Explain Your Reasoning.

[steen]

Surely you are aware that, when an expectant mother is hospitalized for any condition, charts are maintained for two patients. One chart by an obstetrician who is concerned with the child in her womb, the other chart by the physician or surgeon who is treating the mother.

Actually, the obstetrician is maintaining a chart on the FETUS, as he is fulfilling the woman's right to decide that she want to support the products of conception in her body. So in the case of a wanted pregnancy, she does have the right to have medical attention to the products of conception to ensure that her choice of use of her bodily resources is respected.

And guess what, she has that same right, in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, to have medical attention to the products of conception to ensure that her choice of use of her bodily resources is respected.

It seems that the medical community disagrees with you about the importance of both lives.

Not at all. The medical community respects her right to decide what is important in the use of her bodily resources. It seems that you are just flat-out wrong.

 

[steen]

Here's an interesting story. Be sure to read it all.

Excerpt:

I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimises my credentials

And so on. That would be Nathanson, right? The one who turned out to be so dishonest that he made "The Silent Scream," a proven lie and deception. Yeah, great source you got there.

Now, after that little diversion, you seem to have tried to avoid the issue of how you outright LIED (again!). Hey, if you lie all the time, why be a coward about it? We ALL know that you lie, so why not just come right out and admit it and stand by what you are doing?

 

[Fantasea]

And so on. That would be Nathanson, right? The one who turned out to be so dishonest that he made "The Silent Scream," a proven lie and deception. Yeah, great source you got there.

Now, after that little diversion, you seem to have tried to avoid the issue of how you outright LIED (again!). Hey, if you lie all the time, why be a coward about it? We ALL know that you lie, so why not just come right out and admit it and stand by what you are doing?

You have not refuted a single thing Dr. Nathanson has to say.

Are you able to refute him? Or must you restrict your comments to mockery and denial, as you have done?

 

[Fantasea]

Actually, the obstetrician is maintaining a chart on the FETUS, as he is fulfilling the woman's right to decide that she want to support the products of conception in her body. So in the case of a wanted pregnancy, she does have the right to have medical attention to the products of conception to ensure that her choice of use of her bodily resources is respected.

And guess what, she has that same right, in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, to have medical attention to the products of conception to ensure that her choice of use of her bodily resources is respected.

Not at all. The medical community respects her right to decide what is important in the use of her bodily resources. It seems that you are just flat-out wrong.

I am flattered that you have adopted the use of the expression I introduced to this form, "product of conception".

Tell me, why should medical resources be wasted on something that is, in your mind, worthless?

Your argument concerning the involuntary use of bodily resources would be hilarious if it wasn't ridiculous.

Abortion is not at all about the use of bodily resources. It is simply an extremely harsh method of birth control employed to avoid the embarrassment or inconvenience of pregnancy.

 

[FutureIncoming]

To Fantasea:
Perhaps you missed my Message #267 of this Thread (on Page 27 in my browser, 10 posts per Page)? Let's have some serious debate, and not this constant sniping between you and steen. Besides, if you cannot answer my post, then that just means you have lost the debate, and so why do you continue to snipe from the losing position?

 

[Fantasea]

[quote = FutureIncoming]

(1)Almost all the rest of what you wrote is dependent upon the FACT that humans CLAIM that humans are somehow more special than other organisms, with hardly any objective evidence to support the claim.
I submit that humans are NOT more special than other life-forms, when seen from the grand perspective. If you can present evidence to the contrary, feel free to do so!!!

(2)Fantasea:
With respect, I prefer not to engage in philosophical discussions which cannot be concluded. However, when seen from the practical perspective, the intelligent human is superior to and light years ahead of every other life form.

Submit whatever you wish. I have no idea of your definition of “the grand perspective”. However, here on earth, the child of even the most backward Australian aborigine, African tribesman, or impoverished Asian is far more advanced in every mental respect than any full grown animal or other known life form. Toss in any redneck kid, too, so you will be less likely to complain of discrimination.

This is self-evident to me. Is it not to you?

