I struggle so hard with this issue

[talloulou]

You are making that assertion so back it up. All indications point to cancer being preventable and its occurrence a result of life choices.

Many cancers are genetic and tend to run in families like breast cancer. Two specific genes, designated as BRCA1 and BRCA2, account for 85 percent of hereditary breast cancers. There's other cancers too that are thought to be very genetic. I use to work for a general surgeon.

Not trying to argue....since jimmyjack has said I'm not on his side:rofl ....just letting you know. :mrgreen:

 

[jimmyjack]

You are making that assertion so back it up. All indications point to cancer being preventable and its occurrence a result of life choices.

No, cancers are often genetic, yet spontaneous; prevention is hardly a possibility in every case.

But just like the smoker isnt giving active consent to cancer, neither is the woman who becomes pregnant as a result of sex that was protected. In fact, if she is having sex responsibly and not planning to get pregnant, birth control and condom use is a direct withdrawal of consent to parenthood. Unless sex has become a crime since the inception of this debate, there is no reason to suggest there should be a penalty or coercion resultant from the act.

A smoker that gets cancer as a result of smoking has only himself to blame, yet his condition only affects himself. However a woman who consents to sex and seeks an abortion does so at someone else’s expense not her own.

Why do you feel the need to misrepresent what I stated? Pregnancy is a medical condition. There is a medical remedy if that condition is unwanted. There is no reference to pregnancy as an illness in anything I said. Try again.

Why do you speak of pregnancy as if it is an illness?

 

[jallman]

Many cancers are genetic and tend to run in families like breast cancer. Two specific genes, designated as BRCA1 and BRCA2, account for 85 percent of hereditary breast cancers. There's other cancers too that are thought to be very genetic. I use to work for a general surgeon.

Not trying to argue....since jimmyjack has said I'm not on his side:rofl ....just letting you know. :mrgreen:

I worked at the institute of environmental health science in college with Dr Anton Jetten, Dr Carl Barrett, Dr Minoru Koi, Dr Yoh Watanabe, and Dr Burkhart. One of our primary studies was on the BRCA 1 and 2 genes...in fact, Jetten was responsible for finding it. We also looked at the MMR1 and MMR2 genes and their causal links to colon cancer. It was really interesting work but not a field that would keep my interest as a lifetime career.

I am not saying all cancers are preventable, but the bulk of all health problems, cancer included, have contributing factors which are lifestyle choices. It is undeniable that poor lifestyle choices increase the risk of certain cancers. jimmyjack would have everyone believe that pregnancy should be held to a different standard of medical ethics because it is the only one that is the responsibility of the subject in question. That is simply not true and is a specious argument in any event.

 

[jallman]

No, cancers are often genetic, yet spontaneous; prevention is hardly a possibility in every case.

well thank you for stating the obvious. still, cancers have contributing factors and I believe the implication was that we were talking about medical conditions that carry personal responsibility for their occurence. I am not in the habit of arguing the color of red herrings.

A smoker that gets cancer as a result of smoking has only himself to blame, yet his condition only affects himself. However a woman who consents to sex and seeks an abortion does so at someone else’s expense not her own.

And I am still waiting for you to prove this "someone else" who has this expense for the woman's abortion. Unless the government is handing out vouchers for abortion, no one is paying for this abortion except her.

Why do you speak of pregnancy as if it is an illness?

Why do you still insist on misrepresenting what I say? Medical condition does not necessarily mean illness. It is a condition of the reproductive cycle which has a remedy if it is unwanted. Again, nowhere did I say or imply illness. Try again.

 

[talloulou]

I worked at the institute of environmental health science in college with Dr Anton Jetten, Dr Carl Barrett, Dr Minoru Koi, Dr Yoh Watanabe, and Dr Burkhart. One of our primary studies was on the BRCA 1 and 2 genes...in fact, Jetten was responsible for finding it. We also looked at the MMR1 and MMR2 genes and their causal links to colon cancer. It was really interesting work but not a field that would keep my interest as a lifetime career.

