Notices
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 256 of 256
Like Tree90Likes

Thread: A.H.A. forces immoral conditions

  1. #201  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,443
    This is futile.

    Chero is a pro-lifer, and nothing is going to change that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    what might you have to support that? cause, the child's dna, if tested, would imply that the child is human.

    within the womb, the child does in deed exist (being).

    since the child is following the human life cycle (in which we all must go through) the child experiences and expresses the nature of a person (being).

    by those premises, the conclusion is, the pre-born child (whether capable of surviving outside the womb or not) is a human being.
    And I thought you were the one who said ...

    you can not dream while unconscious. instead you rag-doll and death is even the possibility.
    A foetus doesn't have enough oxygen in its blood to become conscious. Its mental state is very much like coma - it might relax or tense up in response to certain stimuli just as many coma patients do - but it can't think. Only breathing on your own and directly supplying the lungs with the right proportion of oxygen can supply enough oxygenated blood for the brain to function normally.

    For all practical purposes, foetuses are unconscious.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,443
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    what might you have to support that? cause, the child's dna, if tested, would imply that the child is human.

    within the womb, the child does in deed exist (being).

    since the child is following the human life cycle (in which we all must go through) the child experiences and expresses the nature of a person (being).

    by those premises, the conclusion is, the pre-born child (whether capable of surviving outside the womb or not) is a human being.
    And I thought you were the one who said ...

    you can not dream while unconscious. instead you rag-doll and death is even the possibility.
    A foetus doesn't have enough oxygen in its blood to become conscious. Its mental state is very much like coma - it might relax or tense up in response to certain stimuli just as many coma patients do - but it can't think. Only breathing on your own and directly supplying the lungs with the right proportion of oxygen can supply enough oxygenated blood for the brain to function normally.

    For all practical purposes, foetuses are unconscious.
    Nor could they live outside of the host. They can't breathe, eat, or see....hear....frankly, that I don't know. However my point is as you pointed out, they are not conscious. Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    This is futile.

    Chero is a pro-lifer, and nothing is going to change that.
    To be fair, nothing is going to change your viewpoint on this either, but that doesn't mean you should not be allowed to contribute.

    Regardless of your personal set of beliefs, the issue is whether or not you can pass legislation based upon a set of beliefs which are not supported by evidence. My problem is that people often refuse to come to a logical conclusion regarding the rights of others in favor of trying to support their belief set with legislation. All sides are guilty of this.
    chero likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    This is futile.

    Chero is a pro-lifer, and nothing is going to change that.
    I do not consider myself a pro-lifer. I don't even know everything they stand for. All I know, is that human life starts at conception and we should show respect to all persons. how is that so wrong?


    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    what might you have to support that? cause, the child's dna, if tested, would imply that the child is human.

    within the womb, the child does in deed exist (being).

    since the child is following the human life cycle (in which we all must go through) the child experiences and expresses the nature of a person (being).

    by those premises, the conclusion is, the pre-born child (whether capable of surviving outside the womb or not) is a human being.
    And I thought you were the one who said ...

    you can not dream while unconscious. instead you rag-doll and death is even the possibility.
    I also said consciousness does not determine what species a person is while in the womb.


    A foetus doesn't have enough oxygen in its blood to become conscious.
    blood is constantly transported between child and mother to supply oxygen and food.
    Its mental state is very much like coma it might relax or tense up in response to certain stimuli just as many coma patients do - but not think.
    the baby can recognize her/his mothers voice after birth. this is from what that child knows from within the womb.

    Babies Learn to Recognize Words in the Womb | Science/AAAS | News
    Scientists: Brain Wave Patterns Show Unborn Children Recognize Words in the Womb | LifeNews.com
    The Brain--from Womb to Tomb: Scientific American

    the fetus "can't eat" is not accurate - they have use of their mouths and vocal cords the moment they birth. infants can't eat because they don't chew their food. since nutrients are provided through the umbilical cord, there is no need to use the mouth any how.



