Real simple:

[talloulou]

Care to link a source that says specifically that a fetus is a being? :roll:

one of the foremost, highly honored geneticist in the world, Jerome Lejeune, M. D., Ph.D., Professor of Genetics at the University of Paris and Sorbonne, related, "...each of us has a unique beginning, the moment of conception...when the information carried by the sperm and by the ovum have encountered each other, then a new human being is defined because its own personal and human constitution is entirely spelled out.

Code for Human Life Dr. Frederick Zugibe

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).

"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."

[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

U.S. Catholic Bishops - Pro-Life Activities

 

[jallman]

Code for Human Life Dr. Frederick Zugibe


U.S. Catholic Bishops - Pro-Life Activities

The catholic bishops can be thrown out immediately because that is not a dictionary or credible source.

On another note, I am still not seeing a fetus is a being. I want to see a fetus is a being. Or a definition of fetus that uses the word "being". I'm not seeing that. I am seeing that a new being is defined (by its dna code) but I am not seeing anything that says "a fetus is a being". So, no, you can try again, but I am not buying your assertion until a dictionary or encyclopedia says "a fetus is a being".

 

[jallman]

Anyone could look up definitions of "BEING" and logically deduce from them that a fetus is a being. But your camp says no way.

Would you care to now concede that one can look at the definitions of "organism" and logically deduce that a cell is one?

 

[FutureIncoming]

There is no good reason not to afford the unborn that we can see and document quite adequately now the same protections as the newborn.

FALSE. Preventing a Malthusian Catastrophe, which would kill up to 99% of the population, including those you are wanting to protect, is indeed a good reason. You would sacrifice 99% of all actual persons, just because you want 50% more potential persons to become actualized each year? (I just saw a statistic that in 1995, 35% of pregnancies were aborted worldwide. If I round that down to 1/3, then 2/3 of pregnancies resulted in births, and that 1/3 is 50% of the 2/3.)

Since person means nothing to me ...

Is that just an excuse to avoid thinking about a generic meaning for "person"? Note that in #603, I could replace the word "person" with "human", and replace the word "actual" with "born", and replace the word "potential" with "unborn", and #603 would still qualify as a reason for humans to allow abortion. Why do you want to work toward helping cause the deaths of up to 99% of humanity?

... except that the government deems a human worthy of the title ...

According to Roe vs Wade, the government does not deem every human to be worthy of the label "person". After all, Jerry keeps pointing out that if the government did, then abortions would be disallowed!

... I have no way of answering your question.

I just explained how there is a way. I await your answer!

I generally believe we should respect all human life ...

Yes, you have said so on numerous occasions, ad nauseum. Would you care to explain why mere "life" is more important to you than "mind"? Remember this, that you wrote?

It is quite reasonable to argue that a being on life support who will never be capable of much of a life and has no brain waves should be terminated.

See? you are saying that "mind" is more important than mere "life"!!! All you have to do, to find your position in agreement with mine, is to stop thinking that "potential" is somehow important. Why do you think a potential mind deserves to interfere with the life of an actual mind (a pregnant woman who doesn't want to be pregnant)???

... however if we are in need of ridding the planet of people I can think of better criteria for judging value. Age and geographical location are not the best or most beneficial criteria.

Uh, I don't know what you are talking about, per "geographic location"? Where have I suggested such a criterion as that?

If you get right down to it when thinking in terms of benefiting the human race perhaps we'd be better off taking out the poor, ...

We are almost in alignment here. I have stated on various occasions that people shouldn't have offspring if they can't afford to raise them. After all, how does a poor person, who gives himself an extra mouth to feed, help himself become less poor? Therefore abortion can be a useful tool, to help the poor climb out of poverty. (And for any poor person that this doesn't help, well, that poor person will not have passed poverty on to another generation!) Also note the main difference in our positions: You would be "taking out" minds and lives both, while I would be taking out only mindless lives.

... taking out people who have reached a certain age but have an unacceptably low IQ, ...

Again we are almost in alignment. You almost certainly recall that I've indicated that the severely retarded cannot qualify for a generic definition of 'person". So, killing them would be the same as killing mindless lives (with "mindless" defined as "lacking a person-class mind"). The difference in this case is that I have only advocated accepting their deaths should they be killed when unwanted (I do hope you have recalled the numerous times in which I have stated, "A lack of a right-to-life is not the same thing as an automatic death penalty."); you are sort-of-advocating killing them regardless of whether or not they are wanted (you are creating an automatic death penalty).