I am not saying all cancers are preventable, but the bulk of all health problems, cancer included, have contributing factors which are lifestyle choices. It is undeniable that poor lifestyle choices increase the risk of certain cancers. jimmyjack would have everyone believe that pregnancy should be held to a different standard of medical ethics because it is the only one that is the responsibility of the subject in question. That is simply not true and is a specious argument in any event.

Just wanted to make sure we don't insult people who through no fault of their own or lifestyle have cancer.

 

[jimmyjack]

well thank you for stating the obvious. still, cancers have contributing factors and I believe the implication was that we were talking about medical conditions that carry personal responsibility for their occurence. I am not in the habit of arguing the color of red herrings.

They may well do, but it is still a fact that they happen spontaneously, and furthermore, if I get cancer because of my own actions it is hardly fair that someone else should pay the penalty, is it?

And I am still waiting for you to prove this "someone else" who has this expense for the woman's abortion. Unless the government is handing out vouchers for abortion, no one is paying for this abortion except her.

The expense is paid by the one who dies in the abortion.

Why do you still insist on misrepresenting what I say? Medical condition does not necessarily mean illness. It is a condition of the reproductive cycle which has a remedy if it is unwanted. Again, nowhere did I say or imply illness. Try again.

Well thank you for stating the obvious, but you still speak of pregnancy as if it where an illness.

 

[jallman]

They may well do, but it is still a fact that they happen spontaneously, and furthermore, if I get cancer because of my own actions it is hardly fair that someone else should pay the penalty, is it?

I am just going to let this one go and let you keep rationalizing it however you want because it really is irrelevant anyway.

The expense is paid by the one who dies in the abortion.

There is no "one" because there is no person who dies in the abortion. The abortion relieves an unwanted medical condition in the woman. There is no argument against that assertion unless you want to try and prove personhood of the fetus, which you cant do.

Well thank you for stating the obvious, but you still speak of pregnancy as if it where an illness.

No, your histrionics force you to translate medical condition into illness as a lame attempt at coloring me unsympathetic. Try yet again.

 

[jallman]

Just wanted to make sure we don't insult people who through no fault of their own or lifestyle have cancer.

of course, dear. That was not my intention at all. but we were referencing preventable medical conditions and illnesses for the purpose of this conversation. Cancer is a broad term than involves so much...perhaps we should have been specific to lung cancer or the like.

 

[steen]

Many cancers are genetic and tend to run in families like breast cancer. Two specific genes, designated as BRCA1 and BRCA2, account for 85 percent of hereditary breast cancers.

Which still make up only 10% of the breast cancer cases.

 

[talloulou]

There is no "one" because there is no person who dies in the abortion. The abortion relieves an unwanted medical condition in the woman. There is no argument against that assertion unless you want to try and prove personhood of the fetus, which you cant do.

Just because the fetus is not a "legal" person who has personhood or legal rights of personhood doesn't meant they are not a "one." They are a one. When you get your ultrasound they're the cutie pie in the picture.

 

[jallman]

Just because the fetus is not a "legal" person who has personhood or legal rights of personhood doesn't meant they are not a "one." They are a one. When you get your ultrasound they're the cutie pie in the picture.

yes, they are a "one" by virtue of a unique genetic pattern, but the biological mass has exhibited none of the virtues of personhood until it reaches a gestational period of benchmark significance...I hold that it is a minimum of 18weeks. Morphological appearance in an ultrasound is irrelevant to those characteristics.

 

[talloulou]

yes, they are a "one"

That's why I like you jallman.....you're quite reasonable. :mrgreen:

 

[steen]

Just because the fetus is not a "legal" person who has personhood or legal rights of personhood doesn't meant they are not a "one."

Yes it does, because it is not an individual.

 

[talloulou]

Yes it does, because it is not an individual.

"The facts above, along with the constancy of the time of gestation, approximately 38 weeks, reasonably declare that the life of the new individual human being begins with fertilization. Virtually every human embryologist and every major textbook of Human Embryology states that fertilization marks the beginning of the life of the new individual human being."

http://www.all.org/abac/cwk004.htm

 

[steen]

"The facts above, along with the constancy of the time of gestation, approximately 38 weeks, reasonably declare that the life of the new individual human being begins with fertilization. Virtually every human embryologist and every major textbook of Human Embryology states that fertilization marks the beginning of the life of the new individual human being."

http://www.all.org/abac/cwk004.htm

http://www.all.org/about.php
Welcome to American Life League! ALL began around a kitchen table in 1979 when five couples decided they needed to join forces and form a group that was firmly rooted in pro-life principle.

