Zygote, Fetus, Clump of Cells, Alive, Dead???

Bartikus wrote:

real life wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
...... I'm not trying to impose my morals on anybody or push any laws; both are impossible to do.

I see a contradiction coming.

cicerone imposter wrote:
........ However, what some of you are trying to do is to impose "your" morals on women you don't even know by attempting to change the laws of this country,

Then what are you worried about?

You just stated that it was impossible to do.

cicerone imposter wrote:
believing that a zygote is a baby. It's no such thing. .....

Give medical evidence to support your view that the unborn is NOT a living human being. If you have any medical evidence, that is.

Maybe CI is stating that which is impossible to him and others is possible for religious zealots. Maybe CI can explain.

I agree with CI's position that a woman should ultimately be the one to decide what to do with her own body. Don't you agree RL?

Yes, I do agree with that.

However, the unborn is not 'part of the mother's body'. That is where the semantics of the issue kick in.

The unborn , from the moment of conception, has a separate DNA pattern which does not match the mother's DNA.

Biologically, therefore, it is simply incorrect to say that the unborn is 'part of the mother's body'. The unborn has a body of his/her own. The mother should not have the 'right' to kill that body.

Do you agree?

0 Replies

real wrote: However, the unborn is not 'part of the mother's body'.

Without the mother's nourishment, the baby would die. So much for your non-logic. Tell that to any medic, and they'll know you're way beyond your ability to think normally.

0 Replies

The baby is a separate person, of course, but it is also dependent upon its mother at that stage (in the womb) for its life. That's just a fact.

I haven't read all these posts and am not too sure on what basis you oppose abortion... is it on LEGAL grounds (as in what is defined as LIFE under the law), MORAL grounds or what exactly?

I find it interesting to hear so many views on this subject. When is a foetus a baby? When the cells begin to divide? When it develops a brain or a heart? When it's born? etc.

Abortion is okay to some if the mother was raped or if the foetus is the product of an incestuous relationship. Or if it's legal. Or early enough in the pregnancy, although what "early enough" is hasn't really been defined, other than medically.

There are medical, moral, legal, religious and political decisions positions on abortion that all tend to compete with one another and confuse the issue for many of us.

I, personally, still don't have a position on this one.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real wrote: However, the unborn is not 'part of the mother's body'.

Without the mother's nourishment, the baby would die. So much for your non-logic. Tell that to any medic, and they'll know you're way beyond your ability to think normally.

Groups of physicians, including the AAFP (American Academy of Family Physicians) , are on record as considering the unborn as a separate patient.

I'd gladly talk to any 'medic' you can name, CI.

Get the facts, please.

0 Replies

Mame wrote:

The baby is a separate person, of course, but it is also dependent upon its mother at that stage (in the womb) for its life. That's just a fact.

I haven't read all these posts and am not too sure on what basis you oppose abortion... is it on LEGAL grounds (as in what is defined as LIFE under the law), MORAL grounds or what exactly?

I find it interesting to hear so many views on this subject. When is a foetus a baby? When the cells begin to divide? When it develops a brain or a heart? When it's born? etc.

Abortion is okay to some if the mother was raped or if the foetus is the product of an incestuous relationship. Or if it's legal. Or early enough in the pregnancy, although what "early enough" is hasn't really been defined, other than medically.

There are medical, moral, legal, religious and political decisions positions on abortion that all tend to compete with one another and confuse the issue for many of us.

I, personally, still don't have a position on this one.

Hi Mame,

Good to hear from you.

My position is simple.

The unborn is a living human being , and as such deserves protection of life.

Now if someone can show that the unborn is not living, or that it is not biologically human (I wonder what other species it would be?), then that of course would change things.

But all the medical evidence shows that the unborn is indeed a living human being.

As you can see , the medical evidence makes no distinction between those of different faiths , or no faith at all, nor of those with different moral philosophies.

In fact, there are many atheists and agnostics who oppose abortion on the grounds that , since (in their view) there is no 'soul' or 'spirit', then the unborn is as human as he's ever gonna be.

0 Replies

real wrote: The unborn is a living human being , and as such deserves protection of life.

