"Don't abort masturbating babies"

[sangha]

And I had nothing against your sources. But I did say, and will say, that an embryologist who is qualified to make statements about embryos is not, in fact, more qualified to make such statements than scientists in other branches of biology.

http://biology.franklincollege.edu/Bioweb/Biology/course_p/bioethics/When does human life begin.pdf provides a bioethics overview of views of when human life begins, considering both historical-religious, scientific, and philosophical views.

From your link:

Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular
view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as
an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One
such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that
there is no "moment of fertilization" at all.

 

[Summerwind]

Yup, nota hates herself. Makes perfect sense. Also, "economic health" is just code for "killing your kid for personal financial gain," which is why most murders happen anyway. Cheers.

You think only men can be misogynistic? WRONG. History is full of women enabling and initiating misogynistic trends, laws, .........more.

 

[JayDubya]

You think only men can be misogynistic?

To be fair, I've seen plenty of pro-abortion men that are quite obviously bigoted against men... but they of course actually provided direct evidence of such things by saying that men can't even have an opinion.

 

[Henrin]

You think only men can be misogynistic? WRONG. History is full of women enabling and initiating misogynistic trends, laws, .........more.

nota bene is a woman that believes in the sanctity of life and there is nothing misogynistic about that.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Whether you didn't read closely enough or are willfully misrepresenting what I said, I did NOT say what you claim. Here are my words, and this time pay attention to the use of quote marks and the word "angle," to which "damnable lie" refers:

(Post #115) Abortion may be safe and legal, but it's not rare. The new pro-choice angle is "women's reproductive health," and that is a damnable lie. Most abortions are NOT performed because of a woman's health or rape or catastrophic fetal defect.

Thank you for proving me right.

 

[nota bene]

No I do not and no you do not. You make that assumption so you can rant. .

Well, sure I can, and so I’ll say it again: The overwhelming majority of abortions are not performed to save the life or mind of the mother. I’m not assuming; I’m going by reliable statistics. Scroll through for helpful charts: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

Economic health for a single mother weighs very heavily in all manner of her other healths. To deny that is to show one's entire level of ignorance probably because of being a misogynist, imo.

I am a single mother. I would be surprised if you had any revelations for me, so please don’t preach.

But here is a revelation for you: Economic health is not the same as reproductive health. Please don’t call me “ignorant” if you intend to argue that it is. And don’t insinuate that I am misogynistic. From the Feminists for Life’s homepage: “Women who have abortions cite lack of resources and support as the determining factor. Women deserve better than abortion.” Feminists for Life - Women Deserve Better

 

[choiceone]

Property is a natural occurrence of acquiring goods be it land, food, your body, or whatever it might be. When you acquire the goods it becomes your property and its then yours to use and dispose of as you see fit. Of course, I should mention the homesteading principle in all of this.

Now if we were talk of countries and how they distributed land then we find ourselves in a very unethical place where land was taken by force and distributed by the rulers of those societies. Still, is there a claim to be made that each person shall have land? No, there is not.

The point is that involuntary taxes are theft and perhaps one of the worst uses of taxation that exists is using the revenue collected to pay for favors of certain individuals. It is perhaps even worse still when you force everyone on a system to benefit these same group of individuals.

Gifting your land or property through inheritance is perfectly legitimate and perhaps even desirable. For else the land and property would need to be returned to the state for resale and such a situation is undesirable towards the ends of the people having control over the land and property. Eminent domain should only ever be used when there is no heirs towards the property and always be resold as private property. The amendment we have for this is unfit as it assumes the state has control and the people must accept their terms. This however is baseless and abandons the very foundation of property in which is control.

The Europeans who came to the US stole almost all of the land here from the Native Americans and, out in Texas, etc., from Mexicans. Just because the Native Americans did not farm it, for the most part, and the tribal nations each "owned" their territories communally rather than individually does not mean they did not "own" it. And most of the land that was "bought" from them was "bought" under threat of killing and stealing if they did not agree.

