....
Click to expand...

So your claim is the person doing the test is the same person who took the sample? The person doing the test personally removed tissue, blood or whatever from a fetus? I don't think so.

In any case that does not change the fact that DNA can not always indentify a unique human being. As I said before if the person doing DNA testing receives two DNA samples he/she would not know if they were from two different human beings or they were from one human being who was a chimera.

Let me spell this out for you. If the person doing the testing can not determine if two unique samples are from one person or two people common sense and logic dictates a unique DNA sample can not determine the existence of a unique human being. What is so difficult to grasp here?

Furthermore, DNA can only determine human material, not a human being. Let's say there are two articles of clothing found in a motel room and they contain two distinct types of DNA. Let's say a jacket and a tie. Does that mean there were two human beings in that room? No, it does not. There could have been one human being who had borrowed a tie from a friend.

The assertion by anti-abortionists that DNA can prove the existence of a unique human being is not true and if they keep making that assertion after being informed then they are lying. That is one of the problems with anti-abortionists/anti-abortion propaganda. They state something as a given fact when it is not. The same with the fertilized cell being a human being. The genetic makeup is not known, however, it is known 50% spontaneously abort. It is known some slip by and there are births with horrendous deformaties. The genetic makeup was askew, to say the least.

It is serious enough to attempt to interfere with the rights of women but it's downright shameful to try and do so with so little concrete evidence and by elaborating/distorting facts. The only ones the anti-abortionists are harming are themselves because if true information comes along it will be treated like the proverbial "cry wolf". Women have experienced the lies for thousands of years regarding souls, going back to Aristotle, to the church trying to convince them to produce children as fodder for the slaughter of war.

It's like that old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." If a generation is considered 25 years women have been fooled for over 100 generations. Surely anyone and everyone can understand there can be no "ifs" or "ands" or "buts" when something is offered as proof. This time, it has to be iron-clad. No exceptions. No doubts. Anything less is dismissed out of hand, and rightly so, and the more anti-abortionists push half truths the more difficult it will be to change things should some proof be found.

We saw the evidence during the election. Anti-abortionists were exposed and people have no tolerance for them. None.

On that note I'm out of here. Time to play in the snow. :)
 
apple0154 said:
So your claim is the person doing the test is the same person who took the sample? The person doing the test personally removed tissue, blood or whatever from a fetus? I don't think so.

In any case that does not change the fact that DNA can not always indentify a unique human being. As I said before if the person doing DNA testing receives two DNA samples he/she would not know if they were from two different human beings or they were from one human being who was a chimera.

Let me spell this out for you. If the person doing the testing can not determine if two unique samples are from one person or two people common sense and logic dictates a unique DNA sample can not determine the existence of a unique human being. What is so difficult to grasp here?

Furthermore, DNA can only determine human material, not a human being. Let's say there are two articles of clothing found in a motel room and they contain two distinct types of DNA. Let's say a jacket and a tie. Does that mean there were two human beings in that room? No, it does not. There could have been one human being who had borrowed a tie from a friend.

The assertion by anti-abortionists that DNA can prove the existence of a unique human being is not true and if they keep making that assertion after being informed then they are lying. That is one of the problems with anti-abortionists/anti-abortion propaganda. They state something as a given fact when it is not. The same with the fertilized cell being a human being. The genetic makeup is not known, however, it is known 50% spontaneously abort. It is known some slip by and there are births with horrendous deformaties. The genetic makeup was askew, to say the least.
Click to expand...

Genetic code is always proof that a human being existed who it came from, and one human cannot produce two sets of genetic code. The genetic code that an unborn possesses is its own and does not belong to any other human being. No matter how many times you repeat the same faith-driven argument it will not become true.
 
WoLong said:
Genetic code is always proof that a human being existed who it came from, and one human cannot produce two sets of genetic code. The genetic code that an unborn possesses is its own and does not belong to any other human being. No matter how many times you repeat the same faith-driven argument it will not become true.
Click to expand...

The DNA is human material. Not a human being. To classify a clump of cells that are unable to survive, a clump that gets absorbed, as a "being" of any kind is a bit of a stretch. Nobody knows if that clump of cells contained all the necessary ingredients just like a human liver with a unique DNA is not a human being.
 
apple0154 said:
The DNA is human material. Not a human being. To classify a clump of cells that are unable to survive, a clump that gets absorbed, as a "being" of any kind is a bit of a stretch. Nobody knows if that clump of cells contained all the necessary ingredients just like a human liver with a unique DNA is not a human being.
Click to expand...
Everyone is a 'clump of cells', and the ability to survive on your own is not a required prerequisite to be a human being. And your liver does not have a unique genetic code, unlike an unborn.
 
WoLong said:
Everyone is a 'clump of cells', and the ability to survive on your own is not a required prerequisite to be a human being. And your liver does not have a unique genetic code, unlike an unborn.
Click to expand...

See, this is the error you continually make. A person can have a liver that has a unique genetic code. They are referred to as a chimera and that's been my point all along. A unique genetic code does not unquestionably denote a unique human being. I have posted examples of ONE human being possessing TWO genetic codes. There are only two possible explanations/conclusions one can draw. Either the person is really two people, which is absurd, or a unique genetic code does not necessarily denote a unique human being. Where is the difficulty understanding something so basic?

As for the ability to survive not being a prerequisite for a human being we are talking about one human being supposedly absorbing another one. Absorbing. This is invasion of the body snatchers material.
 
apple0154 said:
So your claim is the person doing the test is the same person who took the sample?
Click to expand...

lol, no....but I am assuming that if we're talking about what science is capable to do, then they are probably capable of at least a modicum of communication......

In any case that does not change the fact that DNA can not always indentify a unique human being.
Click to expand...

but it can.....100% of the time.....even in the case of your chimera, science has identified they are a VERY unique human being.......

What is so difficult to grasp here?
Click to expand...

your refusal to admit a very simple truth.....

Furthermore, DNA can only determine human material, not a human being.
Click to expand...

as defined in this thread it can quite easily.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top