Julie Brown is a hatemongering freak. Not a good source, especially for scientific facts.

 

[talloulou]

"Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). "

http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

 

[steen]

.....

http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

Libertarians for life. Another political source.

 

[talloulou]

http://www.all.org/about.php
Welcome to American Life League! ALL began around a kitchen table in 1979 when five couples decided they needed to join forces and form a group that was firmly rooted in pro-life principle.

Julie Brown is a hatemongering freak. Not a good source, especially for scientific facts.

Hey I didn't notice the link was 'all' those tricksters. Sorry. American Bioethics sounded legit.

 

[steen]

Hey I didn't notice the link was 'all' those tricksters. Sorry. American Bioethics sounded legit.

DUh. That is their purpose. pretending to be legit while spewing their lies, hoping that people will believe them. You ARE on pro-life sites after all. That IS what they do for a living.

 

[talloulou]

Libertarians for life. Another political source.

Well do you have sources for embryonologists or drs that give another point as the starting point for a new human individual?

And also don't you think there is somewhat of a conflict of interests with drs. and scientists in that fetal tissue research and embryonic stem cell research is so prominent right now? Isn't it in their best interests to now suddenly start telling us.....oh yeah life does not in fact begin at conception.

Yet a woman having trouble getting pregnant can go to a dr. who can remove her eggs, fertilize them with sperm, place them in her uterus and create life. So isn't it sort of odd to argue we don't know when a new individual human begins yet here we can help you create one?

 

[steen]

Well do you have sources for embryonologists or drs that give another point as the starting point for a new human individual?

They have been given on DP before, but I'll see if I cna dig them up. But for me to be bothered, you must promise that you actually consider them. I am not a fan of meaningless busywork.

And also don't you think there is somewhat of a conflict of interests with drs. and scientists in that fetal tissue research and embryonic stem cell research is so prominent right now? Isn't it in their best interests to now suddenly start telling us.....oh yeah life does not in fact begin at conception.

And you somehow believe they are the only physicians and scientists out there?

Yet a woman having trouble getting pregnant can go to a dr. who can remove her eggs, fertilize them with sperm, place them in her uterus and create life. So isn't it sort of odd to argue we don't know when a new individual human begins yet here we can help you create one?

But that process still might lead to a twin-splitting of the egg. And it still could lead to a hydatidiform mole, though less likely.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Every pro-lifer should see this show!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://health.discovery.com/tvlistings/episode.jsp?episode=0&cpi=111185&gid=0&channel=DHC

There is a significant abortion-related aspect to the "chimerism" phenomenon that is not discussed in that show, and so I will discuss it here. First note that chimerism is known to happen at least two different ways. (1) A blastocyst (cluster of cells perhaps a few days after fertilization) splits, which normally yields identical twins, or even conjoined (Siamese) twins, but during chimerism the the two independent clusters merge back together to form a single cluster again. This sort of chimera can be difficult to detect, because the overall genetics is so similar (despite differences that inevitably start happening while the clusters are separate). (2) Two blastocysts from separate egg-fertilizations (fraternal twins) merge together; they may be of the same sex or of opposite sexes (and can cause hermaphroditism). This sort of chimerism can give "type"-matching geneticists fits; the blood, for example, may have resulted from one of the merged cell-clusters, while the heart may have resulted from the other -- so trying to tissue-match the heart for a transplant, based on blood work, can be fatal. The "I Am My Own Twin" documentary, linked above, describes a case where one woman almost had her children taken away because the genes in her blood didn't match the genes in her reproductive system.

With that background information, consider that the extreme pro-life stand is that every fertilized human egg, and the organism that results from it, should be counted as a person (so if there are two of them, there are two persons). Well, when chimerism happens, both clusters of cells continue to exist healthily. No aspect of their "independent" lives-as-organisms is lost when chimerism happens, except they have traded their independent existence for symbiosis. A chimera is the ultimate case of a conjoined twin.