The US government and state and territorial governments were both complicit in the process and did not hide the fact that they were doing it - they broke treaty after treaty with nation after nation. Then, they did frequently give away the land that was stolen to "homesteaders." Furthermore, in the process of land-grabbing, dishonest crooks took land away from honest owners and got away with it, and they passed that land on as inherited gift to their progeny, who knew it was stolen land and didn't do one thing about it.

The entire private property distribution of US territory was originally based on lying, stealing, and cheating, and it continued on in that vein for over a hundred years. So the notion that the property distribution today is legitimate and honest is a load of you-know-what.

 

[sangha]

Well, sure I can, and so I’ll say it again: The overwhelming majority of abortions are not performed to save the life or mind of the mother. I’m not assuming; I’m going by reliable statistics. Scroll through for helpful charts: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf



I am a single mother. I would be surprised if you had any revelations for me, so please don’t preach.

But here is a revelation for you: Economic health is not the same as reproductive health. Please don’t call me “ignorant” if you intend to argue that it is. And don’t insinuate that I am misogynistic. From the Feminists for Life’s homepage: “Women who have abortions cite lack of resources and support as the determining factor. Women deserve better than abortion.” Feminists for Life - Women Deserve Better

The link you posted supports the claim that a large majority of women have abortions in part due to concerns about their health

 

[windowdressing]

Well, sure I can, and so I’ll say it again: The overwhelming majority of abortions are not performed to save the life or mind of the mother. I’m not assuming; I’m going by reliable statistics. Scroll through for helpful charts: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf



I am a single mother. I would be surprised if you had any revelations for me, so please don’t preach.

But here is a revelation for you: Economic health is not the same as reproductive health. Please don’t call me “ignorant” if you intend to argue that it is. And don’t insinuate that I am misogynistic. From the Feminists for Life’s homepage: “Women who have abortions cite lack of resources and support as the determining factor. Women deserve better than abortion.” Feminists for Life - Women Deserve Better

what women should have is choice ... if you want, give them better choices ... but they should have the right to choose ...

 

[choiceone]

Since you're so enamored of embryologists, you may want to read what some of them say about the uncertainty surrounding this mythical "moment of conception" you refer to

http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/40/1/essay/davisvol40no1_peters.pdf

Yes, this is the whole point: when we talk about a "moment," what duration do we have in mind? For some people, it's that 48-hour period mentioned in your link, for others, it's the entire pregnancy. And why not, since both are nothing but durations in the process that produces the separate living organism that is called an infant upon birth?

 

[choiceone]

nota bene is a woman that believes in the sanctity of life and there is nothing misogynistic about that.

As long as a person, regardless of gender, does not want to impose that belief on other persons by making laws against abortion and the use of deadly force if necessary in defense against rape, sexual assault, kidnapping, and robbery, fine. But when you want to make laws that will impose on the bodies of born persons and most or all of them are female, that is misogynistic.

 

[Summerwind]

Well, sure I can, and so I’ll say it again: The overwhelming majority of abortions are not performed to save the life or mind of the mother. I’m not assuming; I’m going by reliable statistics. Scroll through for helpful charts: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf



I am a single mother. I would be surprised if you had any revelations for me, so please don’t preach.

But here is a revelation for you: Economic health is not the same as reproductive health. Please don’t call me “ignorant” if you intend to argue that it is. And don’t insinuate that I am misogynistic. From the Feminists for Life’s homepage: “Women who have abortions cite lack of resources and support as the determining factor. Women deserve better than abortion.” Feminists for Life - Women Deserve Better

Very simply.... If you believe laws should be passed to force women to have babies they don't want, be it through denying abortion and/or birth control, you're a misogynist. Period. No one should force you to change your mind about your health and life decisions, and nor should anyone else make those decisions for any individual woman on the planet.