    Only breathing on your own and directly supplying the lungs with the right proportion of oxygen can supply enough oxygenated blood for the brain to function normally.
    not really. when you sprint you can develop anaerobic condition in which your brain lacks oxygen and you breath more/harder. some people may feint due to a lack of oxygen just from standing up from a sitting position.
    Last edited by chero; December 18th, 2013 at 10:52 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    I do not consider myself a pro-lifer. I don't even know everything they stand for. All I know, is that human life starts at conception and we should show respect to all persons. how is that so wrong?
    If that is truly your only position on the matter - then you're not a pro-lifer. The definition of a pro-lifer is a belief that abortion should be illegal. If you think the decision should be up to the woman involved, you're not a pro-lifer.

    ]blood is constantly transported between child and mother to supply oxygen and food.
    No. The fetus has its own blood supply, separate from the mother's. That's why kids can have different blood types than their parents.

    the baby can recognize her/his mothers voice after birth. this is from what that child knows from within the womb.
    No, that's not what the study says. If you remove a child right after birth, and give him to an adoptive mother, then he recognizes her voice as his mother's. Not because of anything genetic or learned, but because that is the first voice he hears, and is the first voice he associates with comfort, food and protection.

    The study you are talking about states that fetuses recognize their mother's voice in utero compared to the voices of other women in utero. However, as anyone who has tried to talk underwater knows, that does not translate to recognizing that same voice after they are born.

    not really. when you sprint you can develop anaerobic condition in which your brain lacks oxygen and you breath more/harder. some people may feint due to a lack of oxygen just from standing up from a sitting position.
    I will make a general suggestion here.

    You keep trying to prove your point by using science, but you are more often wrong than right. (In the example above you confuse anaerobic with aerobic respiration, and then you confuse both of them with both hypoxia and orthostatic hypotension.) This leads to the perception that since you are generally wrong, that your conclusions are also generally wrong.

    Rather than making stuff up, perhaps just state what you believe without the pseudo-science justifications.
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    [QUOTE=billvon;504420]
    No. The fetus has its own blood supply, separate from the mother's. That's why kids can have different blood types than their parents.
    I did not say the child receives blood supply from the mother, but nutrients, oxygen, and other goodies as well as the possiblity of some really bad stuff is transfered from mother to child via blood. perhaps I should have stated it differently.

    No, that's not what the study says. If you remove a child right after birth, and give him to an adoptive mother, then he recognizes her voice as his mother's. Not because of anything genetic or learned, but because that is the first voice he hears, and is the first voice he associates with comfort, food and protection.
    you just described voice association, in which a voice may be associated with a thing or event. voice recognition is different and is not at all what the links were referring to. Nor was that the reason I placed such links. I was simply making a statement, but if you'd like some links on the topic:

    Babies Recognize Mom's Voice from the Womb - ABC News
    "Amazingly, babies can recognize their mother's voice even before birth."
    Is it true that babies can recognize their mother's voice at birth? | BabyCenter


    overall, the brain is very active within the womb, that was the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by chero
    not really. when you sprint you can develop anaerobic condition in which your brain lacks oxygen and you breath more/harder. some people may feint due to a lack of oxygen just from standing up from a sitting position.
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon
    You keep trying to prove your point by using science, but you are more often wrong than right. (In the example above you confuse anaerobic with aerobic respiration, and then you confuse both of them with both hypoxia and orthostatic hypotension.) This leads to the perception that since you are generally wrong, that your conclusions are also generally wrong.

    Rather than making stuff up, perhaps just state what you believe without the pseudo-science justifications.
    you should really ask where you do not understand. there is nothing in the two sentences given (by me), in which the two sentences may be related. this could have been determined by "standing up from sitting position" which has nothing to do with "sprinting." yes. that is correct. the two sentences were about two different subjects, ideas, things. to say it clear. the two sentences were not related.

    anaerobic and aerobic exercises are not mixed up. (again dealing with sprinting). in which anaerobic is defined as relating to, involving, or requiring an absence of free oxygen
    https://www.google.com/search?q=how+...al&safe=active

    Anaerobic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

    it is this style of exercise that creates oxygen debt (lack of oxygen).
    Only breathing on your own and directly supplying the lungs with the right proportion of oxygen can supply enough oxygenated blood for the brain to function normally.
    If there are times in which you can not do the above statement while only breathing, then it suggests that only breathing may not provide the right proportion of oxygen for normal function. perhaps I should have just stated that it is impossible for the human body to develop inside the womb w/o the right proportion of oxygen, anyhow. still - the point remains that the brain is very active before birth. there is nothing "pseudo-science" about that.