 

[Fantasea]

[Quote = Futureincoming]

(3)steen:
Until the brain connects with the inputs received from sensory nerves, it is just a lump of tissue sitting there. It does not do any processing until signals reach the brain's cortex. It is the equivalent to a computer that is not turned on.
And that final connection, the "turning on" of the brain doesn't happen until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy, when the thalamocortical tract connects. Until then, the brain receives no inputs, until then, it does no processing, until then, it is non-functioning.


(4)Fantasea:
How does this render a living, growing, human fetus unworthy of continued life?

(5)Kandahar:
Because a fetus can't "think" if its brain doesn't have any input. Do you disagree that thinking should be the determining characteristic of whether or not an entity is entitled to the right to life? If so, what would you suggest instead? What other single characteristic sets humans apart from animals that you would not grant the right to life to?

(6)Fantasea:
A human zygote, a human embryo, a human fetus all have one thing in common; they are human. They are simply different stages of development of a human being. There is no difference in the quality of humanity from one to the other. Human life commences with conception. That is what entitles a zygote, an embryo, a fetus to the right to life.

(7)Fantasea:
In the vernacular, expressions such as, ‘Unborn child”, “Carrying a child.”, “With child”, and many others of that ilk have been popular for centuries. Dictionaries are replete with applicable definitions.

(8)Fantasea:
Sperm, unless it unites with an egg, will remain sperm. An egg, unless it unites with sperm, will remain an egg.
Neither, by itself, can produce a child.

(9)steen:
But both can produce a zygote by their own DNA. That's what a hydatidiform mole is. Didn't you know that?

I don’t know what you expect me to add to my statements which you quoted above, however, according to the on-line Medical Dictionary:

“hydatid
<zoology> A membranous sac or bladder filled with a pellucid fluid, found in various parts of the bodies of animals, but unconnected with the tissues. It is usually formed by parasitic worms, especially. By larval tapeworms, as Echinococcus and Coenurus. See these words in the Vocabulary.

<anatomy> Hydatid of Morgagni, one of the small pedunculated bodies found between the testicle and the head of the epididymis, and supposed to be a remnant of the Mullerian duct."

Doesn’t appear to be anything that will produce a human child.

 

[Fantasea]

[quote = Futureincoming]

(10)Fantasea:
You must know, by now, that I never discuss abortion on the basis of religion.

(11)Fantasea:
When a woman voluntarily engages in conduct which may result in pregnancy, she knowingly accepts the responsibility of the consequences.

(12)Fantasea:
I’m surprised that you are not also placing the blame for “Katrina” on his shoulders, too.

(13)Fantasea:
In order to make the abortion solution work, the unborn child must be reduced to the status of non-human. This is the only way that the pro-choice crowd can hope for acceptance of its message of death.

(14)Fantasea:
The fact remains that every abortion stills a beating human heart.

I see nothing above which requires amplification.

 

[Fantasea]

[Quote = Futureincoming]

To Fantasea:
Almost all of the argumentation that followed my last post (1) is related to your UNPROVED CLAIM that human life is more special than other life. Your comment (10), regarding religion, is therefore mistaken. ALL religions are fundamentally based on unproved claims. Since you are persistently making the unproved claim that human life is so special it must be preserved whenever possible, you actually ARE discussing abortion on the basis of a religious stand (although a non-formalized religious stand).

You may wish to believe that human life is not superior to other life forms. It is self-evident to me that it is.

Your introducing religion into a discussion of biology, which is as secular a subject as there is, is nothing more than dragging a red herring across the trail to confuse the issue.

 

[Fantasea]

[Quote = Futureincoming]

But let me get back to your (2) comment about the superiority of humans. In actual fact you cannot honestly make the claim that humans are "light years ahead of every other life form", simply because we don't know about all the life forms in distant corners of the Universe. There may be types of life out there to which grown human beings have no more talent than the tube worms at various ocean-bottom hydrothermal vents. And even if we ignore the unknown, and focus only on the known life on Planet Earth, humans are not really light-years ahead of all of them. We have evidence that some gorillas and chimps are actually mentally ahead of some (severely retarded) humans. Which implies that when compared to ordinary humans, those gorillas and chimps are NOT light-years behind. Also, in measured scientific fact every single human mental ability except one has been found in other life-forms on Earth -- simply to lesser degree than possessed by the average human. (The one so-far-as-known unique mental trait of humans is the ability to see self in the situation of another.)