 

[radioman]

And the worse part for me...Another Crazy Ass Texan has to say such nonsense. I'm a native Texan. What the ****? Man, Texas is pumping out radical, moron freaks by leaps and bounds. Kansas...you've finally met your match.

Oh the shame of it all....

---------------------
Oh, hell, don't feel too bad.
Things will get better.
Maybe Kinky Friedman will be your next governor?

 

[iangb]

I don't appreciate your insinuations. What I actually did, and you can do the same, was begin with the following list and then look up the embryology textbook requirements one by one: Best Medical Schools | Research Rankings | Top Medical Schools for Research | US News Best Graduate Schools

Like I said - I've never seen you post the list yourself. Indeed, a search through your prior posts for "persuad" comes up with nothing of substance, although that's possibly the search function messing up.

Regardless - I have supplied you a quote above from Moore and Persuad, whom you have already declared to be reliable sources, saying that your POV is just one among many. Whether you accept it or not is up to you, I guess.

 

[nota bene]

Like I said - I've never seen you post the list yourself. Indeed, a search through your prior posts for "persuad" comes up with nothing of substance, although that's possibly the search function messing up.

I provided you with a link to US News & World report's list of top-ten medical schools. I then went to the schools' websites and looked up course/textbook requirements, which, as I've already said, you can also do.

DP doesn't have a very intuitive search function (or maybe I'm so unsophisticated that I don't know how to effectively use this function), and I'm sure you're as unwilling as I am to plod through every page of a 70+ page thread to find what you're looking for. I have, however, posted the textbook titles, including Langman's Medical Embryology and The Developing Human, 8th ed.

 

[iangb]

I provided you with a link to US News & World report's list of top-ten medical schools. I then went to the schools' websites and looked up course/textbook requirements, which, as I've already said, you can also do.

DP doesn't have a very intuitive search function (or maybe I'm so unsophisticated that I don't know how to effectively use this function), and I'm sure you're as unwilling as I am to plod through every page of a 70+ page thread to find what you're looking for. I have, however, posted the textbook titles, including Langman's Medical Embryology and The Developing Human, 8th ed.

No problem - and apologies for any accusations of pro-life quotemining, should you feel such are warrented. I'm not going after the sources themselves right now, at least partly since I don't know what specific ones you were looking at, with what specific quotes, and so to just criticise blindly would be to potentially do nothing other than accidentally set up straw men. I've already had a look at the 'top ten medical schools' link, but there were enough different courses etc for each school that the chances of finding the exact same reading lists as you used are vanishingly small, never mind the exact quote you reference from each book. I might have another search through your posts if time allows at some point.

Here and now though, I'm more interested in your response to the quote of mine from Moore and Persuad, since it both specifically addresses the issue head-on and comes from a source which you have already identified as authoritative and trustworthy. To repeat it here for ease of access:

"The question of when an embryo becomes a human being is difficult to answer, because opinions are affected by religious and personal views. The scientific answer is that, from the time of fertilisation, the the embryo has human potential, and no other, because of its human chromosomal constitution"
~p328 "Before We Are Born - Essentials of Embryology and birth defects" (Persuad, Moore)​

 

[nota bene]

Your quote is not from the medical embryology textbook used. Here is a Moore quote from the 7th edition of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology: "‘‘Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.’’

The 9th edition (with a third author, Torchia) of the textbook is available in PDF for free download. I'm not willing to install a downloader because I've read that they're the devil to remove, but if you Google, you can find at least two sites that provide access if you're willing.

As for the textbooks used by the top ten med schools, all you have to do is Google "______ medical school embryology courses and textbooks."

 

[iangb]

Your quote is not from the medical embryology textbook used. Here is a Moore quote from the 7th edition of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology: "‘‘Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.’’

The 9th edition (with a third author, Torchia) of the textbook is available in PDF for free download. I'm not willing to install a downloader because I've read that they're the devil to remove, but if you Google, you can find at least two sites that provide access if you're willing.

