Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
None of those things prove you are human life. I asked you for the criteria, what proves you are human? Can you answer, or are you going to continue dodging me?
When Does Life End?
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
None of those things prove you are human life. I asked you for the criteria, what proves you are human? Can you answer, or are you going to continue dodging me?
apple0154
MEOW
Mea culpa for not determining a rhetorical question from the asinine ones you frequently ask.
apple0154
MEOW
True as long as one does not incorrectly classify a zygote as a human being. While an elderly adult dying in their sleep may be considered natural it wouldn't be considered natural for, say, over 50% of one-year-old babies to die in their sleep.
If a zygote is a human being then it's natural to expect it to implant so it can develop into a baby. Otherwise, what is it's purpose?
Again, it's both common sense and logical to conclude that if over 50% of fertilized eggs/cells/zygotes expire before implantation they were not human beings.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
apple0154
MEOW
(Excerpt) According to most studies, the human brain stops growing in its early 20s, after which it starts to contract. Muscle strength peaks as a rule around 25. Aerobic strength or oxygen intake maxes out a couple of years later. Height loss starts around 30 in most people, which is around when bones reach their maximum density. The eyes start to go in your 40s and your intestines even begin to shrink. (End)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/health/aging.html
apple0154
MEOW
Here must be what apple believes.
In that microsecond; when the baby is exitting the canal, but there is still contact, that is when the Person Faerie spinkles the magic dust and VIOLA, we now have a baby.
"Person Faerie" You research nothing, repeat propaganda, then plagiarize Damocles' words, as well. Talk about being a parrot.
It is you who believes Fairy Dust is sprinkled on fertilized cells. Your opinions are nothing more than a remake of the "quickening", male fetuses become human beings before female fetuses, antiquated nonsense with an added bit of DNA thrown in there to sound scientific.
The word "buffoon" come to mind.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Since you can't handle the debate, insult me. Why am I not surprised?
apple0154
MEOW
I did answer that. I was behind 100 posts. It's takes time to answer all the nonsensical posts.
apple0154
MEOW
There are a number of links.
.
(Excerpt) One study testing hormones for ovulation and pregnancy found that 61.9% of conceptuses were lost prior to 12 weeks, and 91.7% of these losses occurred subclinically, without the knowledge of the once pregnant woman.(End)
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion"]Abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
(Excerpt) It is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant.(End)
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm
(Excerpt) Many women, before realizing a life has begun forming within them, may miscarry without knowing it-assuming their miscarriage is merely a heavier period. Therefore, the miscarriage rate may be closer to 40 or 50 percent.
http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/miscarriage-statistics.htm
(Excerpt) Early spontaneous abortion (the most prevalent) is usually due to fetal malformations or chromosomal abnormalities.......
It is estimated that at least 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage (estimates range from 15% to 75%). (End)
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0935691.html
The 20% noted is for spontaneous abortions which occurred after the women knew they were pregnant. Most spontaneous abortions occur within hours or days and are mis-diagnosed as a monthly period.
Following are a couple of points to ponder.
Blighted ovum: A fertilized ovum (egg) that did not develop or whose development ceased at an early stage, before 6 or 7 weeks of gestation. On the ultrasound examination of a blighted ovum, only the gestational sac that normally surrounds the embryo can be seen. There is usually no embryo inside the gestational sac. http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=30956
Chromosomal abnormalities of the fetus are the most common cause of early miscarriages, including blighted ovum (see above). Each of the causes will be described below.
Chromosomes are microscopic components of every cell in the body that carry all of the genetic material that determine hair color, eye color, and our overall appearance and makeup. http://www.medicinenet.com/miscarriage/page2.htm
If you take note of the last one chromosomes carry the genetic material that determine our "overall appearance and makeup". Our makeup. What makes us human beings.
As these sites note the majority of spontaneous abortions are due to genetic mutations or chromosomal abnormalities. We already know some babies are born with severe abnormalities so it's reasonable to ask how severe is/was the mutations or abnormalities that resulted in those spontaneous abortions.