... taking out people with deformities, ...

Again we are mostly in agreement. I have recomended trying to identify such before birth, so that they can be aborted, and I don't see how your statement can be at odds with this. I have also mentioned allowing infanticide in cases where the deformities were not caught, which also seems to be acceptable to you. The main difference appears to be that while the cases I've mentioned involve only mindless lives, you would kill lives with minds (and for them, I would only prohibit them from passing their genes on). Of course, before any such policy is accepted, the definition of "deformed" needs to be precise and accepted, first!

... taking out people with HIV, ect.

Heh, if suicide was legalized, people who have no hope would take themselves out. Genetically, this could be good in the long run; those who hold onto hope despite the odds are more likely to pass their genes on. And most newborns are disease-free (placenta and amniotic sac are excellent barriers), so this is not very relevant to the abortion issue.

I wouldn't condone any of that but if I were to follow your logic there are humans I would go after way before I got to the very youngest and most unrealized of us all.

Well, you don't seem to have followed my logic very well, as explained above. You still seem to think that mere potential is valuable, without recognizing that we can make plenty more unborn humans with equal potential, whenever we might actually need them, instead of fussing about the multitudes we already have but don't need. That reminds me, where is your answer to Question #6 of Msg #296?

Again there is no right to have anyone do things to your body. That is a "false" notion.

You have not stated that very clearly, since the way it is phrased, you have stated a false thing. I most certainly have a right to do whatever I want to my body, and this logically includes hiring others to do things to it, that I want them to do to it. For women, that "hiring" thing can include ear-piercers and plastic surgeons and gigolos, just as much as it can include abortionists. If you are trying to say that the fetus is a "someone that has the right to control what is done to its body", well, since you are mistaken about the "someone" part, you are also mistaken about the rest of it. The fetus is just an animal, not a "someone".

By not allowing abortion the government is simply not allowing anyone to interfere in something that happened through no fault of the government.

You could phrase that better by saying that "the government would be declaring the fetus to be a "someone", with the control-over-body right as described above.

No one has a "right" to a sex change. No one has a "right" to drugs that haven't been approved by the FDA. There are people dying right at this very moment despite the fact that there are drugs available at this very moment that could help because the government has not yet approved the use of those drugs.

OK, now you are mixing Natural Ability with Legal Rights. Obviously the thing above about gigolos is not a Legal Right (except maybe in certain Nevada counties). Sex changes, though, are as far as I know as legal as can be afforded (pay appropriate fees enough to psychiatrists, doctors, judges, government agencies, etc, and presto!, sex change is allowed!). Meanwhile, you have Natural Ability to do all sorts of things, including poisoning yourself with drugs that the FDA hasn't approved. Note that the fetus, of course, has extremely little in the way of Natural Ability. Why should it be granted "rights" to do things it is utterly incapable of? It's not even always capable of staying alive when coddled (miscarriages do happen)!

Certainly if pregnancy is a parasitic condition that still does not give women the right to demand a certain type of treatment for that condition!

YOU ARE MISTAKEN, based on the above data and logic. Not to mention that since abortion is legal, Natural Ability matches Legal Rights in this case.

All kinds of people are told no to all kinds of stuff that would only affect their body.

This is mostly "for their own good". Personally, I'd legalize suicide and addictive drugs and all sort of things, just so the idiots would weed themselves out of the gene pool, and the human species would be improved thereby.

No one is coming in and taking anything from the pregnant woman.

Yet the fetus, an animal, is doing exactly that.

The government would not be stealing her resources. The government would just not be approving abortion as an acceptable treatment to her condition ...

The government would be allowing a parasitic animal to continue parasitising its victim, against the victim's will. If you would forcibly allow it for fetuses, then why wouldn't you nonprejudially and equally forcibly allow it for mosquitoes?

... much as they don't approve a variety of other treatments despite numerous protests and out crying from other suffering folk.

See above, about letting idiots remove themselves from the gene pool.

