It can not tell us at this time, who knows what the future holds. We did not know about germs causing illness at one tie, either r even that sex caused impregnation, so who knows what the future will reveal.
women's lives sacrificed in fight against abortion - planned parenthood
- Thread starter Don Quixote
- Start date
It can not tell us at this time, who knows what the future holds. We did not know about germs causing illness at one tie, either r even that sex caused impregnation, so who knows what the future will reveal.
icedancer2theend
Verified User
The dangers to women's health only matter if they support abortion?
apple0154
MEOW
apple0154
MEOW
Like anything else that develops while the developing is taking place it is not what it will be when developed. There are no doctors in kindergarten even though a child in kindergarten may become a doctor. A person may contract cancer at 40 years of age. They are not a cancer patient at 20 years of age.
DNA tells us the material something is composed of. For example, I recently heard they are trying to clone the "woolly mammoth" by using an elephant as a surrogate.
(Excerpt) Russian and South Korea scientists have teamed up to recreate a woolly mammoth – a prehistoric creature that last walked the earth some 4,500 years ago.....The team aim to get to work on thawed remains of the extinct mammal recovered after global warming thawed Siberia’s permafrost.
The mammoth’s tissues are to be cloned by using eggs taken from a modern Indian elephant, the Korea Herald reported.
Once the tissues have undergone a nuclear transfer process, the eggs will be implanted into the womb of a live elephant. (End)
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/13/woolly-mammoth-clone-russia-south-korea_n_1341430.html
While they have the DNA they do not have a woolly mammoth which clearly shows DNA does not prove the presence of anything other than material. When all factors are considered the best DNA can do is tell us what the material is and that's a vital point regarding the fallacious assertions of the anti-abortionists. DNA tests do not prove something is a human being. It doesn't prove something is alive.
Bear in mind we're talking about DNA. Other tests may tell us something is alive but DNA does not and that's the convoluted lie of the anti-abortionists. They pose their argument as if a DNA test can determine a living human being and that's simply not the case. It's, at the very least, misleading when offered as indisputable, scientific proof.
It has nothing to do with "the future", science can absolutely demonstrate that a fetus is alive. It cannot determine if it has a "soul" or is "a being"... That is determined by, as I've said before, philosophy or religion.
You are stuck on stupid. Science can tell us that the Mammoth is dead, and the DNA can tell us it is a Mammoth.
Science can demonstrate that a fetus is either alive or dead, and that it is a human fetus.
The DNA doesn't determine if it is a being, only that it is human. Its development (heartbeat, growth, etc) tells us it is alive, its DNA will tell us it is both a separate entity from the mother and human. Whether it has a "soul" or is "a being" is determined by other means. It is stupid to pretend it isn't alive when it is clearly alive or compare it to something inanimate when it clearly is both living and not inanimate.
apple0154
MEOW
Talking about stuck on stupid DNA tells us what is human material. As for "alive" a person's organs are "alive" but the organs are not human beings. My point is DNA does not prove something is a human being and that is the anti-abortionist lie. DNA tests determine the material. It does not determine what is or isn't a human being or whether it's alive or dead. Other scientific tests may or may not do so but DNA definitely does not.
As for something classified as a human being it has to be an organism which means it has to be a self-contained unit capable of carrying on the processes of life. A fetus can not do that. It depends on the organs and bodily functions of another human being. It can not take in nourishment and remove waste which is why it's hooked up to the woman by means of the umbilical cord. In any case, if the fetus is a human being then the woman should still have the right to have it removed from her body. That should be the argument, not whether a fetus is a human being. Does a woman have the right to have something removed from her body?
you can get dna from a dead person - for quite a long time after they are dead also
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
yes, it tells you who that person WAS.......
also, everything from the egg through the fetus...
Actually, at this point speaking with you on this subject is like arguing with a three year old. Nobody that isn't short one brain believes that gestating progeny isn't alive. At this point you are like a flat-earther denying science saying that the images of the earth from orbit are faked...
