Abortion

[apple0154]

Yes, most everyone who passed high school biology knows, you and the guy in the video may not.

It’s a woman doing the explaining in the video so, obviously, you never watched it.

Well, geneticists thought it, ever since the discovery of DNA. I've not argued the mother's body doesn't provide some essential elements to the growth and development of the living human organism inside her. However, you can't pick an orange from an orange tree when it's green and claim it isn't an orange because it's green.

You’re right about the green orange because it’s already an orange. But you can’t pick an orange bud from an orange tree and claim it’s an orange. Or say a seed is an orange. Or a container of orange juice is an orange even though they all contain “orange DNA”.

There is really no such thing as a "fertilized cell." Successful fertilization of a cell involves another cell fusing, and reproduction of cells, so there is no longer a single cell. There are multiple cells, working in organization with each other to produce more cells. This is the definition of an organism. It is the process of cell reproduction you seek to abort from. Now, we can have a discussion and say "a fertilized cell" but what is meant, is actually more than a single cell, it is two fused cells which have reproduced at least a third cell, perhaps many more, and will produce trillions and trillions of cells eventually, if the organism is not terminated and this process aborted or stopped. You want to over-use the term, out of context, because a single cell seems innocuous, and it is. If we were talking about the woman aborting a single egg cell, she does that monthly during menstruation. But the so-called "fertilized cell" we are discussing, isn't a single cell at all. It stopped being that when the fertilization was successful, and started being a living multi-cell human organism. We should call it that.

Fertilized cell? Embryo? Try to understand the following. I've even underlined points to help you.

(Excerpt) Between 50 and 70 percent of first-trimester miscarriages are thought to be random events caused by chromosomal abnormalities in the fertilized egg. Most often, this means that the egg or sperm had the wrong number of chromosomes, and as a result, the fertilized egg can't develop normally.

Sometimes a miscarriage is caused by problems that occur during the delicate process of early development. This would include an egg that doesn't implant properly in the uterus or an embryo with structural defects that prevent it from developing……

When the fertilized egg has chromosomal problems, you may end up with what's sometimes called a blighted ovum (now usually referred to in medical circles as an early pregnancy failure). In this case, the fertilized egg implants in the uterus and the placenta and gestational sac begin to develop, but the resulting embryo either stops developing very early or doesn't form at all. (End)
http://www.babycenter.com/0_understanding-miscarriage_252.bc

I don't know what this means. DNA is an acid molecule we discovered not terribly long ago, and what we know is, it's a 'blueprint' for the organism it belongs to. It's also like a 'fingerprint' of that organism, and can distinguish it from others, because it is unique. It doesn't really have much to do with defining living organisms, that was discovered many years ago, and hasn't changed with the discovery of DNA.

DNA is the thing anti-abortionists have jumped on to say it proves the existence of a human being and it does not. It does not prove the existence of a distinct organism either. Unique DNA taken from a woman, DNA differing from her skin or blood DNA, does not prove the existence of another human being. It could be her liver in the case of chimeras. Or a kidney.

So, when anti-abortionists say unique DNA proves the fetus is a human being, is separate from the woman, it not part of the woman, that’s simply not true as her liver can have unique DNA and it is not a human being and it is part of the woman. Anti-abortionists claim unique DNA proves life begins at conception and it does no such thing. It simply shows the conception is composed of human material and I think most people understood that a long time ago.

As the article points out chromosomal problems and structural defects (faulty building products) prevent the construction of a human being. The necessary components were never there. That is the rational and logical conclusion as, occasionally, we witness births where babies are missing parts (arms, legs, partial brain, etc.)

Well then, we need to completely outlaw any and all abortions immediately! What the hell are we allowing this hideous practice for, if women have such powers? .......Have you ever considered running for Senator, Apple? Just curious!

In this case, considering your inability to understand, a grade school teacher would be much more valuable than a Senator.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You’re right about the green orange because it’s already an orange. But you can’t pick an orange bud from an orange tree and claim it’s an orange. Or say a seed is an orange. Or a container of orange juice is an orange even though they all contain “orange DNA”.

An orange isn't an organism. The tree it grows on is, and a blossom will produce an orange. Once the orange exists, we can't call it something else, we can't say it's not an orange, even if it's not fully developed. But oranges are poor subjects for analogy here, because oranges aren't ever organisms. Plants have a different system of reproduction, so comparing human organisms to plants, with regard to reproduction, is pointless.

Fertilized cell? Embryo? Try to understand the following. I've even underlined points to help you.

(Excerpt) Between 50 and 70 percent of first-trimester miscarriages are thought to be random events caused by chromosomal abnormalities in the fertilized egg. Most often, this means that the egg or sperm had the wrong number of chromosomes, and as a result, the fertilized egg can't develop normally.