He fails the logic test; he doesn't care what happens to the babies once they are born. He also wants to impose his morals on women he doesn't even know or care about. He also fails on the legal test. The laws allow for women to have abortions. Strike three!

0 Replies

I certainly agree that an unborn baby is a living human being. It's not any other species, that's for sure, and it's not dead; therefore, it must be a living human being.

I think it has a spirit or soul, as well.

What I don't have a real solid position on is the abortion issue.

0 Replies

A fetus may be treated as a seperate patient (medical terminology) but it doesn't become a citizen (legal/goverment term) until out of the womb.

When are you issued a SS#?
When are you legally named?

RL - You're trying this same act again. You can't mix the two.

medical + medical = medical;
legal + legal = legal;

but

medical + legal =! legal || medical;

you want to argue about biology but you want to cite the law. The law hold much stronger with the preservation of it's citizens rights over it's non-citizens rights. Which, by the way, I don't even have to argee with to still support that choice of the parent(s) is of higher power than anything in the medical realm.

I certainly understand your moral objection, it's your legal objection that is so contrived.

A seed is not a tree.

I don't have to prove that a unborn fetus is a living human being. I don't have to know the second it's heart makes it's first beat. I don't have to any of this to know where I draw the line in the sand.

Abortion isn't about being moraly sound. It's about a mother/couple making a choice that affects/effects them. It can be done for the right reasons, it can be done for the wrong reasons, but it is not for the venue of law to decide which it is everytime.

I don't have to agree or support womoen getting abortions to know that it is unethical to make abortions illegal.

I'm all for improving the process, but it's for most the same reasons I'm for any development of any medical process.

It would be great if the majority of abortions could be carried out in a hospital, under the care of a larger staff. It would be great if there was a standardized time window for abortions, if for no other reason than to be consistant. It would be great if people investigating the idea of an abortion would be couselled before and after. It would be great if we had better adoption alternatives. It would be great if we could fix all the sociological and economical issues related to raising children.

It would be great. Make abortion illegal, and NONE of these things are resolved, they are just swept under the carpet.

CI has not been telling you that you have to live under his moral unbrella, he actually can't. I can garantee you that you will never HAVE TO abort a child, and if that day comes, and I'm wrong, I'll be fighting for your right to CHOOSE not to abort, just as strong.

0 Replies

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06092902.html

How bout...get an abortion or lose your job?

http://www.beverlylahayeinstitute.org/articledisplay.asp?id=2085&department=BLI&categoryid=femfacts

Where is the pro CHOICE voice on this? Any feminists?

0 Replies

As a pro-choicer, I'll be the first to point out that forcing anyone to have an abortion is, by definition, ANTI-choice.

I would find forcing someone to have an abortion to be even worse than forcing someone NOT to have an abortion.

As for pressuring someone, well, then we are talking a million shades of grey.

(Just asking this question makes me think that you are again making the mistake of thinking that pro-choice people are pro-abortion.)

0 Replies

Bartikus - I'll certainly say that that's crap. The idea of a parent forcing their child to drink turpentine reminds me of what the worlsd could look like if abortion were illegal.

I think I've been pretty clear here about how I feel. Forced abortion is just as bad as making it illegal.

0 Replies

Then why is forcing abortion on the unborn acceptable?

--------------------------------------------------------------

And what's this in your post about the mother or COUPLE making the decision?

Since when did you pro-abortion folks allow the father to have any say-so?

---------------------------------------------------------------

And your 'legal' argument rings very hollow.

Do you seriously think that politicians should override medical/scientific knowledge and enforce political definitions of what constitutes a human being instead of scientific ones?

I thought you were all about science. Isn't giving politicians the reign over science taboo in your book?

The unborn is obviously a living human being. There is no question that biologically he/she is a distinct individual and not 'a part of the mother's body'.

Since when did you trust politicians more than science?

0 Replies

real, Your arguments ring hollow. Whether you like it or not, the US congresss makes laws for our country. Yes, they're all politicians.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Then why is forcing abortion on the unborn acceptable?

It's not.

Quote:

And what's this in your post about the mother or COUPLE making the decision?

Since when did you pro-abortion folks allow the father to have any say-so?