 

[Felicity]

I am seeing that a new being is defined (by its dna code) but I am not seeing anything that says "a fetus is a being".

FERTILIZATION


When a sperm makes contact with an oocyte (a target approximately one millimeter in diameter) a series of biochemical mechanisms are triggered that result in entry of the sperm head into the egg. With the junction of sperm and egg, a process known as fertilization, a new entity comes into being.


Embryological Development of the Human Brain by Arnold Scheibel

 

[jallman]

FERTILIZATION


When a sperm makes contact with an oocyte (a target approximately one millimeter in diameter) a series of biochemical mechanisms are triggered that result in entry of the sperm head into the egg. With the junction of sperm and egg, a process known as fertilization, a new entity comes into being.


Embryological Development of the Human Brain by Arnold Scheibel

I still don't see the phrase a fetus is a being. I see new entity and I see conjunction of sperm and egg. We aren't following logical deductions here, remember? I want to see specifically that a fetus is a being.

 

[talloulou]

Would you care to now concede that one can look at the definitions of "organism" and logically deduce that a cell is one?

No! I said a few posts ago that one could look up being and logically deduce that an embryo or fetus is one but that prochoicers object to that line of logical thinking. I have given quotes from embryologists who call the embryo a "human being." Still you say nope! Assuming I guess my sources are not credible.

However you have found no source credible or otherwise that any colon cell could be called an organism.

Arguing that a human embryo or human fetus is a human being is easy as you can get multiple embryologists, scientists, and drs. to agree. However you can also find drs. that disagree.

The idea that a colon cell is an organism is something that no scientist anywhere will attest to.

The idea that an embryo is an organism is an absolute where scientists and drs. agree across the board.

 

[Felicity]

This process is called differentiation, which produces the varied cell types that make up a human being (such as blood cells, kidney cells, and nerve cells).

There is rapid growth, and the baby's main external features begin to take form. It is during this critical period of differentiation (most of the first trimester) that the growing baby is most susceptible

MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia: Fetal development

 

[jallman]

No! I said a few posts ago that one could look up being and logically deduce that an embryo or fetus is one but that prochoicers object to that line of logical thinking. I have given quotes from embryologists who call the embryo a "human being." Still you say nope! Assuming I guess my sources are not credible.

However you have found no source credible or otherwise that any colon cell could be called an organism.

Arguing that a human embryo or human fetus is a human being is easy as you can get multiple embryologists, scientists, and drs. to agree. However you can also find drs. that disagree.

The idea that a colon cell is an organism is something that no scientist anywhere will attest to.

The idea that an embryo is an organism is an absolute where scientists and drs. agree across the board.

I still haven't seen you show any dictionary or encyclopedia that states a fetus is a being. Isn't that exactly what you required of me...to lay out a source that specifically say a colon cell qualifies as an organism? If it's good for you then its good for me...show a source thats says specifically that a fetus is a being. Remember, you are the one who disqualified logical deductions, not me. So lets go, talloullou. Show me a source that says a fetus is a being.

 

[jallman]

This process is called differentiation, which produces the varied cell types that make up a human being (such as blood cells, kidney cells, and nerve cells).

There is rapid growth, and the baby's main external features begin to take form. It is during this critical period of differentiation (most of the first trimester) that the growing baby is most susceptible

MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia: Fetal development

I still don't see a fetus is a being. Now I can logically deduce that a baby is a term for fetus (in the most vernacular sense) and that a baby is a being so a fetus must be a being, but talloullou disqualified such logical deductions due to her own fact phobia. So it really doesn't count until you show me a source that specifically states a fetus is a being.

(Missed ya, felicity :2wave: )

 

[Felicity]

I still don't see a fetus is a being. Now I can logically deduce that a baby is a term for fetus (in the most vernacular sense) and that a baby is a being so a fetus must be a being, but talloullou disqualified such logical deductions due to her own fact phobia. So it really doesn't count until you show me a source that specifically states a fetus is a being.

(Missed ya, felicity :2wave: )

you're just being poopy, jallman...

If a new entity is formed at fertilization...does it cease to be at the fetal stage and then reappear at the neural uptake point you arbitrarily posit as the moment a being comes into existence (by the way...that point is DURING the fetal stage, you know...)