    p.s. I have not made anything up.
    Last edited by chero; December 18th, 2013 at 05:39 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    I did not say the child receives blood supply from the mother . . .
    From your post directly above:

    "blood is constantly transported between child and mother."

    overall, the brain is very active within the womb, that was the point.
    It is indeed - as is the heart, the kidneys, the liver etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by chero
    you should really ask where you do not understand. there is nothing in the two sentences given (by me), in which the two sentences may be related. this could have been determined by "standing up from sitting position" which has nothing to do with "sprinting." yes. that is correct. the two sentences were about two different subjects, ideas, things. to say it clear. the two sentences were not related.
    You are wrong WITHIN THE SENTENCES. For example:

    "when you sprint you can develop anaerobic condition in which your brain lacks oxygen"

    Anaerobic = no oxygen used. Thus if you "develop an anaerobic condition" you use LESS oxygen overall. That doesn't happen during a sprint.
    During running the reason you breathe more is a buildup of CO2, which increases respiratory drive. This has the side effect of increasing aspiration of O2, which your muscles also use.

    "some people may feint due to a lack of oxygen just from standing up from a sitting position."

    Some people may faint due to orthostatic hypotension, where blood pressure is reduced when standing. Your PPO2 (partial pressure of oxygen in your blood) is exactly the same.

    still - the point remains that the brain is very active before birth. there is nothing "pseudo-science" about that.
    That is correct.

    However, you have the same problem again. You have just stated several incorrect things then made a pretty shallow attempt to claim they were right all along, followed by the statement you wanted to make, which was that the brain of a fetus is active before birth. If you were trying to convince someone of this, they would, with good justification, think you were completely wrong, since all the statements leading up to your conclusion is wrong. You will be in a much better position if you give up on trying to use science you don't understand to make your point, and just make your point.

    (As an example, consider someone who says to you "the Sun revolves around the Earth and there's a floating mountain in the way. Therefore there will be an eclipse tomorrow." There might indeed be an eclipse coming tomorrow - but you would be wise to not believe that based purely on his completely incorrect statements.)
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    This is futile.

    Chero is a pro-lifer, and nothing is going to change that.
    To be fair, nothing is going to change your viewpoint on this either, but that doesn't mean you should not be allowed to contribute.

    Regardless of your personal set of beliefs, the issue is whether or not you can pass legislation based upon a set of beliefs which are not supported by evidence. My problem is that people often refuse to come to a logical conclusion regarding the rights of others in favor of trying to support their belief set with legislation. All sides are guilty of this.
    Well, Flick, I don't believe it has ever been PROVEN that life begins at conception, and it is known that week week fetus/embryo cannot survive outside of the host (mothers) body.

    Till it is proven that is not the case. Therefore I cannot see how it can possibly be called "murder" as some do call it.
    Last edited by babe; December 19th, 2013 at 05:25 AM. Reason: oops
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    The cycle of life hasn't been broken for billions of years....it's never stopped being life at any point since. The entire life versus non-life is a trap that exploits people's weakness in biology knowledge (and betrays their own).
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The cycle of life hasn't been broken for billions of years....it's never stopped being life at any point since. The entire life versus non-life is a trap that exploits people's weakness in biology knowledge (and betrays their own).
    So Sir Lynx_Fox, do you think it 's more an emotional and religious issue, then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Well, Flick, I don't believe it has ever been PROVEN that life begins at conception, and it is known that week week fetus/embryo cannot survive outside of the host (mothers) body.

    Till it is proven that is not the case. Therefore I cannot see how it can possibly be called "murder" as some do call it.
    I'm not saying I disagree with you. I don't think life "begins" with conception because I don't think any of the cells involved were ever not alive. I don't care for the emotional pleas that somehow that cluster of cells is different than any other reproducing cells. I don't believe in such things as spirits, so if you terminate a potential life before awareness, I don't see anything really being lost other than some cells. I am strongly against emotional legislation, so this whole argument is based upon a foundation I don't think should even exist.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    "blood is constantly transported between child and mother."
    is the word "supply" ever present? no. so I said nothing about the mother's blood being pumped into the baby as a source (a supply) of blood within the child's body.
    Quote Originally Posted by chero
    perhaps I should have stated it differently.
    (The brain) is indeed (active) - as is the heart, the kidneys, the liver etc.
    Yes, the child's own organs operating on their own cellular agenda. marvelous, what a person's life cycle includes.

