Abortion

[Scott]

Can you think of any living human sperm that is not living and not human?

Can you think of any living human sperm that has a heartbeat [snip]

You didn't answer my question, but I'll answer yours anyway- no, human sperms don't have heartbeats.

 

[Scott]

Why? A frozen embryo doesn't yet have a heartbeat. You have to wait at least 16 days after conception for that to happen:

First of our three billion heartbeats is sooner than we thought | University of Oxford

When does our heart first start to beat? Until now, researchers thought that the first time our heart muscle contracted to beat was at eight days after conception in mice, which equates to around day 21 of a human pregnancy.

www.ox.ac.uk

Because it's my belief that life begins at "conception" (fertilization).

You don't really believe that do you? We may argue about how the term "living human" should be defined, but you can't deny that human sperms and eggs are very much alive.

However, you're also quite aware that this particular scenario falls outside of the purview of IBD's definition for 'living human' (homo sapien with a heartbeat).

Have you ever wondered why IBD doesn't share your and ItN's view that living humans begin at conception?

Do you accept set theory?

I do.

Then you'd also accept that {abortion} is a proper subset of {contract killing}.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Care to show your work?

 

[Scott]

Yes, they only have half as many chromosomes as regular cells, but regular human cells have -2- sets of chromosomes. Wikipedia explains:

I'm not sure what you find amusing. For the audience, here's what gfm snipped out:
**
The term haploid is used with two distinct but related definitions. In the most generic sense, haploid refers to having the number of sets of chromosomes normally found in a gamete. Because two gametes necessarily combine during sexual reproduction to form a single zygote from which somatic cells are generated, healthy gametes always possess exactly half the number of sets of chromosomes found in the somatic cells, and therefore "haploid" in this sense refers to having exactly half the number of sets of chromosomes found in a somatic cell. By this definition, an organism whose gametic cells contain a single copy of each chromosome (one set of chromosomes) may be considered haploid while the somatic cells, containing two copies of each chromosome (two sets of chromosomes), are diploid.
**

Source:

Ploidy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Scott]

You, Into the Night and gfm all exclude the human stages of human development known as human sperm and human egg from the term "living human". I don't.

Do you include urination and defecation as stages of human development?

Do urine and feces have the potential of developing into babies that are born?

 

[Scott]

A dictionary, encyclopedia or legal tome is far more than just an IP address.

It's a full API. Yes, I get it.

You clearly don't. I suspect part of the reason is that you didn't read what I had to say after the sentence you quoted. For the audience, feel free to take a look at my post #610, wherein I go into great detail as to the vast tome of knowledge that is wordnik.com, which is a dictionary aggregator.

 

[Scott]

Human sperms and eggs are living and human.

Depends on how you define living.

The term living, unlike "living human", is already well defined in dictionaries. I think the first definition of the word over at wordnik.com is quite apt for our conversation:
**
Possessing life.
**
Source:

living — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

From there, it's a quick jump to their first definition for life:
**
The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
**
Source:

life — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

I hope you noted that there is no condition that a living organism needs to have a heartbeat in order to qualify as being alive.

 

[Scott]

But even if one DOES define living in a manner that allows for sperm to be considered both living and human, a sperm is not an individual organism (it lacks the other 23 chromosomes that are necessary to form a new organism).

You've raised the bar: I said that human sperm were living and human. I never said that sperm were an organisms. By the way, saying individual organism appears to be redundant, as organisms are apparently individual by default:
**
An organism is any living thing that functions as an individual.[1]
**
Source:

Organism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On another point, a zygote may have the 2 complete sets of chromosomes to form a new organism, but without a fertile female's body, it will never turn into a baby that's born. In that sense, it's exactly like a sperm- it requires other components in order to become a born baby.

 

[IBDaMann]

Do urine and feces have the potential of developing into babies that are born?

Your question uses the word "potential" which calls for speculation and can be properly answered with either a "yes" or a "no."

Let's try a different question: are sperm/urine/feces/spit excreted by humans, without heartbeats, and organic in nature?

 

[IBDaMann]

You've raised the bar: I said that human sperm were living and human.

Sperm have no beating heart. Sperm do not have complete genetic material.

By the way, saying individual organism appears to be redundant, as organisms are apparently individual by default: ** An organism is any living thing that functions as an individual.[1] **

You are supposed to call booooolsch't on this kind of stupidity. Yes, one can analyze a group of organisms, or analyze them individually.

On another point, a zygote may have the 2 complete sets of chromosomes to form a new organism, but without a fertile female's body, it will never turn into a baby that's born.

That's a question of technology. Nonetheless, the "dependency" you reference is irrelevant.

On an identical point, you may have deliberately racked up an inconvenient debt, but without you actively paying it. it will never actually be paid.

 

[IBDaMann]

You clearly don't.

I do get it. You clearly don't.

Either list all the errors in that dictionary or stipulate that it is awash in errors.

 

[Scott]

Human sperms and eggs are living and human. For me, that's enough to classify them as living humans. Together, they can create embryos, fetuses and if a pregnancy comes to turn, born babies, but that doesn't change the fact that they are still living humans even if they don't join.

Key word: TOGETHER. That means that a sperm and an egg, SEPARATE, are merely COMPONENTS of living humans (namely, their sex cells)

I agree that they are components. I think we can agree that they are necessary ones. Furthermore, a zygote is also a component. Without a fertile female's body to grown in, or perhaps super expensive technology, it can go no further.