Sometimes a miscarriage is caused by problems that occur during the delicate process of early development. This would include an egg that doesn't implant properly in the uterus or an embryo with structural defects that prevent it from developing……

When the fertilized egg has chromosomal problems, you may end up with what's sometimes called a blighted ovum (now usually referred to in medical circles as an early pregnancy failure). In this case, the fertilized egg implants in the uterus and the placenta and gestational sac begin to develop, but the resulting embryo either stops developing very early or doesn't form at all. (End)
http://www.babycenter.com/0_understa...arriage_252.bc

You can keep repeating this every month or so, as you've done the past few years, but it's never going to negate the fact that if ANYTHING was developed and produced by the fertilized cell, an organism existed. It doesn't matter what percentage of organisms die, or how many organisms never make it, or how many of the organisms have defects, they are still organisms if they produced even one cell. Now, I don't know what mental problem makes you keep posting this over and over, even though it has been refuted every time, but for whatever reason, this is what you do. But just like last month, it's still wrong, you've still been corrected, and this will continue to be the case next month, when you decide to post it again.

DNA is the thing anti-abortionists have jumped on

But I haven't. I didn't mention DNA, because it has nothing to do with determining when an organism exists. DNA is useful in determining what kind of 'blueprint' an organism has, it's genetic makeup, and this may be helpful in determining heredity of the organism, but as you've pointed out, DNA doesn't tell if something is living or dead, or whether an organism exists. Biology doesn't need DNA to determine this, we've known for years, what constitutes an organism.

First an egg exists, and when it becomes successfully fertilized by the male sperm cell, it begins to reproduce more cells, all on its own, without any scientists and petri dishes, without any contribution from mom. When this happens, it can be two possibilities; A living organism has come to exist, or... the laws of the universe stopped and matter is creating matter. Since the probability of the laws of the universe not working is so unlikely, we can safely assume an organism is alive and exists. You even slip up now and then, and admit that 50% of them "spontaneously abort" and they couldn't do this if they weren't living. For something to "die" it has to be alive first, it can't die but never be alive.

In this case, considering your inability to understand, a grade school teacher would be much more valuable than a Senator.

When you go out on a limb and claim "a pregnant woman can 'trick' a fertilized cell into growing or not growing," I think it qualifies you for Senator automatically.

 

[apple0154]

[

An orange isn't an organism. The tree it grows on is, and a blossom will produce an orange. Once the orange exists, we can't call it something else, we can't say it's not an orange, even if it's not fully developed. But oranges are poor subjects for analogy here, because oranges aren't ever organisms. Plants have a different system of reproduction, so comparing human organisms to plants, with regard to reproduction, is pointless.

OK. Now I know you're either a troll or a nutter. YOU brought up oranges in msg #417. You wrote, "However, you can't pick an orange from an orange tree when it's green and claim it isn't an orange because it's green." That was the first mention of an orange and YOU mentioned it. If you're going to carry on like this I'm not going to debate you.

You can keep repeating this every month or so, as you've done the past few years, but it's never going to negate the fact that if ANYTHING was developed and produced by the fertilized cell, an organism existed. It doesn't matter what percentage of organisms die, or how many organisms never make it, or how many of the organisms have defects, they are still organisms if they produced even one cell. Now, I don't know what mental problem makes you keep posting this over and over, even though it has been refuted every time, but for whatever reason, this is what you do. But just like last month, it's still wrong, you've still been corrected, and this will continue to be the case next month, when you decide to post it again.

As I said before scientists can name anything any thing they want but you miss two points. First, an organism is supposed to be able to carry on the processes of life. To imply a fertilized cell or conception that lived, like a piece of skin, for 24 hours carried on the processes of life is absurd. The absurdity continues to the second point suggesting such a thing is a human being.

Try to understand that when an organ is packed in a box for transport to another location it is living while it is in transport. It is in a box, refrigerated (cooled), still alive but dying. The same can and most likely does occur when a cell is fertilized or a conception take place and the resultant product dies shortly after. The "product", most likely, is not an organism as it can not and does not carry on the processes of life. It's fine to say that once a cell divides that fulfills the definition of organism. However, nobody knows if the product contains the necessary components to carry on the processes of life, never mind if it's a human being, and considering it does not carry on the processes of life it's reasonable to conclude it's neither an organism nor a human being. And you and others can go on saying it's an organism and it's a human being but common sense has and will continue to prevail.

But I haven't. I didn't mention DNA, because it has nothing to do with determining when an organism exists. DNA is useful in determining what kind of 'blueprint' an organism has, it's genetic makeup, and this may be helpful in determining heredity of the organism, but as you've pointed out, DNA doesn't tell if something is living or dead, or whether an organism exists. Biology doesn't need DNA to determine this, we've known for years, what constitutes an organism.

I said anti-abortionists say DNA proves a conception/fertilized cell/fetus/whatever is a human being and DNA proves no such thing. DNA determines human material, not a human being.

First an egg exists, and when it becomes successfully fertilized by the male sperm cell, it begins to reproduce more cells, all on its own, without any scientists and petri dishes, without any contribution from mom. When this happens, it can be two possibilities; A living organism has come to exist, or... the laws of the universe stopped and matter is creating matter. Since the probability of the laws of the universe not working is so unlikely, we can safely assume an organism is alive and exists. You even slip up now and then, and admit that 50% of them "spontaneously abort" and they couldn't do this if they weren't living. For something to "die" it has to be alive first, it can't die but never be alive.

Just because it's alive does not mean it's an organism or a human being.

When you go out on a limb and claim "a pregnant woman can 'trick' a fertilized cell into growing or not growing," I think it qualifies you for Senator automatically.