    Quote Originally Posted by billvon
    Quote Originally Posted by chero
    "when you sprint you can develop anaerobic condition in which your brain lacks oxygen"
    Anaerobic = no oxygen used.
    Great, I never said anything to suggest the opposite.
    definition provided by Webster dictionary.
    b : of, relating to, or being activity in which the body incurs an oxygen debt <anaerobic exercise>
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon
    Thus if you "develop an anaerobic condition" you use LESS oxygen overall.
    Aerobic vs. Anaerobic: What is The Difference? :: Provided by MyFoodDiary.com

    Quote Originally Posted by billvon
    That (anaerobic exercise/condition) doesn't happen during a sprint.
    "any short-duration exercise that is powered primarily by metabolic pathways that do not use oxygen."
    no one can sprint for 30 minutes straight.
    anaerobic exercise - definition of anaerobic exercise in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

    "Whether in running or cycling, sprinting perfectly illustrates the effects of anaerobic respiration."
    Anaerobic Respiration and Sprinting | LIVESTRONG.COM

    "TYPES OF ANAEROBIC EXERCISES...

    Sprinting is the best of all anaerobic exercises for your cardiovascular system. In one study it has been shown that few 30 second sprints are equal to an hour of aerobic training such as jogging.Sprinting also works your lower body and burns body fat even better than jogging. So if you want great legs, great physique and strong heart muscle, include sprinting into your aerobic training. If you really want to make it as hard as it gets, try hill sprints and see how you do. Don't say I didn't warn you."
    Anaerobic Exercises: Sprinting and Its Effect on the Heart Muscle

    Quote Originally Posted by billvon
    Some people may faint due to orthostatic hypotension, where blood pressure is reduced when standing. Your PPO2 (partial pressure of oxygen in your blood) is exactly the same.
    Yes, that is the point. breathing is normal and adequate, but other causes for lack of oxygen means breathing may not be enough. I was questioning the "only" part. as in "only" breathing may not be enough.
    still - the point remains that the brain is very active before birth. there is nothing "pseudo-science" about that.
    That is correct.
    thank you for ackowledging that you were wrong about the pseudo-science comment. that was very humbling of you.

    ...followed by the statement you wanted to make, which was that the brain of a fetus is active before birth. If you were trying to convince someone of this, they would, with good justification, think you were completely wrong, since all the statements leading up to your conclusion is wrong.
    How was the information provided by multiple sources about how "active" the brain is during pregnancy, wrong?

    As stated above, the anaerobic and feinting comments were directly about the comments previously made and quoted.

    I am begining to believe that you are trying to attack the messenger. The rest of your post is gibberish and an insult. you do not know me. you have no logical possibility of knowing what I know or who I am. Instead, you have made idiotic attempts to attack me personally. that in itself is a fallacy.

    to help you out. in an argument, try to solidify your own position by arguing the evidence. Not a person's credibility, in which you yourself may not even know what that credibility is. if you think a person is wrong, don't just tell them...instead, provide some bloody evidence as to why or how they are wrong. it helps to understand what the person is talking about as well.
    Last edited by chero; December 19th, 2013 at 02:02 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Well, Flick, I don't believe it has ever been PROVEN that life begins at conception, and it is known that week week fetus/embryo cannot survive outside of the host (mothers) body.

    Till it is proven that is not the case. Therefore I cannot see how it can possibly be called "murder" as some do call it.
    I'm not saying I disagree with you. I don't think life "begins" with conception because I don't think any of the cells involved were ever not alive. I don't care for the emotional pleas that somehow that cluster of cells is different than any other reproducing cells. I don't believe in such things as spirits, so if you terminate a potential life before awareness, I don't see anything really being lost other than some cells. I am strongly against emotional legislation, so this whole argument is based upon a foundation I don't think should even exist.
    how can you have a potential life if life does not begin with conception as life (or the cells in which are life) were never "not alive.?"

    what qualifies as awareness?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The cycle of life hasn't been broken for billions of years....it's never stopped being life at any point since. The entire life versus non-life is a trap that exploits people's weakness in biology knowledge (and betrays their own).
    "life cycle" often refers to an individual organism's existence. like when you first existed and when you cease to exist and what development you may experience. I, as most do, agree that the question is not when "life" or the "cycle of life" begins. the question for answering and that so many have an issue with is about an individual...a pesron's "life cycle."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    how can you have a potential life if life does not begin with conception as life (or the cells in which are life) were never "not alive.?"
    I could end potential life by killing my sperm cells or even by killing myself. How can you argue that destroying a zygote is different than destroying sperm or an egg? How does the coming together of DNA change anything?