 

[Scott]

Setting aside your description of performing an abortion, I was actually thinking of cases where the mother decides to freeze her fertilized eggs thinking that she may wish to conceive at a future date, but then decides not to conceive. I suppose you would consider her pulling the plug on the life support of her fertilized eggs to be murder?

I suppose you already know the answer to your question

I'm not completely sure. I think your answer is yes, but I'd like to confirm.

I suppose you already know the answer to your question, but those cases are totally irrelevant within IBD's framework of 'living human'. (homo sapien with a heartbeat).

I think this is a roundabout way of saying that IBD wouldn't consider it to be murder. Am I right?

 

[Scott]

What abortions are performed without the customer signing the contractual paperwork and waivers?

Illegal ones I imagine.

Are you saying that they enter a verbal contract?

I'm saying that when it comes to illegal abortions, there is probably little if any paperwork involved.

I get it, but you acknowledge the verbal contract, yes?

If you're saying that most illegal abortions occur when a pregnant female requests an abortion from someone who isn't legally allowed to provide one in the location it's performed, sure.

 

[Scott]

Since I have been unable to find a dictionary, encyclopedia or legal dictionary definition, I am using my own definition of 'living human'. My definition of 'living human' includes human sperm and eggs.

Nope. You haven't ever stated your definition of "living human."

I have, though it's quite possible that I hadn't yet done so when you wrote your statement. My definition of a living human encompasses all stages of human development, from human sperms and eggs and ends with elderly humans.

 

[Scott]

How is {customer who is a pregnant woman} somehow not a proper subset of {customer}?

I have no problem with this part.

Is that an answer?

It is, though it looks like I need to elaborate. You seem to have assumed that I wouldn't agree that a "customer who is a pregnant woman" is a proper subset of a customer. You've made a false assumption.

You still haven't answered the question.

Yes, I have.

 

[Scott]

The fact that you believe that abortions are contract killings reflects the fact that you believe that abortions are killings, rather than other words that I've seen used in dictionaries, such as the termination of a pregnancy or the removal of the fetus from a pregnant woman.

Bad logic.

I suspect we may have to agree to disagree here.

 

[Scott]

I keep pointing out that you refuse to engage in the discussion.

An unsubstantiated assertion.

An observation.

An unsubstantiated one.

Every observation is its own substantiation.

I should have said that your claim that I "refuse to engage in the discussion" was not an observation, but an unsubstantiated assertion.

 

[Scott]

I've already pointed out time and again that I have yet to find a dictionary use the k word when it comes to abortions.

Have you ever considered that said dictionary simply made an editorial decision to alter its usage descriptions so that the politically rabid will continue to use their dictionary?

First of all, I didn't look at a single dictionary's definition, I looked at several. -None- of them used the k word. Secondly, we can all speculate whatever we like, but I've seen no evidence that any of the dictionary definitions for abortion that I've seen were trying to appeal to some "politically rabid" crowd.

 

[Scott]

When all is said and done:

1. A personal/private decision by the pregnant woman and a partner/spouse (if such is involved) and her personal physician.

2. Once the state inserts itself in that decision based on a specific religious doctrine that counters medical science, we are in a theocracy.

3. State & federal regulations formerly protected the life of the mother and MEDICALLY DETERMINED when a pregnancy reached a level of development where termination would be akin to "murder".

I agree with 1 and I think I agree with 2. However, with 3, I have my doubts that there is some medical way to determine when pregnancy termination would be akin to murder.

Actually, there is.....because unlike the idiot claims by the rabid "pro-life" folk, there has never been a "post birth abortion".

I've never seen anyone on the "pro-life" side say there's been a "post birth abortion". What I -have- seen them do repeatedly is attempt to muddy the waters by claiming that people who perform abortions are killers and murderers. This only makes sense if performing an abortion is regularly defined as killing or murdering and I've pointed out repeatedly that I've found no dictionary that supports this assertion.

 

[Scott]

Serious financial problems are more than just an "inconvenience"

Nope. They are the definition of "inconvenience."

Tell that to the millions of parents whose young children die each year. For the audience, the statistics on this are quite clear, as I mentioned in my previous post:

Child and Infant Mortality

Child mortality remains one of the world’s largest problems and is a painful reminder of work yet to be done. With global data on where, when, and how child deaths occur, we can accelerate efforts to prevent them.

ourworldindata.org

Sure. Bring me the millions of parents.

I can't, but I can certainly cite some sobering statistics about their children:
**
Child mortality is one of the world’s largest problems. Around 6 million children under 15 die per year. That’s around 16,000 deaths every day, or 11 every minute.

This devastating statistic reveals the vast number of children whose lives end before they can discover their talents, passions, and dreams as they grow older – and represents the impact of child mortality on so many people’s lives: parents, siblings, families, and communities.

What’s tragic is how many of these deaths are preventable. Most are caused by malnutrition, birth conditions such as preterm birth, sepsis and trauma [snip]
**
Source:

Child and Infant Mortality

Child mortality remains one of the world’s largest problems and is a painful reminder of work yet to be done. With global data on where, when, and how child deaths occur, we can accelerate efforts to prevent them.

ourworldindata.org

Nope. I can't cross-examine statistics

Agreed. You can certainly respect them though.

Nope. Leftists routinely fabricate statistics, and when they don't, leftists don't disclose the problem's in the underlying data.

Setting aside your distrust of leftists, do you even have any evidence that the statistics in questions were done by people on the left?

You and I both do.

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion.