When Does Life End?

[apple0154]

Wrong. I don't know what your 50% number is supposed to represent, but assume it is the implantation rate of fertilized eggs/zygotes. Their implantation rate has NOTHING to do with whether or not the zygote is human. NOTHING. Being human is not defined by statistics. It is defined by genetics.

The 50% number is the number of fertilized cells that spontaneously abort.

As for "Being human is not defined by statistics. It is defined by genetics." I completely agree. Another fact concerning spontaneously aborted cells/eggs/zygotes is that the large majority of them do so due to genetic mutation.

Now, let's put these two things together. Human beings are defined by genetics AND the large majority of fertilized cells/eggs/zygotes are genetically damaged to the point they self-abort.

Obviously, there is a point where the genetically damaged/deficient fertilized cell/egg/zygote is not a human being. That's just a logical conclusion which means not all fertilized cells/eggs/zygotes are human beings.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

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.

Wrong. I don't know what your 50% number is supposed to represent, but assume it is the implantation rate of fertilized eggs/zygotes. Their implantation rate has NOTHING to do with whether or not the zygote is human. NOTHING. Being human is not defined by statistics. It is defined by genetics.



This is absolutely absurd.



Actually it is nothing more than complete nonsense that you made up. Implantation statistics have NOTHING to do with determining species.

 

[apple0154]

(Msg 810) Earlier.

Yea, right.

You were comparing nonsense. The analogy isn't salient, being in liquid doesn't make a person fundamentally different.

Then show me one human being who can survive under water naturally. Surely there must be one if it isn't so fundamentally different.

It's a metabolic change based on the source of oxygen, it doesn't change the thought process even one iota.

Thought process? What are you talking about? Human beings do not live in a liquid environment. To deny that is a fundamental difference is absurd.

When did I use it? Your are arguing a straw man based on what you want to feel. I ask you to defend your stance that seconds before birth the person faerie shows up and you give me chimeras and twins. It's nonsense, then you attempt to "argue" with a stance I haven't taken.

First, there is no person faerie. Sorry to bust your delusions. As for the chimeras post it was to show unique DNA is not the defining factor on whether something is a human being so the anti-abortion folks can drop that one.

You brought up the twins, it's your nonsense. Depending on when the abortion took place it is either both or Jane. But pretending that a human life wasn't taken due to chimerism is preposterous and again this doesn't defend anything about your barbaric position that you can kill a fully formed fetus on a whim because it isn't a "person" yet.

I brought it up because it's just one more example of the same old, anti-abortionist nonsense. Grab on to one thing (unique DNA). When that's exposed as nonsense they grab on to something else.

You talk about taking a human life and you don't even know what human you're talking about. And what about the chimera absorbing the other "human being". Is that murder? Even though not premeditated could one say manslaughter? Or do we just write off that human being?

And again with this inane straw man. You attempt to distract from your disgusting stance, I understand why you'd want to do that. I'll continue to bring it right back to your insistence that a fully formed fetus isn't a person, even though it has thought, has learned stuff about itself, and often can even recognize their mother's voice immediately after birth.

You, sir, take the most extreme position in the thread and to defend it you give me chimerism, seriously, chimerism. It really is amazing you think that you even make sense at all.

As others have noted neither spontaneous abortions nor miscarriages are investigated. Anti-abortionists claim they are/were human beings but when it comes down to showing their involvement, their naturally expected concern regarding the death of a human being, where are they? What value do anti-abortionists really place on the life of human beings?

Do we see anti-abortionists demonstrating for research into miscarriages? Do we see anti-abortionists demonstrating for government assistance to ensure poor women are adequately nourished in case they become pregnant, such as the adequate intake of folic acid? I wonder how many of those folks who express concern over the unborn would back a government initiative allowing women of child bearing age a free, yearly checkup.

Well, in all honesty, I don't wonder. I already know. Next to none. After all, aren't the majority of them against the HC reform?

You want to talk about barbaric and disgusting. The only concern the vast majority of anti-abortionists have is to do with a woman's sex life. Nothing more which is glaringly evident by their lack of concern to outright opposition to the health and well-being of other human beings.

So, please, get off that pedestal. You look ridiculous.

 

[Damocles]

No, I do not want to go there over the insane idea something not born is a human being.

*sigh*

It was here, the middle line of a three sentence post, where you made it clear you "don't want to argue it"...

If you don't want to talk about it then don't, but do please stop trying to increase the stupidity level of the thread with the ignorant theory that blood flow is so significant that it is the very definition of human and the moment that the person faerie arrives to endow the progeny with "personhood".

This is the portion of your argument that I significantly disagree with you, as well as most biologists and the law, including the ruling in Roe v. Wade when they knew far less about what is actually happening inside that womb.