We are our genes. If I recall correctly we share 95% or more of our genes with chimpanzees. For the smart asses on here I'm not suggesting the genetic abnormalities in human cells means they're chimpanzee cells. The point is a large portion of fertilized cells or embryos may not be human beings due to the severe mutations. Whether it's 50% or 1% it means not all fertilized cells or embryos are human beings and that's the point. The Fairy Duster misses a few cells here and there. Well, actually, more than a few.
That means RStringfield's determination of what constitutes a human being is just as valid as anybody else as it's obvious the Fairy Duster does not sprinkle human-ness on a cell or embryo just so it can spontaneously abort due to genetic mutation.
Furthermore, one article talks about fertilized cells and embryos saying, "A fertilized ovum (egg) that did not develop or whose development ceased at an early stage....."
Ceased at an early stage. "It" grew. The point is what was the "it"?
The only logical conclusion is the cell or embryo was so genetically deficient that is was not a human being and that brings us back to the point I was making pages ago. We can not determine at the moment of fertilization whether the cell or embryo is a human being. In many cases that can only be determined at a later time. It does not mean because a cell or embryo "grew" that is was a human being. It may, for a time, do things associated with a human being but later shows it did not have the genetic makeup to become a human being.
It is inane to suggest we can't understand that a full term fetus just before birth is not radically different from one just after, only the radical, willing to ignore evidence on order to progress ideation, believes that.
The fact that we cannot tell when it will happen doesn't make it any better that we then, in ignorance, kill "people". The idea that we should be allowed to kill at will a fetus at full term, or during the third trimester for that matter, because it hasn't traveled the canal yet is barbarism to the vast majority of us and I am glad that you are in the minority with your radical view. The brain activity alone tells us that is more than just life, it is a person. When did that happen? That is the question we are trying to answer in this thread.
apple0154
MEOW
That's what shit-fer-brains does when repeatably smacked down in debate.
I answered the question, you knuckle dragging neanderthal. Sometimes I'm researching things rather than posting garbage like you do. Perhaps you might benefit from doing a little research rather than hanging here spouting opinions like a grade school child.
Your ignorance on so many subjects is nothing short of appalling. It's truly a miracle how you manage to live day to day possessing such little knowledge.
Infant mortality rates for Angola is 180 per 1000
while in Iceland its 3.....
So using your reasoning, it's both common sense and logical to conclude that if over 50x the infants in Angola expire before birth, than in Iceland, Angolan infants are less human.
Does that make reasoning make sense to you....?? No?
It sounds stupid because it is, and so is you logic about a zygote that fails to implant for any number of different reasons...
Fertilization is the process by which two gametes (reproductive cells having a single, haploid set of chromosomes) fuse to become a zygote, which develops into a new organism.
(This is scientific FACT)
At the moment in time that the zygote becomes viable, a human being is created and grows, and develops.
Whether that continues until birth is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the mortality rate is 50% or 80% or 5%....mortality rate has nothing to do with when life begins....
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
First you attacked my education, failing spectacularly. Now you attack me personally, failing as well.
apple0154
MEOW
We are still left with the same problem regardless of what term one wishes to place on each step. The fertilized cell/zygote failed to produce a morula and/or a blastocyst capable of implanting.
The purpose of a zygote is to produce a baby. There is no other reason for it's existence. Either it's successful/viable/capable of doing it's job or it's not.
As anti-abortionists keep reminding us the zygote possesses everything necessary to be a human being. Fine. Then it must follow if it is incapable of becoming a born individual then it didn't possess what was necessary because it's one and only job, it's raison d'etre, is to become a born human being.
Nah, to be a successful zygote it only needs to grow. The morula is the next step, and to be successful there it needs to pass out of the fallopian tube before it becomes a blastocyst and attaches incorrectly to the fallopian tube and becomes a tubal pregnancy (rare, but dangerous).
Again, that we don't "know" something doesn't make it better if we take action in ignorance. We know quite a lot about what happens during incubation and therefore should make decisions based on that knowledge rather than on baseless and purposeful ignorance that allows us to ignore what we know.