Well, conjoined twins are usually counted as two persons, right? Therefore, shouldn't every chimeric human be counted as two persons, and be given two votes? That is the logical conclusion of insisting that two human organisms, both still fully alive, even if existing symbiotically instead of independently, equate to two persons, isn't it? If it is not logical, then that can only be because there is something fundamentally wrong with equating an organism-count to a person-count. That is, minds are persons, not organisms/bodies. This conclusion matches other data, such as the cases where one twin of a conjoined pair is incomplete (no head, so no second mind, so no second person). And it matches the data about brain-dead humans on life-support, regarding which various Courts have determined it is acceptable to "pull the plug", because the person, the mind is gone, even if the empty human animal body remains alive.

The relevance of the preceding logic about persons, to the abortion issue, should now be clear. Unborn humans are all "empty human animal organisms/bodies", and not persons. Even in late pregnancy, when various mind-associated characteristics begin to appear, these characteristics are all only animal-level (no fetus can be smarter than an adult cow, due to having less brain than an adult cow; see the brain-size facts for yourself: http://staff.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html ). Humans do not grow enough brain to support person-level mentation until well after birth. In fact, some aspects of person-class mentation are known to require up to three years of brain growth; see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000ACE3F-007E-12DC-807E83414B7F0000 . That is, the scientific data clearly tells us that there is a "gray area" where every young human animal grows into a human person, but this gray area is not entered until some time after birth occurs. And therefore even late-term abortions cannot possibly involve the killing of human persons; it always and only involves the killing of empty human animal bodies.

 

[talloulou]

Discovery magazine had an article about this last issue. They talked about how paternity tests might not be too accurate, in fact DNA in general, might not be accurate due to chimeras having two sets of DNA. I don't remember the article exactly but they said a chimera occurs when you have two fertilized eggs and one absorbs the other resulting in a person with 2 sets of DNA.

I don't get your argument about chimeras being the equivelant of conjoined twins. I am not sure science is saying a chimera is two people living in the same body. I think you are interpreting that from the information given. It's more a case of two eggs fusing together and thus 1 person with two sets of DNA results.

Doesn't change how I feel about abortion at all. Though I will say it does certainly lend some credibility to the idea that perhaps what's growing in utero can't be considered an individual till we have passed the stages for all this egg splitting and egg fusing, ect.

Does make me wonder about all those whose your daddy shows where the women insists that the accused father is the only man she has slept with yet the DNA lets him off and declares him not the father. Perhaps some of those women were right after all. It's very interesting. Also it shows that we don't know all there is to know about DNA and we ought to be more careful in using it especially in the criminal justice system.

 

[FutureIncoming]

consider that the extreme pro-life stand is that every fertilized human egg, and the organism that results from it, should be counted as a person (so if there are two of them, there are two persons).

one absorbs the other... I am not sure science is saying a chimera is two people living in the same body. I think you are interpreting that from the information given.

In a way, "science" has not set out to define "person" at all. But the extremist pro-lifers will have a problem with these facts and logic. You also, since that word "abosrbs" is not applicable here. Normally in biology, when one organism absorbs another, the absorbed organism is consumed/killed. This is not true in chimerism; we have a melding here with both original organisms surviving. The logical consequences of the extreme-pro-life claim are indeed what I wrote about, that they should still consider two persons to be present, since they insist that a human organism is always always an individual person. But the facts do not support their worthless/unsupported claim; persons are indeed minds, not organisms/bodies.

 

[talloulou]

This is not true in chimerism; we have a melding here with both original organisms surviving.

I don't know abuot that. If two eggs don't fuse together they will most likely create two separate entities. In the case of chimeras the two eggs fuse and create one entity. So what do you mean that both organisms survive? It's not like a chimera is two people......Furthermore from what I have read chimeras don't necessarily have any problems or disabilities relating to having two types of DNA and they are unrecognizable as chimeras unless you test their DNA. So theres definitely not 2 people sharing one body. Twins are strange.....in that from what I understand it is not uncommon for one to absorb the other so that the mother never is aware she was carrying twins. However this does not always lead to one being a chimera...or does it? It's all very new to me and I don't know much about it.