As for the textbooks used by the top ten med schools, all you have to do is Google "______ medical school embryology courses and textbooks."

So your reason for discounting an embryology textbook, written by the same authors of a different embryology textbook which you will accept, is that it isn't specifically listed on the reading list of ten particular universities?

Seems to me like you're going to great lengths to try and discredit a source that disagrees with you.

As for your quote above, it doesn't say what you are implying it says. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, there's a big difference between "beginning the development of" or "being the beginning of" something and actually being it. The analogies are endless - but the standard one is that (tailored to analogise your above quote) "The development of a cake begins when the first ingredients are mixed, producing the cake mixture. This delicious goop marks the beginning of a cake as a tasty treat". And yet a cake mixture is not yet a cake - it is merely the beginning of one.

Since you are specifically naming certain books, though... Some other quotes from The Developing Human for you (I used the ninth edition, since that seems to be the most recent one available):

"Cell division, cell migration, programmed cell death, differentiation, growth, and cell rearrangement transform the fertilized oocyte, a highly specialised, totipotent cell, a zygote, into a multicellular human being" ~p1

"The zygote divides many times and becomes progressively transformed into a multicellular human being through cell division, migration, growth and differentiation." ~p13​

Oh, and while I'm here, one from Langman's Medical Embryology:

"From a single cell to a baby in nine months; a developmental process that represents an amazing integration of increasingly complex phenomena. The study of these phenomena is called embryology, and the field includes investigations of the molecular, cellular, and structural factors contributing to the formation of an organism" ~pxii​

 

[nota bene]

I'm not sure what your point is. A new human life is created at conception, and yes, it progressively becomes more and more "multicellular" as it grows.

If it is allowed to grow, and that is the real point and the point, in fact, of this forum, and of this thread. All the quotes from embryologists and other scientists and all the input philosophically about what makes a "person" doesn't change the essential fact--that 55 million human lives have been willfully extinguished since Roe v Wade.

I object to this and believe that from the moment of conception, this new human life--and this is what that one cell is--has value. Many do not, and I understand that their opinions differ from mine. All the quotes in the world aren't going to change what is fundamental: You either think that abortion under most circumstances is a great evil in this world, or you don't.

 

[sangha]

I'm not sure what your point is. A new human life is created at conception, and yes, it progressively becomes more and more "multicellular" as it grows.

His point is that the first clause of the 2nd sentence is not true and contradicted by a source you claim to believe (when it supports your position)

If it is allowed to grow, and that is the real point and the point, in fact, of this forum, and of this thread. All the quotes from embryologists and other scientists and all the input philosophically about what makes a "person" doesn't change the essential fact--that 55 million human lives have been willfully extinguished since Roe v Wade.

And here's where you discard what they say when it doesn't suit your argument. You dishonestly point to the embryologist when you (incorrectly) believe he's said that a human life is created at conception, and then disregard what he (and many other embryologists) has said when he says otherwise.

I object to this and believe that from the moment of conception, this new human life--and this is what that one cell is--has value. Many do not, and I understand that their opinions differ from mine. All the quotes in the world aren't going to change what is fundamental: You either think that abortion under most circumstances is a great evil in this world, or you don't.

Yes, you will continue to ignore anything that contradicts your opinion, but dishonestly quote them, as if you value their opinion, when it suits you. Here again is the quote that *you* posted:

"‘‘Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.’’

Note that it does not say "at fertilization, a new life is created"

What is says is that the *process* (ie human development) of creating a new life *begins* at fertilization.

But of course, it doesn't matter what he says, right? You'll quote him when you think he supports your opinion, and ignore him when he does not.

 

[choiceone]

I'm not sure what your point is. A new human life is created at conception, and yes, it progressively becomes more and more "multicellular" as it grows.

If it is allowed to grow, and that is the real point and the point, in fact, of this forum, and of this thread. All the quotes from embryologists and other scientists and all the input philosophically about what makes a "person" doesn't change the essential fact--that 55 million human lives have been willfully extinguished since Roe v Wade.