    The point is that at no point are any of the cells involved in conception not alive. Life is continuous and does not "begin".

    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    what qualifies as awareness?
    Regardless of how you define it, it requires a functioning brain. Something a cluster of cells does not have.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I could end potential life by killing my sperm cells or even by killing myself.
    then what do you describe as potential life? you are already living. you already have a life. there is no potential for you becoming something you already are.
    How can you argue that destroying a zygote is different than destroying sperm or an egg? How does the coming together of DNA change anything?
    it changes everything. you no longer are dealing with sperm or an egg. it should be clear, that when you are dealing with something that is no longer what once existed, but something different, then the characteristics are apt to change as well. one great characteristic that changed, the zygote is now (as a human zygote does in deed fit the definition of) a person. some believe this is important. others do not.
    The point is that at no point are any of the cells involved in conception not alive. Life is continuous and does not "begin".
    Yes, I already know that. I believe some "pro-lifers" have said that as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    what qualifies as awareness?
    Regardless of how you define it, it requires a functioning brain. Something a cluster of cells does not have.[/QUOTE] Yes, I am aware of the need for a brain in being aware....ha ha. see what I did there? You do know you are a cluster of cells right? well, maybe you were just referring to the earliest stages of human development. In which, the arguments of how a brain or awareness does not qualify as determining a person (human being) have already been posted.

    However, I would ask - rhetorical question - what is the function of a brain?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    it changes everything. you no longer are dealing with sperm or an egg. it should be clear, that when you are dealing with something that is no longer what once existed, but something different, then the characteristics are apt to change as well. one great characteristic that changed, the zygote is now (as a human zygote does in deed fit the definition of) a person. some believe this is important. others do not.
    That is true for any cell which undergoes changes. Stem cells can assume a number of roles, for instance. Why does altering the chemical composition of a cell or causing it to proceed down a biologically-determined path change the definition of life?

    What about a memory B-cell altering it's ability to recognize specific antigens after exposure? They've altered their function, but they are not suddenly a new special kind of cell. They're just doing what they're supposed to do. Same goes for fertilization.

    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    Yes, I am aware of the need for a brain in being aware....ha ha. see what I did there?
    Demonstrated ignorance of basic biology?

    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    You do know you are a cluster of cells right?
    I am well aware of that...

    To be more precise, I am a group of organs comprised of a group of tissues comprise of a group of cells, but that would be nit picking...

    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    well, maybe you were just referring to the earliest stages of human development. In which, the arguments of how a brain or awareness does not qualify as determining a person (human being) have already been posted.
    Huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    However, I would ask - rhetorical question - what is the function of a brain?
    The function?
    Last edited by Flick Montana; December 19th, 2013 at 05:47 PM.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    then what do you describe as potential life? you are already living. you already have a life. there is no potential for you becoming something you already are.
    But he has the potential to create future human life - just as a zygote does. In both cases it is far from certain.

    How can you argue that destroying a zygote is different than destroying sperm or an egg? How does the coming together of DNA change anything?
    it changes everything. you no longer are dealing with sperm or an egg.
    Right. You are dealing with a zygote. The zygote does not have any new information; it has only the DNA that was in the sperm and the egg. Nothing new (information-wise) has been created,

    At the point just before conception, the sperm and the egg have the POTENTIAL for human life. It is not assured by any means; odds are still below 50% that the two will combine and become a full term baby. At the point just after conception, the zygote has the POTENTIAL for human life. It is not assured by any means; odds are still below 50% that the zygote will implant and become a full term baby.

    it should be clear, that when you are dealing with something that is no longer what once existed
    I am something that is no longer what once existed. Most of the atoms in my body have been replaced several times by the food I have eaten. Most of my DNA has changed via telomere erosion. Same goes for you. You are significantly different than you were when you were young; you are no longer what once existed.