 

[apple0154]

Apple says:



Now that about sums up the entire debate....how can you possibly argue with a person that posts a remark like this and believes it.......seriously folks....

How can you even imagine you can educate a rube that believes this...
How can you even imagine you can have this dodo understand even rudimentary biological science let alone understand the start of life....

I rest my case and refuse to waste my time on such a thick skull neanderthal....

Obviously you never read the post about the chimera or are unable to comprehend it although your lack of comprehension doesn't surprise me considering you wrote in msg 801, "In FACT, 2 humans are not living in the same body. They are 2 different human beings, one living within the other"

Typical anti-abortionist craziness. "Not in the same body. Just living within each other."

Yea, that definitely explains it.

 

[Damocles]

Yea, right.



Then show me one human being who can survive under water naturally. Surely there must be one if it isn't so fundamentally different.

Every single fetus the days before birth. That's my point.

Thought process? What are you talking about? Human beings do not live in a liquid environment. To deny that is a fundamental difference is absurd.

Inane, it is absurd to pretend that birth made the child fundamentally different simply from source of oxygen.

First, there is no person faerie. Sorry to bust your delusions. As for the chimeras post it was to show unique DNA is not the defining factor on whether something is a human being so the anti-abortion folks can drop that one.

Duh. I simply use that to make an easy term for the moment that it becomes a "person". As I said, you have yet to defend logically the reason you would assume a thinking being inside the womb is not a "person", so far all I get is metabolic change due to source of oxygen and that the being was in water. All people can survive in water if they have a source of oxygen like the fetus has.

I brought it up because it's just one more example of the same old, anti-abortionist nonsense. Grab on to one thing (unique DNA). When that's exposed as nonsense they grab on to something else.

Again, you significantly take it out of context and then stupid it up. The DNA is evidence that the new life is separate from, but dependent on, the mother, not that it is solely "one" life. It's a silly suggestion and if we extend it, then it would be okay to kill one twin because they are not a "unique" being. It's just inane, and a desperate attempt to again distract from your extreme position that remains unsupported by the vast majority of humanity.

You talk about taking a human life and you don't even know what human you're talking about. And what about the chimera absorbing the other "human being". Is that murder? Even though not premeditated could one say manslaughter? Or do we just write off that human being?

Inane. A human life is a human life even if I don't know their name, or even if they have yet to be named. It is human life even before it is capable of thought or action and, according to RStrings and many others, a "person". It is human life as a zygote, even if it never progresses to blastocyst or implants. When it begins to grow it is alive and it is human life. Does this mean that I think it is a "person" at that point? No. I personally think that it becomes a person when it first gets the capacity to notice that it is alive, usually around week 20 to 22 of the pregnancy.

As others have noted neither spontaneous abortions nor miscarriages are investigated. Anti-abortionists claim they are/were human beings but when it comes down to showing their involvement, their naturally expected concern regarding the death of a human being, where are they? What value do anti-abortionists really place on the life of human beings?

You make these absurd statements and want so badly to argue against that statement that you simply "assume" that it is what people have said. Please point out where I said anything like that.

Do we see anti-abortionists demonstrating for research into miscarriages? Do we see anti-abortionists demonstrating for government assistance to ensure poor women are adequately nourished in case they become pregnant, such as the adequate intake of folic acid? I wonder how many of those folks who express concern over the unborn would back a government initiative allowing women of child bearing age a free, yearly checkup.

Well, in all honesty, I don't wonder. I already know. Next to none. After all, aren't the majority of them against the HC reform?

Who cares? This doesn't answer the question of the thread, you've already given your opinion on that, and it is rejected by everybody on this site, it is an extreme and rare position and I am glad it is so.

You want to talk about barbaric and disgusting. The only concern the vast majority of anti-abortionists have is to do with a woman's sex life. Nothing more which is glaringly evident by their lack of concern to outright opposition to the health and well-being of other human beings.

So, please, get off that pedestal. You look ridiculous.

You again take a position unsupported by anything in this thread and attempt to "argue" what nobody has said at all.

Personally, since we cannot know the exact moment of "personhood" it is, IMO, unconscionable to purposefully kill progeny, and I also believe that the woman has a right to choose not to be an incubator, therefore I believe we should remove the progeny with the intent to save it rather than kill it. Killing, due to ignorance, the most innocent of people with purposeful intent is barbaric, and the only barbarism displayed here is the person that thinks it is okay to kill a thinking being because it hasn't drawn air.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The 50% number is the number of fertilized cells that spontaneously abort.

so................what.............

 

[apple0154]

No, there's no need to "indulge" you any longer, every post is an attempt to distract from your insane position that the fetus is fundamentally different seconds before birth because of chimerism and metabolic changes that take place because the source of oxygen changes.