I post that not because the father has equal rights, but because it's not always a exclusive decision.

Quote:

And your 'legal' argument rings very hollow.

Do you seriously think that politicians should override medical/scientific knowledge and enforce political definitions of what constitutes a human being instead of scientific ones?

No. I'm for politicians to decide what is legal, not what is medical. Pay attention.

Quote:

I thought you were all about science. Isn't giving politicians the reign over science taboo in your book?

I'm not giving up science, I'm containing legal matters to the legal venue.

Quote:

The unborn is obviously a living human being. There is no question that biologically he/she is a distinct individual and not 'a part of the mother's body'.

Correct until the bit about not being a part of the mother's body. Can you prove to me that the mother could choose to not give up her nutrition etc? can you prove to me that the fetus could elect to leave the womb whenever it wants or inversely stay as long as it wants? Why can't you admit that that the fetus is a part of the woman's body?

If I get a liver transplant, does that mean that it's not a part of my body? independant;y the liver nor myself could survive without it?

The answer is no. The liver would be a part of me. It may have a completely different DNA, but it would still be a part of me. The fetus is the same. It may be infinitely more complex, but it is no less a part of the mother.

Quote:

Since when did you trust politicians more than science?

I trust the baker to make bread.
I trust the engineer to design.
I trust the teacher to teach.

Who do you think I trust to legislate? The Doctor? The Preacher?

You're putting your money in the wrong hat RL.

0 Replies

real wrote: Since when did you trust politicians more than science?

I don't trust politicians, but they're the ones who makes the laws of our land. I trust scientists, because they can be depended to tell the truth about our environment. Without science, our living standards will still be in the stone age. The type of question you ask concerning "politicians = scientists" is an oxymoron.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Correct until the bit about not being a part of the mother's body. Can you prove to me that the mother could choose to not give up her nutrition etc? can you prove to me that the fetus could elect to leave the womb whenever it wants or inversely stay as long as it wants? Why can't you admit that that the fetus is a part of the woman's body?

If I get a liver transplant, does that mean that it's not a part of my body? independant;y the liver nor myself could survive without it?

The answer is no. The liver would be a part of me. It may have a completely different DNA, but it would still be a part of me. The fetus is the same. It may be infinitely more complex, but it is no less a part of the mother.

Your argument is ridiculous. A liver is an organ and is part of the body. A baby is NOT. It is created by the mother (and father) and is its own self. It is dependent upon the mother, however, as it develops in utero.

The mother was not born with the baby inside her; the mother did not spontaneously develop a baby, as with a tumour. The mother created the baby and it is its own entity.

Parts of the mother's body include limbs and growths. A baby is neither.

And when a baby is in the womb our out, it cannot "elect to leave the womb whenever it wants or inversely stay as long as it wants" or any other thing because it's a dependent human being and can't think for itself for a long time.

And what the heck does "Can you prove to me that the mother could choose to not give up her nutrition etc?" have to do with anything?

Hell--o?

0 Replies

Thanks for the reply Mame. To fully understand what I posted you'd need to read a great deal in reverse.

RL's arguement that a zygote,fetus, etc has a different DNA sequence is why I referenced the transplanted liver.

RL seems to think that the symbiotic relationship between mother and fetus is irrellevant, hense my questions about could a mother choose to... could a fetus elect to...? I realize they are obtuse questions, but it only me trying to demonstrate RL's method of debate back to him.

All of this discussion is to decide if a fetus in utero has the same legal rights that a mother does. RL's only arguement is that from embryo to fetus, it has it's own DNA. RL does not recognize that in our society we make several medical decisions for our youth. A common example I have cited is circumcision.

My arguement for legality is simple. You can't equate all forms of life in the womb to a child. There is a significant difference between a partial birth abortion and a embryo being cultivated for stem cells. RL sees these two acts as being ethically and morally equivilant.

His approach is this: Find an arguement he can defeat, and make someone else defend it. He has asked numerous times if an embryo left in the womb will develop into a child. Agree with him, and he believes that this means that your whole arguement collapses. Disagree, and you have to spend time running in circles trying to explain the difference.