Watch the video or do your own research into epigenetics. What do you have against learning? If it's shown the mother can influence the fetus' genes, if it's shown a fetus does depend on the woman to the point of the woman instructing the fetus' DNA/genes/chromosomes what do you have to lose? Wouldn't it be nice to discover the fetus is not the complete packaged unit it's made out to be? Wouldn't it be nice to know abortions are simply removing material that has to be "programmed" by the mother?

Why are you so adamant in your beliefs when it comes to fertilized cells and conceptions and fetuses? It's almost like you don't want to learn the truth. It's like you want to insist an abortion is killing a human being strictly in order to prevent women from obtaining one. Why else would you refuse to learn or, at least, check it out? If we can't make progress on our debate concerning abortion let's see if we can take a look at the reason(s) why you refuse to learn more about the fetal process. Assuming your objection to abortions is based on the idea a fetus is a human being, an independent entity, one would think you'd seek any and all info that may conclude the opposite. Information that may show the woman continually sends signals to the fetus for the entire nine months. Wouldn't you be happy to learn abortion is not the killing of an independent entity? Or would you? That's the question.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

OK. Now I know you're either a troll or a nutter. YOU brought up oranges in msg #417. You wrote, "However, you can't pick an orange from an orange tree when it's green and claim it isn't an orange because it's green." That was the first mention of an orange and YOU mentioned it. If you're going to carry on like this I'm not going to debate you.

I didn't use oranges as analogy for human organisms. And you're not debating me now, debate is when you address points made and make counter-points. You are doing neither here. You continue to repeat the same tired lines from the past two years, and promote some off-site video, and you continue to ignore every point made regarding living organisms. If stubbornly refusing to accept facts were debate, you'd be winning right now, but as it stands, you continue to get your ass kicked.

As I said before scientists can name anything any thing they want but you miss two points. First, an organism is supposed to be able to carry on the processes of life. To imply a fertilized cell or conception that lived, like a piece of skin, for 24 hours carried on the processes of life is absurd. The absurdity continues to the second point suggesting such a thing is a human being.

The organism didn't live "like a piece of skin" it lived like an organism. Skin can't carry on the process of life. In order for a skin cell to live or reproduce, it requires help from a living organism. A fetus is carrying on the process of life, and this is what organisms do. It doesn't have to do it for more than 24 hours, or more than 10 seconds. To qualify as an organism, it has to reproduce one cell, that's all. Now this organism simply can't be anything other than human, and since it's in the state of being, we say it's a 'human being' in the earliest stage of development.

Dozens and dozens of times, this has been repeated to you, and you just continue to ignore it. It's almost as if you believe that you can continue defying scientific fact, just hang in there, repeating your nonsense over and over, and eventually, everyone will get tired of arguing with you and you'll win, but you can't win a debate that neglects scientific fact. Whether I choose to continue responding to you or not, you've lost this debate.

Try to understand that when an organ is packed in a box for transport to another location it is living while it is in transport. It is in a box, refrigerated (cooled), still alive but dying. The same can and most likely does occur when a cell is fertilized or a conception take place and the resultant product dies shortly after. The "product", most likely, is not an organism as it can not and does not carry on the processes of life. It's fine to say that once a cell divides that fulfills the definition of organism. However, nobody knows if the product contains the necessary components to carry on the processes of life, never mind if it's a human being, and considering it does not carry on the processes of life it's reasonable to conclude it's neither an organism nor a human being. And you and others can go on saying it's an organism and it's a human being but common sense has and will continue to prevail.

Try to understand, an organ packed in a box for transport, is NOT A LIVING ORGANISM! It is not carrying on the process of life, it is dependent upon another living organism. The cells are still living, thanks to the living organism which hosted the organ originally, and an artificial man-made environment, but the cells are not reproducing, because the organ isn't an organism. If the organ is not supported, relatively quickly, by a living organism, the cells will lose viability, expire and decay.

When conception happens, the fused sperm and egg cell begin reproducing more cells, and this becomes an organism the moment the first cell is reproduced. Again, organs in a box, do not reproduce cells, they are incapable of this. You continue to make the bizarre claim "the resultant product dies shortly after," but how can something die that isn't yet living? Are you seriously trying to claim it couldn't have been a living organism because it died before it lived? If it reproduced one single cell, it either has to be a living organism, or the laws of the universe stopped working and matter created matter. The host organism didn't reproduce the cells, the fused sperm and egg cell did it. At that point, Apple, whether you want to argue about it until the day you die or not, it became a living organism. By definition. Not only that, but it's scientifically and physically impossible for it to be anything else.

I said anti-abortionists say DNA proves a conception/fertilized cell/fetus/whatever is a human being and DNA proves no such thing. DNA determines human material, not a human being.

But I haven't argued about DNA. Biology is much older and better understood than DNA, which is relatively new. I have completely PWNED your ass with Biology and scientific facts. I have no need to introduce DNA evidence. A living organism exists as soon as a cell is reproduced, because that is how we define living organisms. You haven't refuted this point, and you never will, which is probably why you choose continuing to ignore it. However, you can't even make your own arguments without admitting that something is alive, because it sometimes dies. It can't die if it's not alive, that defies basic logic. So you're PWNED every way on this, including by your own words and arguments.

Just because it's alive does not mean it's an organism or a human being.