It's really all just nonsense. You can't defend your position so you throw up every distraction you can. You'll thrown in whatever nonsense you can find, but none of it changes anything about my argument.

Distraction? No, trying to determine if you thought through your beliefs or are simply parroting what you've heard like an eight year old saying, "My daddy said so!"

Simple, logical questions. Of course you can't/wont answer because you don't have a logical answer and we both know that. Not one of your ilk has offered a specific answer to any of those questions.

Distracting? I bet it is when someone asks a pointed question. It's far easier to generalize, beat around the bush, then throw up ones hands and claim it's all nonsense.

Maybe you can get away with that tactic with others but not with me. It's obvious you can't defend your beliefs. So be it.

 

[Damocles]

Distraction? No, trying to determine if you thought through your beliefs or are simply parroting what you've heard like an eight year old saying, "My daddy said so!"

Simple, logical questions. Of course you can't/wont answer because you don't have a logical answer and we both know that. Not one of your ilk has offered a specific answer to any of those questions.

Distracting? I bet it is when someone asks a pointed question. It's far easier to generalize, beat around the bush, then throw up ones hands and claim it's all nonsense.

Maybe you can get away with that tactic with others but not with me. It's obvious you can't defend your beliefs. So be it.

No you aren't, you simply attempt again to distract. At least read the thread, it's like you randomly pick posts of mine to quote and then say nonsense like this. When I take you seriously instead of actually reading my answers and continuing the conversation, I get some post of mine quoted from three pages ago and some inane distraction about chimerism. That isn't "logic" it is distraction, and none of them changed any portion of my positions on this. Why would being a chimera make a person any less a person? Why would it make the zygote any less of a human organism?

Your questions are nonsense and thus distractions, they are not "pointed", they are silly. Seriously, twins and chimerism? You are a clown.

 

[apple0154]

If you kill the mother and the fetus you will take two human lives, if you kill the fetus, you will take only one. One is not part of the other, that is where the nonsense is, the woman isn't a chimera because she is pregnant. They have two separate bodies, otherwise abortion would be impossible.

Then if they're separate bodies remove the body from the woman who requests it. Remove the body that is inside her body. Problem solved.

Of course it won't be solved because the body that's inside the woman is using the woman's lungs and heart and kidneys and liver and blood and.....

Why do you think pregnancy affects some woman's bodies to the point they have to abort? Why do some women contract diabetes when pregnant if the body inside her is separate? Do you know anyone who contracted diabetes because of another individual?

The craziness is nothing short of astonishing.

 

[Damocles]

Then if they're separate bodies remove the body from the woman who requests it. Remove the body that is inside her body. Problem solved.

Of course it won't be solved because the body that's inside the woman is using the woman's lungs and heart and kidneys and liver and blood and.....

Why do you think pregnancy affects some woman's bodies to the point they have to abort? Why do some women contract diabetes when pregnant if the body inside her is separate? Do you know anyone who contracted diabetes because of another individual?

The craziness is nothing short of astonishing.

Duh. I already said we should remove the one from the other upon request, just that we should have a different intent than killing. You again are arguing with the ghost of what you wish for rather than what is. Seriously, you are a clown and arguing what you think others believe rather than reading what they have said. It's very frustrating, it's like nothing can get through that barrier of clown make up (what you want me to believe) so that you can see what I actually have to say.

 

[apple0154]

Please see that I am given credit for the quote in your sig....

I'm still thinking about using it. I went to the page to change my sig and noticed what was there. It's upbeat. Pleasant. Not sure I want to post your remarks as part of my sig. I'm sure you understand.

 

[apple0154]

I could call your arguments moral and human, Apple, but I'd be lying through my teeth...

Sorry, but I have more respect for the females I know than to place the value of their life on par with something that is unborn.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Sorry, but I have more respect for the females I know than to place the value of their life on par with something that is unborn.

Nice deflection. Better morals.

 

[NOVA]

I'm still thinking about using it. I went to the page to change my sig and noticed what was there. It's upbeat. Pleasant. Not sure I want to post your remarks as part of my sig. I'm sure you understand.

At least yours proves the old adage, "Ignorance is bliss".....
I understand...

 

[apple0154]

No you aren't, you simply attempt again to distract. At least read the thread, it's like you randomly pick posts of mine to quote and then say nonsense like this. When I take you seriously instead of actually reading my answers and continuing the conversation, I get some post of mine quoted from three pages ago and some inane distraction about chimerism. That isn't "logic" it is distraction, and none of them changed any portion of my positions on this. Why would being a chimera make a person any less a person? Why would it make the zygote any less of a human organism?