I object to this and believe that from the moment of conception, this new human life--and this is what that one cell is--has value. Many do not, and I understand that their opinions differ from mine. All the quotes in the world aren't going to change what is fundamental: You either think that abortion under most circumstances is a great evil in this world, or you don't.

And I say, once again, that if a zygote~morula~blastocyst~embryo is grown in a petri dish, it will not grow beyond double the pre-implantation life span even if it is grown in a culture with the most powerful scientific supernutrient known. That means it could not live long enough without implantation to stay inside a woman's body past her next menstruation. Implantation means that the embryo and fetus live inside and drawing from the woman's body and life as her limbs and organs do - it is no longer a new life, but an extension of the woman's life, and that is why, prior to viability, it dies if she dies, as her limbs and organs do. There is no life other than the woman's from the time of implantation. So if you grow an embryo in a petri dish, you have every right to claim that it has a right to life if you want to, but if the embryo is growing inside a woman's body, it's part of her body and life despite the difference in its DNA and she, not you, has the right to decide what to do with it.

And you're right that people either think abortion under most circumstances is a great evil or they don't - but your side cannot provide sufficient objective evidence for your view to warrant banning abortion under most circumstances precisely because the objective scientific evidence can't support the claim that an embryo is a new human life as long as it is biologically attached to and inside the woman's body and life. All that type of evidence can support is the claim that, at viability, a fetus could immediately be a new human life if it were removed from the woman's body and life. And that, as I understand it, is why the law made a big issue of viability.

 

[nota bene]

Even a zygote is a uniquely created individual life distinct from the mother.

 

[choiceone]

Even a zygote is a uniquely created individual life distinct from the mother.

I'm not saying that a zygote isn't a uniquely created individual life - it is, as long as it's a zygote, a morula, or a blastocyst. But once that life reaches its natural end, at 8-10 days, it can be artificially extended either individually in a petri dish with a powerful scientific supernutrient or by implantation in a woman's uterine wall.

In the petri dish, it will remain individual but die within 16-20 days of its existence as a zygote. Implanted in the woman's body, it will cease to maintain individuality because, though its DNA is different and it is developing organs, its survival and development will depend completely on the woman's body, blood, and life through biological connection, just as the woman's own limbs and organs so depend.

Thus, if you do not grow it separately in a lab, it does not constitute an individual life distinct from the woman for the entire duration of the biological connection/dependence, but if you do grow it separately in a lab, it will not succeed in complete organogenesis.

The blastocyst has a right to its own life, but it does not have a right to any portion of the body, blood, or life of the woman, which means that it has no right to complete organogenesis or to development of viability as a separate living human being outside the woman's body, because those are the contribution of the woman's body and life and are not intrinsic to the zygote, morula, or blastocyst.

What clarifies the great difference between an embryo or fetus and a born infant is this. The born infant does not require being fed its own mother's breastmilk, as any woman with breastmilk can feed it and it will survive, and it does not even require being fed breastmilk, for women who do not have sufficient breastmilk can feed it cows' milk in Europe, coconut milk in the South Pacific, soymilk in East Asia, etc., and it will still survive, and even a premie can be given oxygen and nutrient in a medically artificial way and it will survive. But an embryo or fetus has to become part of a completely developed human being's body for several months in order to be transformed from a blastocyst-embryo into a complete and viable human being.

 

[sangha]

Even a zygote is a uniquely created individual life distinct from the mother.

Except for the facts that not all zygotes are unique, or distinct from the mother, you were spot on.

 

[choiceone]

Except for the facts that not all zygotes are unique, or distinct from the mother, you were spot on.

nota bene didn't say zygotes were unique, but that they were uniquely created. They are distinct from the woman because you can make them in petri dishes. But neither of those facts changes anything, because a zygote doesn't have the right to stay in your body without your consent, just as a blastocyst doesn't have the right to implant, etc.