We know that the blastocyst is about 200-300 cells of two types, one type changes into brain, lungs, skin, nerves, etc. the other into muscles, liver, and other soft organs. We know that at week 8 all organs have formed, we know that the fetus can survive as early as 20 weeks outside the womb, we know that full term is 36 weeks but that pregnancy lasts on average 42 weeks. We know when brain activity starts, and when higher brain activity starts (about weeks 20 to 22). We know much and shouldn't ignore what we know to make Apple feel better about killing people.
The question of the thread is, with what we know about this process, at what point does the person faerie show up?
apple0154
MEOW
I have and still am arguing it. Whether or not States have the right to make abortion illegal has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a zygote is a human being.
As for no significant difference between the moment before birth and the moment after take a fish out of water and see if there is a "significant" difference between a liquid environment and a gaseous one. Or perhaps hold the heads of those people, those who believe that, under water for a time and see if they notice any "significant" difference.
Then we can change the direction of their blood flow and see if that makes any "significant" difference. And after that we can remove a few assorted veins and see if that makes any "significant" difference.
And for those DNA worshipers who run on the "everyone has unique DNA" wagon it turns out some people have more than one copy. It turns out, while in utero, a "human being", a fertilized cell, can split and become two human beings. And then it can happen that one of those "human beings" can assimilate the other "human being". Are we talking about human beings here?
First there was Bill. Then there was Bill and Jane. Then there was only Bill. Or is Bill even there because, after all, Bill's DNA makeup has changed as well. Who, or what, was that first fertilized cell?
Consider the following.
"There was one legal case involving a woman with chimerism, who was proven not to be the mother of her own children. Later discovery of embryonic cells with different DNA disproved the earlier DNA results." http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-chimerism.htm
"Jane's body was made up of two genetically distinct types of cells.
There was only one conclusion: Jane was a mixture of two different people.
Kruskall thinks the most likely explanation for this is that Jane's mother
conceived non-identical twin girls, who fused at an early stage of the
pregnancy to form a single embryo.
For some reason, cells from only one twin have come to dominate
in Jane's blood - the tissue used in tissue-typing. In Jane's other
tissues, however, including her ovaries, cells of both types live amicably
alongside each other,……"
http://www.katewerk.com/chimera.html
"A child's genes are inherited from his or her parents, so when a 52-year-old woman from Boston had a completely different set of genes than two of her three children, the medical community was at a loss for an explanation. It took two years for doctors to conclude that she was a "human chimera," someone with two or more distinct sets of genes. For example, DNA extracted from the skin of a human chimera may be different from DNA in the blood. Chimerism -- named after a Greek monster called the chimera with the head of a lion, body of a goat and tail of a snake -- occurs during pregnancy when two embryos that would have resulted in fraternal twins fuse early on in the pregnancy, resulting in one baby with two separate sets of DNA. While some chimeras have two different eye colors, most lead normal lives and never realize their condition." (AOL Health)
The undisputed fact a person can have two sets of DNA which resulted in science "proving" a mother did not bear her own children (cough, cough) should caution any rational person to not throw all their proverbial eggs in one basket when it comes to science proving an individual comes into existence at conception. If that was the case we could argue Jane is two individual, unique human beings (or is that "Jane are two individual, unique human beings").
Last edited:
So you do want to argue it then. Good. Stop saying you don't, there's nobody to pander to here.
As for no significant difference between the moment before birth and the moment after take a fish out of water and see if there is a "significant" difference between a liquid environment and a gaseous one. Or perhaps hold the heads of those people, those who believe that, under water for a time and see if they notice any "significant" difference.
So now you compare a fully developed human fetus (with all that we know) to a fish so you can attempt to feel okay about killing it? Really? And why don't we ask Phelps about moving in water. It doesn't change him to something other than human, nor does it the fetus.
This is like saying that people fundamentally change when they use a snorkel. It's sad really when you attempt to determine "human being" by simple metabolic change based on the source of oxygen.
True, two individuals can be formed from the cell, does that make you feel better that you could be taking two lives over one?
Again, does it make it better that if there was an abortion you would have taken two lives rather than one?