Again, an organism is capable of carrying on the process of life. If it reproduced a cell, it carried on this process. From that point, it simply doesn't matter what you want to argue, it became a living human organism in the state of being.

Living cells of ANY organism, can remain alive for a short period of time, and artificial assistance may extend that period of time, but the cells are not capable of reproducing, therefore, they are not a living organism. The fetus, from the point of conception, has been able to reproduce cells. The cell reproduction is not performed by the host organism, it is done by the fetus itself. Again, Apple, these are basic biological facts of science you can't refute. You just want to ignore them and continue blathering your idiocy about skin cells and livers.

Watch the video

No, I don't need to watch a video, and it isn't going to refute what I have stated here. A video isn't going to disprove science, biology, and basic logic. It's obvious you wish to remain mired in denial, whether through ignorance or stubborn refusal to accept the facts, in order to continue supporting abortion on demand. The psychologist in me is curious to know why you so adamantly wish to stick by such a profound illiteracy of science, and show no signs of backing down one bit? --May I posit my evaluation? I think it's because, deep down inside, you know that abortion is wrong, if it is the taking of an innocent human life. This is why you will defiantly crusade against science for 'years', arguing complete and utter nonsense and refusing to accept basic biological facts, as well as physics and logic. You HAVE to be right, or you can't conscientiously support what you are supporting.

This leads me to believe there is hope for you. However, I am an optimist.

 

[apple0154]

I didn't use oranges as analogy for human organisms. And you're not debating me now, debate is when you address points made and make counter-points. You are doing neither here. You continue to repeat the same tired lines from the past two years, and promote some off-site video, and you continue to ignore every point made regarding living organisms. If stubbornly refusing to accept facts were debate, you'd be winning right now, but as it stands, you continue to get your ass kicked.



The organism didn't live "like a piece of skin" it lived like an organism. Skin can't carry on the process of life. In order for a skin cell to live or reproduce, it requires help from a living organism. A fetus is carrying on the process of life, and this is what organisms do. It doesn't have to do it for more than 24 hours, or more than 10 seconds. To qualify as an organism, it has to reproduce one cell, that's all. Now this organism simply can't be anything other than human, and since it's in the state of being, we say it's a 'human being' in the earliest stage of development.

Dozens and dozens of times, this has been repeated to you, and you just continue to ignore it. It's almost as if you believe that you can continue defying scientific fact, just hang in there, repeating your nonsense over and over, and eventually, everyone will get tired of arguing with you and you'll win, but you can't win a debate that neglects scientific fact. Whether I choose to continue responding to you or not, you've lost this debate.



Try to understand, an organ packed in a box for transport, is NOT A LIVING ORGANISM! It is not carrying on the process of life, it is dependent upon another living organism. The cells are still living, thanks to the living organism which hosted the organ originally, and an artificial man-made environment, but the cells are not reproducing, because the organ isn't an organism. If the organ is not supported, relatively quickly, by a living organism, the cells will lose viability, expire and decay.

When conception happens, the fused sperm and egg cell begin reproducing more cells, and this becomes an organism the moment the first cell is reproduced. Again, organs in a box, do not reproduce cells, they are incapable of this. You continue to make the bizarre claim "the resultant product dies shortly after," but how can something die that isn't yet living? Are you seriously trying to claim it couldn't have been a living organism because it died before it lived? If it reproduced one single cell, it either has to be a living organism, or the laws of the universe stopped working and matter created matter. The host organism didn't reproduce the cells, the fused sperm and egg cell did it. At that point, Apple, whether you want to argue about it until the day you die or not, it became a living organism. By definition. Not only that, but it's scientifically and physically impossible for it to be anything else.



But I haven't argued about DNA. Biology is much older and better understood than DNA, which is relatively new. I have completely PWNED your ass with Biology and scientific facts. I have no need to introduce DNA evidence. A living organism exists as soon as a cell is reproduced, because that is how we define living organisms. You haven't refuted this point, and you never will, which is probably why you choose continuing to ignore it. However, you can't even make your own arguments without admitting that something is alive, because it sometimes dies. It can't die if it's not alive, that defies basic logic. So you're PWNED every way on this, including by your own words and arguments.



Again, an organism is capable of carrying on the process of life. If it reproduced a cell, it carried on this process. From that point, it simply doesn't matter what you want to argue, it became a living human organism in the state of being.

Living cells of ANY organism, can remain alive for a short period of time, and artificial assistance may extend that period of time, but the cells are not capable of reproducing, therefore, they are not a living organism. The fetus, from the point of conception, has been able to reproduce cells. The cell reproduction is not performed by the host organism, it is done by the fetus itself. Again, Apple, these are basic biological facts of science you can't refute. You just want to ignore them and continue blathering your idiocy about skin cells and livers.



No, I don't need to watch a video, and it isn't going to refute what I have stated here. A video isn't going to disprove science, biology, and basic logic. It's obvious you wish to remain mired in denial, whether through ignorance or stubborn refusal to accept the facts, in order to continue supporting abortion on demand. The psychologist in me is curious to know why you so adamantly wish to stick by such a profound illiteracy of science, and show no signs of backing down one bit? --May I posit my evaluation? I think it's because, deep down inside, you know that abortion is wrong, if it is the taking of an innocent human life. This is why you will defiantly crusade against science for 'years', arguing complete and utter nonsense and refusing to accept basic biological facts, as well as physics and logic. You HAVE to be right, or you can't conscientiously support what you are supporting.