This is the kind of philosophical discussion I referred to earlier; the kind which can never be concluded. I don’t believe it is useful in a discussion concerning the merits of snuffing of lives of unborn children.

 

[Fantasea]

[Quote = Futureincoming]

Next, I thank you for admitting that the key thing that distinguishes humans from animals is their minds. AND I thank you for preferring to reference the vernacular (7). Because you seem to have never really thought about how the word "Being" is used in the vernacular. That is, how many times have you ever met any of these phrases (outside science fiction)? "Cat Beings", "Dog Beings", "Mouse Beings", "Frog Beings", "Grasshopper Beings".... DO YOU ADMIT that in the vernacular, the word "Being" is reserved for creatures that have MINDS? ("Alien Beings", "Intelligent Beings", "Sentient Beings"....) BY YOUR OWN PREFERENCE FOR THE VERNACULAR, THERFORE, THE ZYGOTE, EMBRYO, OR YOUNG FETUS CANNOT QUALIFY AS A HUMAN BEING. It is a PERFECTLY HUMAN ANIMAL BODY ONLY, "empty" until it acquires a MIND (3). ONLY THEN can it deserve the label of "Human Being", per your own preference for the vernacular!!! This directly relates to what you wrote at the end of (13). WE DO NOT have to reduce the status of (per vernacular) "an unborn child" to non-human. We merely have to recognize the simple truth that for most of a pregnancy it is not a (per vernacular) "Being".

You do a yeoman job at bending, twisting, and massaging my words in an attempt to torture them into a parody never intended by me.

The word “be” indicates existence. “Being”, therefore, is one who exists. “Human being” is a human who exists. The product of human conception is, therefore, a human being. What could be simpler?

Merriam Webster’s puts it this way.

Main Entry: [1]be•ing
Pronunciation: 'bE(-i)[ng]
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : the quality or state of having existence

 

[Busta]

Let me know when Tube Worms or Gorillas go to the Moon or divelope Nuclear Power.

 

[Fantasea]

[quote = Futureincoming]

Paraphrasing (6), "human life begins at conception; that is what entitles the early forms of human to the right to life" --Does this mean that because "Alien Beings" would probably be non-human, they must be denied the right to life? I'm curious to see EXACTLY how you would define "that which is deserving of the right to life" such as to include Human Beings and nonhuman Alien Beings, BUT EXCLUDE ORDINARY ANIMAL NON-BEINGS -- and then manage to somehow include the mindless zygote, embryo, or young fetus (even YOU have said that the important more-than-animal factor is the human mind). Really! I want to see your definition!

The next time I encounter an “Alien Being”, I’ll size him up and let you know.

 

[Fantasea]

[Quote = Futureincoming]

Regarding (8) and (9), it might be interesting to see what steen has to tell you about "parthenogenesis".

Given what Merriam Webster’s has to say about it, I can’t wait.

Main Entry: par•the•no•gen•e•sis
Pronunciation: "pär-th&-nO-'je-n&-s&s
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek parthenos + Latin genesis genesis
Date: 1849
: reproduction by development of an unfertilized usually female gamete that occurs especially among lower plants and invertebrate animals

 

[Fantasea]

[Quote = Futureincoming]

Regarding (12), I can't resist commenting that Bush CAN AND WILL be blamed for spending 200 billion dollars to rebuild New Orleans, when he knows full well (after years of ignoring --worse! EDITING-- evidence) that Global Warming is getting ready to melt the icecaps and raise ocean levels anywhere from 18 to 200 feet. Wasted money, unless spent (A) moving N.O. to high ground and (B) considering it practice for all the OTHER cities that will have to be moved to high ground later. (And if anyone agrees with this logic, pass it on!!!)

1. You are aware, aren’t you that the bulk of the flooding damage to New Orleans occurred when the levees gave way two days after Katrina passed through.

I wonder what happened to all the federal money that during the past forty years was given to Louisiana and New Orleans for the sole purpose of enhancing the levees.

That was always solid Democratic country down there. (They finally elected one Republican Senator.) What did the Democratic politicians down there spend the money on all those years? They certainly didn’t spend it on trying to improve the lot of the impoverished blacks who ended up bearing the brunt of the disaster.