For instance. I can certainly agree that a embryo, zygote and fetus, if given a womb and nutrition, will develop and come to term; be born. RL's logical path allows him to justify then that...

embryo=zygote=fetus=baby=child=human.

He likes to cite medical definitions, however is negligent to first recognize that the reason for having 6+ words for these diffent stages is not simply cosmetic.

So when I have to argue with RL about a difference in abortion and stem cell cultivation (or ealry term abortions), it's annoying. RL treats everything as if it is so simple. Black or white, or to be more accurate: Everything is just white. Every form of life is a full human.

Next, the major problem with RL's arguement is that even if he could establish that abortion and stem cell cultivation were morally wrong, he has zero basis for why it should be illegal. Different cultures find different things immoral, but legality and morality are not related so linearly.

A part of a person or personhood is something that has an non-elective symbiotic relationship with the other components.

If you're not ready to believe that the fetus is a part of the mother, look at it the other way. The mother being a part of the fetus. The mother's body fullfils the workload for the fetus. The fetu can't protect itself from viruses, so the mother does. The fetus can't process food, so the nutrients are given to it via the ambilical cord. It is an easy arguement to say that the fetus's own organs do not function to a degree that allow it a stable homeostasis, and therefore it uses the mother's body as it's OWN. Now if you can accept all of the facts above, why s it so hard to accept the inverse relationship?

I can certainly argue with ease that a part of someone is not simply what is genetically coded the same.

0 Replies

Diest TKO:

I am just leaving work and cannot answer you for a while (perhaps not till tomorrow), but I didn't want you to think your thoughful and patient explanation to me had gone unnoticed or unappreciated. I will have to read it later and get back to you.

I am not debating the ethics of abortion... as I said earlier, I don't have a solid view on that. My only contribution here was discussing whether a baby is a growth (or whatever you guys referred to it as) or living human being. And frankly, if one is not arguing from an abortion perspective, it's a slam dunk Smile

Anyway, more tomorrow - and thanks again for taking the time to explain the history of your discussion.

Cheers

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

My arguement for legality is simple. You can't equate all forms of life in the womb to a child. There is a significant difference between a partial birth abortion and a embryo being cultivated for stem cells. RL sees these two acts as being ethically and morally equivilant.

For instance. I can certainly agree that a embryo, zygote and fetus, if given a womb and nutrition, will develop and come to term; be born. RL's logical path allows him to justify then that...

embryo=zygote=fetus=baby=child=human.

The legality is simple?Really?

So someone terminating a wanted pregnancy (by the mother) should come with a legal charge of....... what?

Simpler yet.........why?

Does this equation fly now?

embryo=zygote=fetus=baby=child=human.

Maybe the equation should read:

embryo=zygote=fetus=baby=child=human..... sometimes

This particular zygote = a child!

Another zygote does not.

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall deny to ANY PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judicary to enforce that principle against the states.

Simple.....are the unborn persons....or not?

Some are wanted and some are not. Some are protected and others destroyed.

How does this sit with people?

If this is ok for people to do and a protected right (choice).....why if God almighty (creator of the heavens and earth) does the same as in the old testament....he is......considered....by some(ask Frank, yourself,)

If God sends his son to show his love for all......people's stomaches turn no matter what God does.

Receive Jesus and accept him as Lord and saviour. Love him back and your neighbor and the unwanted and the unlovable. We all were unwanted and unlovable in someone's eyes (maybe even our own).

God loves you now....just as you are....surrender to Jesus Christ and be saved. He will forgive and not abandon.

0 Replies

The biological status of the unborn does not change depending on whether it is wanted by the mother or not.

Either the unborn IS a living human being........

...........or the unborn IS NOT a living human being.

So, THE question is AT WHAT POINT is there a living human being?

Forget the legal definition, which can change with the next Congress.

The unborn is a biological entity, and medical evidence should be used to show the status, not appeals to the latest law.

The law should follow science, not lead it.

Diest, you commented about 'Making several medical decisions for our youth.....' This should not include killing them. Comparing abortion to circumcision is ludicrous.

0 Replies

Zygote, Fetus, Clump of Cells, Alive, Dead???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know