It is sad and worthless speaking with you at all. I prefer to speak to people that do not deny science, do not ignore laws that would even call killing that progeny in any other way than abortion murder in liberal places like California, do not pretend that belief that something alive is dead because you want it to be real bad regardless of all the evidence, including the textbooks we've linked.
a kidney is alive as are all other parts of the various human organisms that are not dead
what if a human's heart and the rest of it are alive, but it is brain dead
at what point does a fetus develop a heartbeat
at what point does it develop a functioning brain
at what point does it become self animate
do we yet know when a fetus develops awareness
both a fetus and a baby are dependent on others to keep them alive as they are not able to do so themselves
what happens when a fetus spontaneously aborts, regardless of its development
what happens when a fetus dies in the uterus
i am not requesting religious or metaphysical answers but medical
in some cases the mother is not aware of the abortion and in cases where she is, she and the father usually mourn or breath a sigh of relief
a human does not become fully mature until around age 25-26, yet can and usually does become a functioning member of society before then
some babies are born sans higher level brain activity and are essentially 'vegetables'
life is a tricky thing, a brain dead human is not of much use to itself or society except as a scientific subject
now awareness is another thing altogether and perhaps should have a thread of its own
in reference to your post, i have more questions than answers
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
if I understand what you said, no.....the egg would have a different DNA, that of the mother....beyond that, yes....through fetus all the way to octogenarian...........
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
heart beat starts around six weeks....and since one of the functions of the brain is to control heartbeat, obviously it has a functioning brain at that point.....
death by natural cause....
apple0154
MEOW
If I recall correctly the California law was based on a horrific case and was the perfect time to play on people's emotions.
As for what's alive we've been over that a thousand times. Gestating progeny is alive just as a liver is alive or a kidney or ones skin. In fact, DNA tests are run on precisely those and other similar parts. Parts, that's the key word. DNA does not determine what is or isn't a human being nor what is or isn't alive. It determines the material a specific part is made of. Arguing that a DNA test from a piece of skin proves something is a human being is like arguing a DNA test from a coffee table proves it is an oak tree. It is not an oak tree. Or analyzing an acorn and declaring it is an oak tree. It is not an oak tree and never was an oak tree. Or the reverse. Taking a sample from an oak tree does not tell us if it’s a coffee table.
Two identical samples. One from an oak tree and one from a coffee table. Both samples will produce the same results. Identical. So, is an oak tree and a coffee table identical? DNA is only one way to classify something and it tells us the material from which something is made. It doesn’t tell us what was made. It doesn’t tell us if it’s alive or dead.
The sad thing about it all is anti-abortionists twist the language or outright use words that counter their own argument just as you did. “gestating progeny”
Gestating: carrying developing offspring within the body.
Synonyms: anticipating, expecting, hopeful (Dic.com)
Possible usage would be, “We are gestating a plan.” Or, “A plan is in the gestation stage.” In both instances there is currently no plan. The statements are forward looking. However, when used as you did “gestating progeny” it’s meant to imply there is already progeny, a human being, when such inference would be absurd in any other context.
The same applies to the definition: “carrying developing offspring” Something can not be present if it is developing.
“We are developing a plan.” Or, “A plan is in the development stage.” Both statements tell us there is currently no plan.
When anti-abortionists twist and contort the meaning of words those listening to the argument quickly see through the scam. I haven’t read the argument put forward in Roe V Wade but if arguments similar to those presented on JPP were offered I can understand the relative ease the Supreme Court experienced at arriving at a decision.
Finally, as to your opening comment, “Actually, at this point speaking with you on this subject is like arguing with a three year old”, you do have a point. Even a three year old possessing only a rudimentary knowledge of the English language could detect the non-factual, convoluted logic of your arguments. Of course, the lawmakers in other countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom and Australia and France and dozens of other countries have seen through the anti-abortionist arguments and dismissed them. I'm sure they, also, had little difficulty arriving at a decision.