This leads me to believe there is hope for you. However, I am an optimist.

Then remove the fetus, remove it from the help it's receiving from a living organism (the woman) and see what happens. It's as simple as that.

Do you understand? If you remove a woman's kidney and remove a fetus let's see which one, if either, lives. Let's see if which one, if either, keeps reproducing cells.

This is not complicated or mysterious regardless of what you read or imagined or what you think or what you believe. And as for getting one's ass kicked simply answer the question. Remove a woman's kidney and remove a 3 month old fetus and tell me, "which one, if either, is going to live?" Or remove a kidney and a one month old fetus. Or a kidney and a fertilized cell. Or a kidney and a conception. Or a kidney and whatever you want to call that clump of tissue you claim is a human being. Which one is going to live when the help from a living organism, the woman, is removed. The kidney? The fetus? The conception? The clump of cells? Answer the question or STFU.

On that note have a good night. I have to go. I just saw the Mrs. head off to bed.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Then remove the fetus, remove it from the help it's receiving from a living organism (the woman) and see what happens. It's as simple as that.

Do you understand? If you remove a woman's kidney and remove a fetus let's see which one, if either, lives. Let's see if which one, if either, keeps reproducing cells.

Well it will stop living, Apple. Just like if we take you outside naked in below freezing temps and give you no food to eat, you will also die. A kidney can't die, it's not living. It is 'alive' in that it's cells remain alive for the moment, but a kidney can't complete the process of life. A kidney is not a living organism, a fetus is. If we remove you from your environment and nutrition, what do you suppose will happen to you?

This is not complicated or mysterious regardless of what you read or imagined...

I've never argued that it's complicated or mysterious, Apple. It's really quite easy and elementary. Most 6th grade biology students can grasp how a "living organism" is defined and when that distinction is determined.

....and whatever you want to call that clump of tissue you claim is a human being.

But a "clump of tissue" can't reproduce cells and carry on the process of life. Your'e the one calling a human being a "clump of tissue" here, and you need to become educated so you won't be ignorant. The organism is reproducing cells and living, it isn't a "clump of tissue" unless the laws of the universe suddenly changed and allowed matter to create itself. The "clump of tissue" came from somewhere, do you suspect aliens? The mother didn't create this "clump of tissue" herself, she only contributed a single egg cell. In order to have a "clump of tissue" it takes a lot more cells than one. So if the mother didn't grow them, and the laws of the universe didn't change, there must be a living organism reproducing cells somewhere... maybe aliens? Maybe they are abducting women, and creating the "clump of tissue" with probes into her womb? I'm just trying to come up with some logical explanation that doesn't contradict physics, because matter can't create matter.

Which one is going to live when the help from a living organism, the woman, is removed. The kidney? The fetus? The conception? The clump of cells? Answer the question or STFU.

Your question is hilarious... You seem to sincerely want me to tell you about something continuing to live, that you have insisted is not yet living! Has that small minor little detail completely flown over your tiny head here? Because a living organism requires (at all stages) particular environment and nutrients to continue the living process, is not a valid reason to claim it isn't "really" a living organism. It is defiantly illogical and absurd. The fetus can't survive outside the womb, just as you can't survive in bitter cold with no clothing. You'll stop living, like the fetus would. The mother is only providing an environment and nutrition for the fetus, it is doing all the growing and developing. A liver can't grow a heart and a brain, it's not an organism. The human body which the liver belongs to, can grow new liver cells, which is also something the fetus will eventually do as well, because both are living organisms, not organs or clumps of tissue.... or alien super-matter!

 

[apple0154]

Well it will stop living, Apple. Just like if we take you outside naked in below freezing temps and give you no food to eat, you will also die. A kidney can't die, it's not living. It is 'alive' in that it's cells remain alive for the moment, but a kidney can't complete the process of life. A kidney is not a living organism, a fetus is. If we remove you from your environment and nutrition, what do you suppose will happen to you?

I've never argued that it's complicated or mysterious, Apple. It's really quite easy and elementary. Most 6th grade biology students can grasp how a "living organism" is defined and when that distinction is determined.

But a "clump of tissue" can't reproduce cells and carry on the process of life. Your'e the one calling a human being a "clump of tissue" here, and you need to become educated so you won't be ignorant. The organism is reproducing cells and living, it isn't a "clump of tissue" unless the laws of the universe suddenly changed and allowed matter to create itself. The "clump of tissue" came from somewhere, do you suspect aliens? The mother didn't create this "clump of tissue" herself, she only contributed a single egg cell. In order to have a "clump of tissue" it takes a lot more cells than one. So if the mother didn't grow them, and the laws of the universe didn't change, there must be a living organism reproducing cells somewhere... maybe aliens? Maybe they are abducting women, and creating the "clump of tissue" with probes into her womb? I'm just trying to come up with some logical explanation that doesn't contradict physics, because matter can't create matter.