Your questions are nonsense and thus distractions, they are not "pointed", they are silly. Seriously, twins and chimerism? You are a clown.

Considering you take objection to my responding to posts three pages ago I'll skip to this one. Not everyone has all day to devote to this board and many posts are submitted during the afternoon when I'm spending quality time with my cats snoozing.

Being a chimera does not make a person less than a person. The reason I brought it up is to show a human being does not come into existence at the moment of conception.

Please follow along. A cell is fertilized. A conception takes place. We'll call the conception Jane. A little bit later that cell splits and we have a Bill that comes into existence. There was no Bill at the moment of conception. Bill came into existence after Jane split. No conception took place in order to produce Bill. Jane produced Bill.

Now, a little more time passes and Jane absorbs Bill. The individual, unique clump of cells, that individual, unique DNA that was Bill, has vanished. It has combined with Jane. However, not only is there is no more Bill but there is no more Jane.

That unique clump of cells, that unique clump of DNA, is no more, meaning there is no more Jane. The original Jane no longer exists IF we are to believe a unique clump of DNA denotes a human being as so many here propose.

So, now we have a complete new entity, neither a Bill nor a Jane. Let's call her Jill. When did Jill come into existence? There was no Jill a minute after conception. There was no Jill an hour after conception. So we can conclude with 100% certainty that not all people, assuming those clumps of cells are people, come into existence at the moment of conception.

As for where I stand regarding aborting one day before delivery how many cases have you heard of where that happened? When abortion is restricted, as it is now, the date will be constantly pushed back as we see that happening now. That's why I object to any restrictions.

The time may well come when 18 week fetuses are considered viable. Do we push the date back further? The point is the argument is not about aborting when the fetus is near term. The argument is about restricting abortion completely. That's why I object to any restrictions.

Lastly, where are the specific answers to my questions? If it's obvious something is a human being then the answers should be easy to come by. No one has offered specific answers. That, alone, tells us the validity of their arguments.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The 50% number is the number of fertilized cells that spontaneously abort.

As for "Being human is not defined by statistics. It is defined by genetics." I completely agree. Another fact concerning spontaneously aborted cells/eggs/zygotes is that the large majority of them do so due to genetic mutation.

A genetic deficiency again does not change the fact that they are human. Even after birth, genetic deficiencies exist. Those deficiencies can affect life span. In the cases you mention, the zygotes are still human beings, they simply do not survive.

Now, let's put these two things together. Human beings are defined by genetics AND the large majority of fertilized cells/eggs/zygotes are genetically damaged to the point they self-abort.

Obviously, there is a point where the genetically damaged/deficient fertilized cell/egg/zygote is not a human being. That's just a logical conclusion which means not all fertilized cells/eggs/zygotes are human beings.

Again, the above is simply absurd. It displays your complete ignorance with regards to genetics.

 

[apple0154]

Duh. I already said we should remove the one from the other upon request, just that we should have a different intent than killing. You again are arguing with the ghost of what you wish for rather than what is. Seriously, you are a clown and arguing what you think others believe rather than reading what they have said. It's very frustrating, it's like nothing can get through that barrier of clown make up (what you want me to believe) so that you can see what I actually have to say.

You are the clown and a deceitful one at that. You know as well as I that a 12 week old fetus will not survive regardless of how it's removed so to suggest removing it without killing it is nonsense. Why are you even mentioning that?

Let me guess. It looks like you're all for a woman's right to her own body by saying let's remove it without killing it but you know that is not possible.

Your argument reminds me of the typical father response to their 16 year old son wanting a car. When the son asks for his own car the father responds, "As soon as you can afford one you can have your own car."

Rather than say "No" the father is using the financial aspect knowing his son can't afford a car.

In case you miss the analogy both arguments are BS.

 

[apple0154]

Nice deflection. Better morals.

I'm sure if you knew some of the women I had the pleasure of knowing you'd agree with me.

 

[apple0154]

At least yours proves the old adage, "Ignorance is bliss".....
I understand...

I have no doubt you're familiar with that old adage.

 

[apple0154]

A genetic deficiency again does not change the fact that they are human. Even after birth, genetic deficiencies exist. Those deficiencies can affect life span. In the cases you mention, the zygotes are still human beings, they simply do not survive.

Again, the above is simply absurd. It displays your complete ignorance with regards to genetics.

No, it explains your ignorance not only to genetics but to things in general.

Do a Google. Learn. You already know genetic deficiencies exist. Why would it not be possible to have deficiencies to such an extent a human being does not exist?

The logical conclusion is that's exactly what happens as we have witnessed babies being born with severe genetic deficiencies. In order for nature to abort it's both reasonable and logical to conclude the deficiencies were of such a nature that the clump of cells were not a human being.