And again, amazing human characteristics notwithstanding, it doesn't make it better to kill after the fetus has fully formed. Only your extreme and deliberate ignorance of what we know to be true allows you to hold such a barbaric position, and I am extremely glad of its rarity in our society
apple0154
MEOW
While it's noble to say we should try to save the life of the fetus the reality is the time the abortion takes place is almost always too early to save the fetus. Nice gesture, though.
So are you saying everyone has a right to protect themselves only when talking about pregnancy or in general? The vast majority of problem pregnancies are due to the woman's faulty body. The fetus is not at fault. If the woman had a properly functioning body there wouldn't be a problem so what is your definition of "protecting themselves"?
If you believe everyone has a right to protect themselves and wish to use a problem pregnancy as an example then I submit there is no difference between killing the fetus, which you consider a human being, and a diabetic entering a drug store and killing the pharmacist if the pharmacist refuses to give the person insulin.
Let's see what the situations have in common. Two women, two defective bodies, the death of both innocent bystanders (the fetus and the pharmacist) would solve the problem.
However, if you feel "protecting themselves" applies only to offspring let's say a woman and her 10 year old child are standing on a balcony of a burning building. While waiting for the fire truck and a ladder the structure is weakening and the balcony is coming away from the building. Does she have the right to push her 70 pound son off the balcony to certain death in order to lighten the weight on the balcony and protect herself?
And what defines "crippled" for life? Loss of one kidney which would, under most circumstances, not interfere in ones life? Total blindness? Who decides?
Like any other legal right what is to stop a disgruntled boyfriend from getting his own "expert witness" regarding the damage to the woman? Should the woman have the right to kill his son on the chance she may lose partial eyesight?
What it the life of the human being (fetus) worth? 20/40 eye sight? 20/60?
Just for fun let's pretend we're both anti-abortionists. Let's see how far we can cheapen life. Let's say a woman is a pilot where near perfect eyesight is required. She's 30 years old, has one other child and a mortgage. Then we have another woman, same age, she has one other child, she rents an apartment and works selling shoes in a department store.
If the first woman loses partial eye sight she will lose her job and home. If the second woman loses partial eyesight she'll just continue on with life as usual although her glasses may have thicker lenses. Is either woman entitled to an abortion? If "yes", a detailed answer would be appreciated.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I already answered those questions after you asked me to.
It's hard to take you seriously any longer. You ignore knowledge to take an extreme position then defend it with "chimeras"... Seriously. You are a joke.
apple0154
MEOW
The problem is you interchange life with human being. They are not the same.
I have repeatedly stated that birth is the point where I consider something a human being. Why? For a number of reasons. First, because the idea of two human beings living in the same body is bizarre beyond belief.
Once that is accepted all kinds of exceptions have to be made regarding the value of human life. It means, under certain circumstances, it's legal for a person with a defective body to kill an innocent human being.
What degree of possible medical damage to a defective women is justification for killing an innocent human being? And while we're talking medical let's throw in the UHC bill.
(I thought folks would like that.)Let's say the possible medical damage is able to be corrected after birth. For example, let's say it's discovered both pregnant woman have cancer. It's a slow growing type of cancer. (Just to let folks know there are different rates of growth for different types of cancers.)
Both woman are told they can continue the pregnancy but immediately after delivery they will require special cancer treatments that are, you guessed it, only available for a large sum of money. One woman is wealthy so it's no problem for her. The other woman will not be able to afford that special treatment. Are both allowed to have an abortion? Are either allowed?
The poor woman has a much greater likelihood of dying so one may expect she be allowed an abortion but what about the wealthy woman? Her life is not in jeopardy as she has plenty of money for that special treatment. But let's suppose she doesn't want to spend her money on that special treatment. She wants an abortion, regular cancer treatments and a nice vacation with the money she saves.
Do we start checking people's bank accounts when it comes to killing an innocent human being?
apple0154
MEOW
It's no dodge. It's like asking how can I prove my avatar is a picture of a cat. It's a picture of a cat because society says it's a picture of a cat. If cats were called dogs it would be a picture of a dog.