Your question is hilarious... You seem to sincerely want me to tell you about something continuing to live, that you have insisted is not yet living! Has that small minor little detail completely flown over your tiny head here? Because a living organism requires (at all stages) particular environment and nutrients to continue the living process, is not a valid reason to claim it isn't "really" a living organism. It is defiantly illogical and absurd. The fetus can't survive outside the womb, just as you can't survive in bitter cold with no clothing. You'll stop living, like the fetus would. The mother is only providing an environment and nutrition for the fetus, it is doing all the growing and developing. A liver can't grow a heart and a brain, it's not an organism. The human body which the liver belongs to, can grow new liver cells, which is also something the fetus will eventually do as well, because both are living organisms, not organs or clumps of tissue.... or alien super-matter!

"The mother is only providing an environment and nutrition for the fetus, it is doing all the growing and developing."


Wrong! That's why I keep telling you to check out epigenetics. The mother supplies more than just an environment and nutrition but until you learn I'm wasting my time debating you. The mother sends instructions to the fetus' DNA/genes/chromosomes. Are you able to understand that?

You see, Dixie. Here's the problem. For centuries people have been bullshitting women about abortion. If some dude said the soul entered the fetus at a certain time there was no way to disprove it so people just accepted it, be it male souls entering before female souls or the movement of the fetus (quickening) being the spiritual equivalent of furniture movers shuffling around in the upstairs apartment. Then there was the infamous deal between Napoleon of France and the Pope, in 1869, to ensure there would be sufficient young Frenchmen for the slaughter of war. Then DNA came along and the anti-abortionists and others jumped on that to the tune of taking children away from their biological mothers. And now we have folks like you saying the woman only supplies an environment and nutrition when science is finding out the woman's involvement is much, much more. But you and other anti-abortionists keep throwing anything you can against that wall.

If this was concerning anything else and considering the constant errors and outright lies there wouldn’t even be a discussion. Anything, absolutely ANY THING that can be used to control women’s reproduction has been and is being used. From religion to wars to science…there’s no bottom to how low the anti-abortionist will stoop and talking about bottoms leave them to those of us who do appreciate them.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Wrong! That's why I keep telling you to check out epigenetics. The mother supplies more than just an environment and nutrition but until you learn I'm wasting my time debating you. The mother sends instructions to the fetus' DNA/genes/chromosomes. Are you able to understand that?

No, I am not wrong, you are confused or your source has mislead you to believe something that isn't true. The mother does not "send instructions" to the DNA or the genes or chromosomes. Besides, you've already debunked DNA as evidence in this discussion, rendering it irrelevant. The mother also doesn't "wish" the fetus into growing or not growing, that was another bizarre misconception you had. This idea you have of what a fetus is and how it works, is below the level of most 6th grade biology students, so you really don't have any business debating me or anyone else on this subject.

Unlike a liver or skin cells, the fetus is a living organism. It reproduces its own cells and develops its own DNA, genes, and chromosomes. It works with what the mother provides, and this seems to be where you become confused. Even IF the mother IS "sending instructions" the organism itself is still an organism doing what organisms do. By your own explanation, it's not the mother who is reproducing cells, she is "sending instructions" and something else is doing this. You can't even explain this without having to admit there is a living organism.

 

[Lowaicue]

No, I am not wrong, you are confused or your source has mislead you to believe something that isn't true. The mother does not "send instructions" to the DNA or the genes or chromosomes. Besides, you've already debunked DNA as evidence in this discussion, rendering it irrelevant. The mother also doesn't "wish" the fetus into growing or not growing, that was another bizarre misconception you had. This idea you have of what a fetus is and how it works, is below the level of most 6th grade biology students, so you really don't have any business debating me or anyone else on this subject.

Unlike a liver or skin cells, the fetus is a living organism. It reproduces its own cells and develops its own DNA, genes, and chromosomes. It works with what the mother provides, and this seems to be where you become confused. Even IF the mother IS "sending instructions" the organism itself is still an organism doing what organisms do. By your own explanation, it's not the mother who is reproducing cells, she is "sending instructions" and something else is doing this. You can't even explain this without having to admit there is a living organism.

There you go again getting your knickers in a twist. Reproduction is a choice every human being has. Abortion is also a choice open to every human being. It is not something for party politics, it has nothing to do with being left or right. If I propose that a woman has the right to have an abortion or if I take the opposite view it does not mark me as adhering to left or right wing politics. It marks me as an average person exercising his right and intelligence.
People who politicise everything are screwing up your nation and I am not only referring to the right wing. Never have you been more polarised. Never have you been as ungovernable as you are now (dont misunderstand that).
To spin an argument to its minutiae is ridiculous and proves that the perpetrator has no argument at all - or at least no persuasive ability.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There you go again getting your knickers in a twist. Reproduction is a choice every human being has. Abortion is also a choice open to every human being. It is not something for party politics, it has nothing to do with being left or right. If I propose that a woman has the right to have an abortion or if I take the opposite view it does not mark me as adhering to left or right wing politics. It marks me as an average person exercising his right and intelligence.
People who politicise everything are screwing up your nation and I am not only referring to the right wing. Never have you been more polarised. Never have you been as ungovernable as you are now (dont misunderstand that).
To spin an argument to its minutiae is ridiculous and proves that the perpetrator has no argument at all - or at least no persuasive ability.