    [quote]but something different, then the characteristics are apt to change as well. one great characteristic that changed, the zygote is now (as a human zygote does in deed fit the definition of) a person. some believe this is important. others do not.
    [QUOTE]

    Really? So a zygote that doesn't implant is a human death, similar to any other human death? How many funerals have you gone to for unimplanted zygotes?

    You do know you are a cluster of cells right?
    Exactly! And a zygote is not. You have just described another difference between a zygote and a person.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    But he has the potential to create future human life - just as a zygote does. In both cases it is far from certain.
    only way to create "new" human life is procreation. something only mature "adults" may accomplish. if your cells replicate and then die off, then you are still you. likewise, a zygote is still the origional person once becoming an embryo.

    How can you argue that destroying a zygote is different than destroying sperm or an egg? How does the coming together of DNA change anything?
    it changes everything. you no longer are dealing with sperm or an egg.
    Right. You are dealing with a zygote. The zygote does not have any new information; it has only the DNA that was in the sperm and the egg. Nothing new (information-wise) has been created,
    Nothing new, information-wise, is new from zygote to embryo to adult. your dna remains the same, except for what ever mutations may have occurred. otherwise, all those body parts, the brain, and everything else was already determined once conception occurred.

    as you have pointed out, w/o conception - nothing happens. in contrary to given statement. the information (dna) is absolutely new, from the newly aquired portion of dna provided from the other half. together, they work. where as by themselves, sperm and egg cells can not replicate. or is that a wrong statemnet?

    At the point just before conception, the sperm and the egg have the POTENTIAL for human life.
    I thought you've been saying that egg and sperm are already human. could you elaborate this new difference?

    It is not assured by any means; odds are still below 50% that the two will combine and become a full term baby.
    everything about life is uncertain. how does uncertainty determine who is or is not a person when determining factor is are biological?



    it should be clear, that when you are dealing with something that is no longer what once existed
    I am something that is no longer what once existed. Most of the atoms in my body have been replaced several times by the food I have eaten. Most of my DNA has changed via telomere erosion. Same goes for you. You are significantly different than you were when you were young; you are no longer what once existed.
    and you are no longer an egg or sperm, nor do you share their characteristics, just like a zygote does not share their characteristics and behavior, in which a zygote may combine/morph to develop a new zygote (...a new animal). Nor is it applicable for the zygote go into an egg or absorb a sperm cell to develop the same result.

    Really? So a zygote that doesn't implant is a human death, similar to any other human death? How many funerals have you gone to for unimplanted zygotes?
    How many memorials have you gone to for the death of someone else? How bout a person you do not know and have never met and have no knowledge of their existence...is that person not human? did they still exist? if a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? do bears s*** in the woods?

    just because you are unaware of another person's existence, does not mean they did not exist and they are not human.

    You do know you are a cluster of cells right?
    Exactly! And a zygote is not. You have just described another difference between a zygote and a person.
    Human Reproduction

    from the provided link "After fertilization, the egg and sperm and nuclei fuse, and a new diploid human zygote results (2n) - the first cell of the new animal..."

    definition of individual: "a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family"
    person: "a human being regarded as an individual."

    a person may be as we all have been, single cell. that is your life cycle.
    Last edited by chero; December 20th, 2013 at 12:40 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    That is true for any cell which undergoes changes. Stem cells can assume a number of roles, for instance. Why does altering the chemical composition of a cell or causing it to proceed down a biologically-determined path change the definition of life?

    What about a memory B-cell altering it's ability to recognize specific antigens after exposure? They've altered their function, but they are not suddenly a new special kind of cell. They're just doing what they're supposed to do. Same goes for fertilization.
    then what is so special about you now, and you then? if there is nothing special then, how do you develop some special consideration when cells have just altered?

    if the answer is ability (mind, brain, heart, etc. - all may be summed in "ability"), then why not the ability to replicate rather not? that way, there are no short comings or prejudices against the mentally/physically challenged, comma patients, etc.


    Demonstrated ignorance of basic biology?
    wow, what a Debbie downer. worst, a joke is not implication of ignorance. what a poor sense of pun.

    To be more precise, I am a group of organs comprised of a group of tissues comprise of a group of cells, but that would be nit picking...
    especially when you are still a group or cluster of cells regardless of organs.

    Huh?
    the presence of a brain does not count as a qualifier as to whom is or is not human (person/being).