2. Global warming is nothing more than the current Y2K drama.

 

[Fantasea]

[Quote = Futureincoming]

Regarding (14), you are PARTLY mistaken. The zygote and embryo do not have a beating human heart, and so early-enough abortion (say by Morning After pill) cannot possibly still it. I'm not sure when the fetus begins to grow a heart. Perhaps steen will let you know.

The absence of a heartbeat in the very early stages does not mean that a human presence does not exist in the mother’s womb.

For the information you lack, try the link below. It enables one to see week by week development of the little fellow or girl residing in the mother’s womb.

http://parenting.aol.com/aolhpp/hpp.dyn?action=weeklyPlanner&week=1

 

[Fantasea]

[Quote = Futureincoming]

Finally, regarding (13), you are again only partly correct. YES, dealing with the consequences of acts that cause pregnancy is indeed initially entirely a woman's responsiblity. You neglect to consider she may choose to share some of that responsibility with the man who was also involved in the initial acts. But MOSTLY you ignore the fact that "being responsible" includes a wider range of options than you think. Remember, it is because of the unproved claim-that-human-life-is-special that you think it must be preserved, and therefore certain responsibilities automatically apply. And yet you have indicated that it is the human mind that makes human life special --which you also know does not exist in early pregnancy. THE RESPONSIBILITY TO WHICH I REFER IS THAT OF MAKING THE CHOICE, either to carry the pregnancy to term or to abort. Any claime that that is not a valid responsibilty is a false claim.

All else aside, the result of an abortion is a dead child. That is irresponsible, no matter which way one attempts to twist it. The stage of development is inconsequential; an unborn child is an unborn child.

 

[Fantasea]

[Quote = Futureincoming]

As a variant on the preceding, consider the research being devoted to Artificial Intelligence (or "AI"). If it succeeds, then a human-level mind will come into existence as a result of technological hardware/software progress (if nothing else, by COPYING the physical traits and functionality of the human brain). Note that there is a distinct equivalence between the development of such a technology, compared to the development of a human being from a fetus. That is, manufacturing pieces of an AI is essential for the AI to exist, just as the reproduction of cells in a fetus is essential for an independent human being to exist. NOTE: Future manufacturing will be more and more automated. This leads us to an absurdity. If you require every fetus to be allowed to automatically grow a mind, just because it can, then logically you should also require Artifical Intelligences to be automatically manufactured just as soon as technically possible -- just because they can! The two notions really are that equivalent. SO, to declare the mandatory automated production of AIs to be absurd is also to declare a stand against abortion to likewise be absurd. More specifically: Minds cannot be required to come into existence just because some of their fundamental hardware happens to exist.

Artificial intelligence is and will always be just that, artificial. There is nothing artificial about an unborn child.

 

[steen]

I am flattered that you have adopted the use of the expression I introduced to this form, "product of conception".

You can not possibly be that silly? I have used that term for more than a decade. Please cease those even more lame types of silly claims, thanks.

It is a perfectly acceptable scientific term. So why are you so deceptive in the rest of your lying terminology?

Tell me, why should medical resources be wasted on something that is, in your mind, worthless?

I never said that it was worthless, so please cease your incesdsant lies about me. It is sad that the only way you can argue is by outright lie about my views.

Your argument concerning the involuntary use of bodily resources would be hilarious if it wasn't ridiculous.

Ah, the lame and desperate "because I say so" postulation of the cornered prolifer. How lame. Anything to avoid actually dealing with the points made, if they are not prolife points. That kind of blabbering, ad hominem diversion is the mark of a coward. So are you a coward?

Abortion is not at all about the use of bodily resources.

:spin:
Yes, it is. That is the foundation of Roe vs Wade. Feel free to lie about it, but note thast your lies don't make your claim any more true, it just shows you even more to be a liar.

It is simply an extremely harsh method of birth control employed to avoid the embarrassment or inconvenience of pregnancy.

Whatever works :lol:

 

[FutureIncoming]

Fantasea quoted: "I submit that humans are NOT more special than other life-forms, when seen from the grand perspective."