I'm real busy these days, so I'll be in and out--nice to see y'all too!:mrgreen:

 

[Felicity]

A fetus is a human being.

HEY! Look what I found!:mrgreen:

 

[talloulou]

I still don't see the phrase a fetus is a being. I see new entity and I see conjunction of sperm and egg. We aren't following logical deductions here, remember? I want to see specifically that a fetus is a being.

You're being obtuse. You're saying that the idea that drs. and scientists say that a new complete human being comes into existence at conception is as weak an argument for Fetus=human being as your completely lame argument that a colon cell is an organism. Whatever I'm bored with your intellectual dishonesty. :coffeepap

 

[jallman]

you're just being poopy, jallman...

If a new entity is formed at fertilization...does it cease to be at the fetal stage and then reappear at the neural uptake point you arbitrarily posit as the moment a being comes into existence (by the way...that point is DURING the fetal stage, you know...)

I'm real busy these days, so I'll be in and out--nice to see y'all too!:mrgreen:

If an organism is a living thing and a living thing exhibits a specific ten properties of life and a colon cell exhibits the specific ten properties of life, does it not qualify as an organism?

I agree with you wholeheartedly, felicity. I have no problem stating that a fetus is a being. That has never been my argument at all except when proving a point to talloullou and jerry about the convenience of arbitrarily enforcing definitions. I state that a fetus is not a person prior to a particular stage of neural development. I recognize differences in definition and stages of development.

To jerry and talloullou, everything simply means "baby" because that is how they can most effectively emotionally extort their audience. It is very telling how talloullou will disqualify logical deduction until she is forced to use logical deduction to prove a point of minutia. Then it becomes ok for her, but still disqualified for me...the double standard is disturbing, but not surprising. It all comes straight from the PL play book...make sure to vilify, obfuscate, prevaricate, and emotionally extort but never, ever get too close to intellectual honesty under any circumstance.

 

[talloulou]

I still don't see a fetus is a being. Now I can logically deduce that a baby is a term for fetus (in the most vernacular sense) and that a baby is a being so a fetus must be a being, but talloullou disqualified such logical deductions due to her own fact phobia. So it really doesn't count until you show me a source that specifically states a fetus is a being.

(Missed ya, felicity :2wave: )

Your logical deduction was false. A colon cell is not an organism. There is an absolute majority agreement on this. There is also an absolute majority agreement that an embryo is an organism. But whatever Jallman. I've lost all respect for you and those like you who are incapable of being honest. Once that happens there's really no reason to continue discussion.

 

[talloulou]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, felicity. I have no problem stating that a fetus is a being.

WTF? How many times did you thank grannie for her claims that the unborn aren't human? That they aren't human beings?

God help us your worse than Hilary. You'll say anything that you think furthers your agenda and you'll thank those who say crap that furthers your agenda whether you believe it or not. What then is the point of talking to you?

 

[jallman]

You're being obtuse. You're saying that the idea that drs. and scientists say that a new complete human being comes into existence at conception is as weak an argument for Fetus=human being as your completely lame argument that a colon cell is an organism. Whatever I'm bored with your intellectual dishonesty. :coffeepap

No, you were just given the exact same challenge you gave me and you failed...after attempting to utilize the same tools (right down to the same transitive property) that you barred me from. You are not bored with anyone's intellectual dishonesty (funny how you try so hard to pin that one on me when you have been shown to be the guilty party)...you are frustrated that you can't meet your own challenges. And of course I am being obtuse...I am returning the favor.

 

[jallman]

WTF? How many times did you thank grannie for her claims that the unborn aren't human? That they aren't human beings?

God help us your worse than Hilary. You'll say anything that you think furthers your agenda and you'll thank those who say crap that furthers your agenda whether you believe it or not. What then is the point of talking to you?

A thanks given to grannie for disproving one of your inane ramblings is not necessarily an agreement with every one of her assertions. You are worse than FOX News...you only report the half of the story that furthers your agenda and deflect from anything that you can't stand up to honestly.

 

[Felicity]

If an organism is a living thing and a living thing exhibits a specific ten properties of life and a colon cell exhibits the specific ten properties of life, does it not qualify as an organism?