    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    However, I would ask - rhetorical question - what is the function of a brain?
    The function?
    yea, right. good question huh? there is just so much there! its marvelous. well...go ahead an ponder upon it if you want.
    Last edited by chero; December 20th, 2013 at 12:33 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    You're good. Very good.

    You manage to elaborately combine the skills of some of the best trolls out there.

    You're able to combine actual words in a way which nearly conveys intelligence, but actually means absolutely nothing. You can also deflect like the best of them, somehow making it sound like I'm the idiot for not understanding your hooey. Plus, you're very good at the, "I was just kidding" tactic wherein you say something that is either offensive or ignorant and then claim it was all a joke so you don't have to back it up.

    You've managed to be both infuriating and frustrating without actually saying anything of substance. As much as I loathe reading your posts, I feel like I have to commend you on your superb grasp of trollery.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    only way to create "new" human life is procreation. something only mature "adults" may accomplish.
    From here on out I am going to ignore all the pseudoscience babble and concentrate on the rest of the issue.

    Really? So a zygote that doesn't implant is a human death, similar to any other human death? How many funerals have you gone to for unimplanted zygotes?
    How many memorials have you gone to for the death of someone else?
    Quite a few, at least 40 so far in my life.

    Now - how many memorials have you been to for unimplanted zygotes?

    You do know you are a cluster of cells right?
    Exactly! And a zygote is not. You have just described another difference between a zygote and a person.
    from the provided link "After fertilization, the egg and sperm and nuclei fuse, and a new diploid human zygote results (2n) - the first cell of the new animal..."
    Thank you for proving that a zygote and a person are different things.

    Now, do you think abortion should be legal?
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    only way to create "new" human life is procreation. something only mature "adults" may accomplish.
    From here on out I am going to ignore all the pseudoscience babble and concentrate on the rest of the issue.
    wow...how mature of a response. (SARCASM)

    Really? So a zygote that doesn't implant is a human death, similar to any other human death? How many funerals have you gone to for unimplanted zygotes?
    How many memorials have you gone to for the death of someone else? How bout a person you do not know and have never met and have no knowledge of their existence...is that person not human? did they still exist? if a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? do bears s*** in the woods?
    Quite a few, at least 40 so far in my life.
    you have, once again, ignored the important questions. have you attended a funeral of someone you have never met or never knew about, and if not - do those human organism ever existed to begin with? were they humans?

    the answer is yes, they are humans, much like a any human death during/at any stage of development in the human life cycle.

    from the provided link "After fertilization, the egg and sperm and nuclei fuse, and a new diploid human zygote results (2n) - the first cell of the new animal...


    Thank you for proving that a zygote and a person are different things.
    way to ignore the entire sentence. but of course to you, that's all just pseudo-science anyways.


    p.s. I'll answer the question when I see sources, links, citations, etc. of how the pre-born child is not a human.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    You're good. Very good.

    You manage to elaborately combine the skills of some of the best trolls out there.

    You're able to combine actual words in a way which nearly conveys intelligence, but actually means absolutely nothing. You can also deflect like the best of them, somehow making it sound like I'm the idiot for not understanding your hooey. Plus, you're very good at the, "I was just kidding" tactic wherein you say something that is either offensive or ignorant and then claim it was all a joke so you don't have to back it up.

    You've managed to be both infuriating and frustrating without actually saying anything of substance. As much as I loathe reading your posts, I feel like I have to commend you on your superb grasp of trollery.
    what ever
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    much like a any human death during/at any stage of development in the human life cycle.
    You're joking surely.

    Zygote - b
    lastocyst -embryo - foetus - live infant - child - adolescent - adult.

    Even women who are trying to get pregnant don't organise funerals when they have unwanted menstruation which very often contains a dead zygote/ blastocyst/embryo.

    Pregnant women who miscarry in the first trimester rarely, if ever, do anything so formal as a funeral.

    Once you get to the second trimester some, but only some, women (or couples) have some kind of ceremony.

    Even when a foetus is lost in the third trimester, not everyone wants to commemorate that.

    It's not so long ago that midwives and hospitals routinely took full-term, stillborn babies away without the parent(s) even seeing them. They certainly didn't have any ceremonies.
    Flick Montana and babe like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Well, Flick, I don't believe it has ever been PROVEN that life begins at conception, and it is known that week week fetus/embryo cannot survive outside of the host (mothers) body.