Fantasea wrote: "Submit whatever you wish. I have no idea of your definition of “the grand perspective”. However, here on earth, the child of even the most backward Australian aborigine, African tribesman, or impoverished Asian is far more advanced in every mental respect than any full grown animal or other known life form. Toss in any redneck kid, too, so you will be less likely to complain of discrimination.
This is self-evident to me. Is it not to you?"


What is self-evident is that you are confusing the words "special" and "superior". Yes, humans have mental abilities superior to plants and other life-forms. So? Other life-forms have other abilities superior to humans. For example, rats can make Vitamin C internally, and do not need any in their diet, unlike humans. I could probably trot out a dozen other examples, and YOU probably, could, too. Which is why I did not "submit" anything about "superiority". Humans are of course biased, to select traits in which they are superior. Whoop-te-do.

I specified SPECIAL. WHY should human mental abilities make them more special than, say, radiation-resistant bacteria? (There is one species that you can blast its DNA to pieces with gamma rays, and after a few hours, its DNA will be completely reassembled to what it was before the blast). You can bet they could survive World War Three just fine!

WHY should humans consider themselves so special that they claim the right to clear-cut the world's forests, destroying ecological niches and and exterminating uncounted species thereby, JUST because humans want wood for houses and other stuff? In case you don't know, History is repeating itself. On Easter Island the original Polynesian human population grew to about 20,000 people, who cut down trees to make fishing boats, and after the trees were gone, the population of those supposedly mentally superior humans quickly dropped 99%, to about 200, in a well-documented and perfect example of a Malthusian Catastrophe.

Planet Earth is just a bigger Island...and Malthus had merely observed ANIMAL populations, before writing his famous essay to warn humans against breeding like animals. Has humanity used its so-superior brainpower to pay attention? Not really; annual global population growth is currently equal to about nine New York Cities. And the seas are starting to run out of fish, literally.

From the grand perspective, humans have yet to prove themselves more special than any other mindless breeding animal on Planet Earth. We still have a chance, of course. But forcing the births of unwanted mouths-to-feed isn't the way. When humans who claim Mastery of the World first master themselves, and then become caretakers that recognize the special-ness of everything else in the world, THEN we will have done something unique as compared to what mere animals do. The fun thing about that in this Debate is, there is a Catch-22 there. We cannot use any thusly-proved specialness as an excuse to start raping the world again!

 

[steen]

[Quote = Futureincoming]I don’t know what you expect me to add to my statements which you quoted above, however, according to the on-line Medical Dictionary:

“hydatid...

But then, the term is HYDATIDIFORM MOLE!! Perhaps you have some dyslexia problems?

but let me help you:
http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec22/ch252/ch252h.html
http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/hydatidiform_mole.jsp

Doesn’t appear to be anything that will produce a human child.

But it certainly comes from the zygote. It most certainly is human tissue, containing human DNA.

 

[steen]

[Quote = Futureincoming]You may wish to believe that human life is not superior to other life forms. It is self-evident to me that it is.

Ah, more "because I say so" claptrap and misrepresentation.:roll:

 

[steen]

2. Global warming is nothing more than the current Y2K drama.

Really? What part of the science is in error? Can you come up with any specific errors, or is this just another one of your many dishonest "because I say so" postulations?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Fantasea quoted a bunch of stuff that ended with: "(9)steen:
But both can produce a zygote by their own DNA. That's what a hydatidiform mole is. Didn't you know that?

Fantasea wrote:
"I don’t know what you expect me to add to my statements which you quoted above."

You were not expected to add anything to those quotes. My post explained that I gathered them up so they could be conveniently referenced. My only expectation was that you would reply to what I wrote. I see you finally did. Thank you.


Fantasea wrote: "however, according to the on-line Medical Dictionary:
“hydatid: <zoology> A membranous sac or bladder..."

Here I expect steen to blast away at you. The "hydatid" you looked up is not the same thing as the "hydatidiform mole" we both quoted. That suffix "form" obviously means that the phrase is descriptive of some sort of mole (on the skin?) that resembles a hydatid. I don't know enough advanced biology even to properly speculate about what steen was getting at. But I suspect we may be finding out soon (and I'd still lilke to see what he has to say about parthenogenesis).

 

[steen]

All else aside, the result of an abortion is a dead child.

Your claim is false. There is no child before birth, your deceptive revisionist linguistics none withstanding.