Where in the living fuck did you read anything in my comments about "left and right politics?" NOWHERE! Because it's fucking NOT THERE! Where did you read anything in my comments about outlawing abortion, or forcing people to reproduce against their will? AGAIN, NOWHERE! This has been an ongoing debate with Apple for nearly two years, and despite the complete lack of support for his position, he continues to insist a fetus is not a living organism. Science is not determined by whether you are left, right or center.

Abortion is a choice and is legal, that is something that no one can debate, it's a fact. Our society is having the debate over whether this is an ethical moral choice, and whether our laws should allow this choice without regard for ethics or morality. In order to have rational dialogue, we first must establish basic facts of biology, like when an organism exists. It's like, we had to first acknowledge slaves were people before we could have dialogue regarding their constitutional rights as people. As long as part of society was running around in denial of science, claiming slaves weren't people, there was not a way to establish constitutional rights for them.

To spin an argument to its minutiae is ridiculous and proves that the perpetrator has no argument at all - or at least no persuasive ability.

There has been no "spin" on my part, everything I have stated is biological fact, and I have not deviated. I have also pointed out glaring contradictions in Apple's arguments of how something can not continue to live, which isn't yet alive, according to him. I've shown where his arguments defy basic physics and logic, as "clumps of tissue" can't exist without a reproductive process from some living organism. He has argumentatively gotten his ass stomped, every time he has attempted to make a point, but he continues to repeat the same failed points like a broken record. You can't be persuasive with someone who refuses to accept basic science and biological facts. That certainly isn't proof I have no argument.

 

[apple0154]

No, I am not wrong, you are confused or your source has mislead you to believe something that isn't true. The mother does not "send instructions" to the DNA or the genes or chromosomes. Besides, you've already debunked DNA as evidence in this discussion, rendering it irrelevant. The mother also doesn't "wish" the fetus into growing or not growing, that was another bizarre misconception you had. This idea you have of what a fetus is and how it works, is below the level of most 6th grade biology students, so you really don't have any business debating me or anyone else on this subject.

Unlike a liver or skin cells, the fetus is a living organism. It reproduces its own cells and develops its own DNA, genes, and chromosomes. It works with what the mother provides, and this seems to be where you become confused. Even IF the mother IS "sending instructions" the organism itself is still an organism doing what organisms do. By your own explanation, it's not the mother who is reproducing cells, she is "sending instructions" and something else is doing this. You can't even explain this without having to admit there is a living organism.

My goodness, you're a dense man. Research epigenetics. There are certain proteins that sit on top of the genes. Those proteins activate the gene known as the gene expressing itself. For example, grow or don't grow. The woman can influence that protein, send it either a chemical or electrical signal which, in turn, tells the gene what to do. Now, it may be conscious or subconscious. For example, if the woman has grown up during a famine her body may send a signal to the fetus' genes telling them not to grow too big as there is/was a lack of food and that information is stored in the woman's genes. The point being the fetus is physically attached to the woman/mother and the woman/mother can directly instruct the fetus' genes. To claim the fetus is completely separate is absurd.

Read. Watch. Listen. Why are you so afraid of learning?

 

[007]

Birth. It's as clear as that. The only reason for the "confusion" is people trying to do what Santorum tried when debating Ms. Boxer and making a complete ass of himself when trying to define the exact moment a birth takes place. When addressing partial birth abortion he wanted to know if/when the entire body of the fetus is outside the mother except for a toe being caught if that would be considered a birth. Of course such a question is nonsense as when a partial birth abortion takes place the fetus exits the vagina feet first. A toe can't get caught when the rest of the body is outside the woman's body because the toes are the first thing to come out when a partial birth abortion takes place.

You see, it's crap like that that's meant to confuse the issue. It asks a question based on a faulty premise. It assumes something that is impossible and then questions it. People like Santorum deliberately confound the issue by presenting scenarios that aren't possible. They deliberately put ideas in the minds of people who don't know the facts. A person unfamiliar with partial birth abortion may go away wondering, "Yea, what about that? What if only the toe is still inside the woman/vagina?"

If anyone ever had an elderly family member die in hospital they know the doctors didn't do an EEG before pronouncing death. The doctor didn't write "breathing stopped at 10:15 pm, the heart stopped at 10:17 pm, the brain showed no activity after..... The time of death is written somewhere between 10:15 and 10:17. Most likely 10:15 if the doctor was present at that time.

Birth, death, everything is a process or a progression, be it a few seconds or a few minutes. Even when things that happen in an "instant", such as a car accident, if it was on video it can be played in slow motion showing one event follows another. Events that happen fairly rapidly are classified together. We say lightening struck a building. We do not detail the electrical charge, the current traveling through the air, etc., etc. but people like Santorum badger others with nonsense and, in this case, merely highlight their ignorance.

People will say, "There's a new addition to the family. My daughter had a baby." They do NOT say, "There's a new addition to the family. My daughter is 3 months pregnant."

What needs to be clarified is the language on the side of the anti-abortionists. A conception is no more a human being than a egg is a chicken or an acorn is an oak tree. DNA is ONE way to define/classify something, certainly not the only way. To paraphrase Eddie Albert in "The Longest Yard", "What we have here is a problem to communicate." Is it any wonder pro-choice folks have difficulty communicating with those who insist squirrels bury oak trees?