How does a colon cell demonstrate life...In my understanding, there are 7 properties that define life:


Homeostasis
Organization
Metabolism
Growth
Adaptation
Response to stimuli
Reproduction

A human embryo fits this...but how does a colon cell?

To jerry and talloullou, everything simply means "baby" because that is how they can most effectively emotionally extort their audience.

That's not fair--they simply do not and you're being persnickety.

It is very telling how talloullou will disqualify logical deduction until she is forced to use logical deduction to prove a point of minutia. Then it becomes ok for her, but still disqualified for me...the double standard is disturbing, but not surprising. It all comes straight from the PL play book...make sure to vilify, obfuscate, prevaricate, and emotionally extort but never, ever get too close to intellectual honesty under any circumstance.

And is extravagant sweeping generalizations in the PC playbook? Play nice or people other than just talloulou will question your intellectual honesty.

 

[jallman]

Your logical deduction was false. A colon cell is not an organism. There is an absolute majority agreement on this. There is also an absolute majority agreement that an embryo is an organism. But whatever Jallman. I've lost all respect for you and those like you who are incapable of being honest. Once that happens there's really no reason to continue discussion.

So who are all these in this absolute majority that disagree with my logic? You made the assertion that not one would agree. Did you ask them all? Let me simplify it for you...did you ask even one? I didn't think so.

And your respect is not desired at this point. I really only respect and care to be respected by the rational and sane.

 

[Felicity]

You'll say anything that you think furthers your agenda and you'll thank those who say crap that furthers your agenda whether you believe it or not. What then is the point of talking to you?

Well...he does admit to the ideologically promiscuous thing.

 

[talloulou]

No, you were just given the exact same challenge you gave me and you failed...after attempting to utilize the same tools (right down to the same transitive property) that you barred me from. You are not bored with anyone's intellectual dishonesty (funny how you try so hard to pin that one on me when you have been shown to be the guilty party)...you are frustrated that you can't meet your own challenges. And of course I am being obtuse...I am returning the favor.

I'm intellectually dishonest?

First off if you page back you'll see that I said specifically that whether or not a fetus is a "human being" appears to be debatable amoung legit sources. I said that's why I don't fight that "being" argument! Pages ago.

In any event you just said you agree that the unborn are beings. Yet you thank Grannie everytime she posts something claiming they aren't humans or they aren't human beings? Whose intellectually dishonest?

I claimed the difference between any other cells and embryos is that the embryos are organisms. Thats mutually agreed on in the scientific community!

You claimed colon cells are organisms too! That is false.

But I'm intellectually dishonest?

Whatever jallman your dishonesty is on page after page.

 

[talloulou]

Well...he does admit to the ideologically promiscuous thing.

Well whatever. He's made me realize that spending time here is a complete waste. I forget and think as I take breaks from cleaning and paperwork to post that I'm engaging in thoughtful discussion. A real exchange of ideas, ect. Now I get that I'm just wasting my time. It's not a real discussion and it never was. The fact of the matter is jallman will thank posts that say things he doesn't even believe, call people liars for using the universally accepted term baby, and argue inane things like colon cells are organisms just to be difficult. He's not really having a "discussion" about abortion. He's just poking people for his own amusement. :thumbdown

 

[Felicity]

Well whatever. He's made me realize that spending time here is a complete waste. I forget and think as I take breaks from cleaning and paperwork to post that I'm engaging in thoughtful discussion. A real exchange of ideas, ect. Now I get that I'm just wasting my time. It's not a real discussion and it never was. The fact of the matter is jallman will thank posts that say things he doesn't even believe, call people liars for using the universally accepted term baby, and argue inane things like colon cells are organisms just to be difficult. He's not really having a "discussion" about abortion. He's just poking people for his own amusement. :thumbdown

He can be harsh and aggravating....but he did promise you chocolate.:mrgreen:

 

[talloulou]

So who are all these in this absolute majority that disagree with my logic? You made the assertion that not one would agree. Did you ask them all? Let me simplify it for you...did you ask even one? I didn't think so.

And your respect is not desired at this point. I really only respect and care to be respected by the rational and sane.

F-U-C-K YOU. I'm on probation still for calling kidrocks an idiot. Maybe telling you to go f-u-c-k yourself will get me banned and I'll no longer waste time thinking I'm having genuine discussions with genuine people.