Birth, boxer said that didn't happen until the child arrived home.
So when exactly does a birth happen?
Upon delivery?
Upon cutting the cord?
Upon delivering the placenta?
Upon getting home?

When exactly?
I'm simply asking for a clear answer, why do you far left extremists find clarity so difficult?

 

[007]

There you go again getting your knickers in a twist. Reproduction is a choice every human being has. Abortion is also a choice open to every human being. It is not something for party politics, it has nothing to do with being left or right. If I propose that a woman has the right to have an abortion or if I take the opposite view it does not mark me as adhering to left or right wing politics. It marks me as an average person exercising his right and intelligence.
People who politicise everything are screwing up your nation and I am not only referring to the right wing. Never have you been more polarised. Never have you been as ungovernable as you are now (dont misunderstand that).
To spin an argument to its minutiae is ridiculous and proves that the perpetrator has no argument at all - or at least no persuasive ability.

You are wrong.
The choice to abort is never a mans decision.

 

[apple0154]

Where in the living fuck did you read anything in my comments about "left and right politics?" NOWHERE! Because it's fucking NOT THERE! Where did you read anything in my comments about outlawing abortion, or forcing people to reproduce against their will? AGAIN, NOWHERE! This has been an ongoing debate with Apple for nearly two years, and despite the complete lack of support for his position, he continues to insist a fetus is not a living organism. Science is not determined by whether you are left, right or center.

Abortion is a choice and is legal, that is something that no one can debate, it's a fact. Our society is having the debate over whether this is an ethical moral choice, and whether our laws should allow this choice without regard for ethics or morality. In order to have rational dialogue, we first must establish basic facts of biology, like when an organism exists. It's like, we had to first acknowledge slaves were people before we could have dialogue regarding their constitutional rights as people. As long as part of society was running around in denial of science, claiming slaves weren't people, there was not a way to establish constitutional rights for them.



There has been no "spin" on my part, everything I have stated is biological fact, and I have not deviated. I have also pointed out glaring contradictions in Apple's arguments of how something can not continue to live, which isn't yet alive, according to him. I've shown where his arguments defy basic physics and logic, as "clumps of tissue" can't exist without a reproductive process from some living organism. He has argumentatively gotten his ass stomped, every time he has attempted to make a point, but he continues to repeat the same failed points like a broken record. You can't be persuasive with someone who refuses to accept basic science and biological facts. That certainly isn't proof I have no argument.

You argue false facts just like the clowns who "proved" a woman's biological children were not her children. Just like the buffoons who insisted a witness be present in the birthing room to see where the baby came from. If it wasn't so perverted and disgusting it would be outrageously funny.

An organism has to have the ability to carry on the processes of life and a fetus can not do that. If it could it could be removed and survive. What is it about that you are unable to grasp? It can't be stated in a more simplified way. The woman's body, everything from her blood and organs to sending signals to the fetus's genes, are necessary for the fetus to survive.

Science has just scratched the surface as far as the process that takes place from conception to birth. There is nothing "independent" about a conception/zygote/embryo/fetus but that's not really the problem. The problem is some people insist on controlling a woman's body. They'll jump on anything no matter how little they know about it even to the point of worshipping DNA when 10 short years ago it resulted in the shocking treatment of women and children.

Thankfully, there are more educated people in positions of power in various countries that can draw logical conclusions. One of them being a clump of human cells are not a human being.

Stop and think for a moment what you assert. The absurdity of it is truly mind numbing. You're like a child acting out. It's time for a time-out. Try sitting quietly by yourself and re-boot what passes for a brain. You've blue-screened, my friend.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Amazing how the folk who want government to force a woman to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term are the same people wailing AGAINST a govenment mandate that tries to give more people affordable healthcare, while claiming they want as little government "interference" in their lives as possible.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

it can not live if it is taken frim the womb.

That womb belongs to a completely formed human being.

You dont have the right to tell that completely formed human being what YOU will allow to be done to the INSIDES of her very own flesh.


No mommy no baby.


get it

as you are so fond of commenting about 'you don't get to decide'.....and since no right is absolute, i'm guessing that those who DO decide (your precious courts) could make abortion illegal and you couldn't do anything about it, right?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Amazing how the folk who want government to force a woman to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term are the same people wailing AGAINST a govenment mandate that tries to give more people affordable healthcare, while claiming they want as little government "interference" in their lives as possible.

also amazing that those who believe the government doesn't get to force women to do something like bear a baby to term, wail about the government having authority to deny others the ability to exercise rights SPECIFICALLY prohibiting the federal government from infringing.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

An organism has to have the ability to carry on the processes of life and a fetus can not do that.

If it couldn't do that, you'd have no need for abortion.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Science has just scratched the surface as far as the process that takes place from conception to birth.

And still, Biology has known for many years, what constitutes a living organism, and that hasn't changed.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Amazing how the folk who want government to force a woman to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term are the same people wailing AGAINST a govenment mandate that tries to give more people affordable healthcare, while claiming they want as little government "interference" in their lives as possible.

What's even more amazing is how the liberal left has stood defiantly for over 40 years, proclaiming abortion as a "right of privacy" between a doctor and patient, but in short order, signed over essentially all of our privacy rights to the government in dealing with our future medical care.