    Till it is proven that is not the case. Therefore I cannot see how it can possibly be called "murder" as some do call it.
    I'm not saying I disagree with you. I don't think life "begins" with conception because I don't think any of the cells involved were ever not alive. I don't care for the emotional pleas that somehow that cluster of cells is different than any other reproducing cells. I don't believe in such things as spirits, so if you terminate a potential life before awareness, I don't see anything really being lost other than some cells. I am strongly against emotional legislation, so this whole argument is based upon a foundation I don't think should even exist.
    Then we are on the same page.

    I will say, however, that I do not believe (yes I am the theatre whore) that it is an easy decision to have an abortion, as that IS an emotional choice. However, biologically, I concur with you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    On that note, I have seen the aftermath of an abortion. To call a woman who has gone through that a murderer is unconscionable. I cannot imagine that any woman with a conscious could go through that experience unscarred.
    babe likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    p.s. I'll answer the question when I see sources, links, citations, etc. of how the pre-born child is not a human.
    The fetus IS human, just as the mother's eggs and kidneys are human. None are human beings.

    Now - do you think abortion should be legal? It's really a quite simple question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    much like a any human death during/at any stage of development in the human life cycle.
    You're joking surely.

    Zygote - b
    lastocyst -embryo - foetus - infant - child - adolescent - adult.

    Even women who are trying to get pregnant don't organise funerals when they have unwanted menstruation which very often contains a dead zygote/ blastocyst/embryo.

    Pregnant women who miscarry in the first trimester rarely, if ever, do anything so formal as a funeral.

    Once you get to the second trimester some, but only some, women (or couples) have some kind of ceremony.

    Even when a foetus is lost in the third trimester, not everyone wants to commemorate that.

    It's not so long ago that midwives and hospitals routinely took full-term, stillborn babies away without the parent(s) even seeing them. They certainly didn't have any ceremonies.
    None of that changes the fact that you were a zygote, embryo, fetus and were - like all humans - a human being/person during those stages of development.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    p.s. I'll answer the question when I see sources, links, citations, etc. of how the pre-born child is not a human.
    The fetus IS human, just as the mother's eggs and kidneys are human. None are human beings.

    Now - do you think abortion should be legal? It's really a quite simple question.
    since you read wrong the first time.
    Quote Originally Posted by cherop
    I'll answer the question when I see sources, links, citations, etc. of how the pre-born child is not a human.
    human. noun. a human being, (esp.) a person as distinguished from an animal

    all this time people have been saying that the pre-born are not humans, are not human beings, are not persons. I have provided plenty of links to web sites from govt. organizations, edu sites, non-profits, etc. - all support. all I am asking for is your support. what evidence is there to back up what you are saying?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    I'll answer the question when I see sources, links, citations, etc. of how the pre-born child is not a human.
    Fetal Rights legal definition of Fetal Rights. Fetal Rights synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

    Fetal Rights

    The rights of any unborn human fetus, which is generally a developing human from roughly eight weeks after conception to birth.



    Like other categories such as Civil Rights and Human Rights, fetal rights embraces a complex variety of topics and issues involving a number of areas of the law, including criminal, employment, health care, and Family Law.

    Historically, under both English Common Law and U.S. law, the fetus has not been recognized as a person with full rights. Instead, legal rights have centered on the mother, with the fetus treated as a part of her. Nevertheless, U.S. law has in certain instances granted the fetus limited rights, particularly as medical science has made it increasingly possible to directly view, monitor, diagnose, and treat the fetus as a patient.
    What evidence is there to back up what you are saying?[/quote]

    See above.

    Now, for the third time, do you think abortion should be legal?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,443
    Quote Originally Posted by flick montana View Post
    on that note, i have seen the aftermath of an abortion. To call a woman who has gone through that a murderer is unconscionable. I cannot imagine that any woman with a conscious could go through that experience unscarred.

    bingo!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Fetal Rights legal definition of Fetal Rights. Fetal Rights synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

    Fetal Rights
    The rights of any unborn human fetus, which is generally a developing human from roughly eight weeks after conception to birth.
    This looks like an article describing what fetal rights are or is. hm, tricky ... is or are.

    anyways. the human fetus is a developing human (noun. a human being/ a person-by definition). the word generally and roughly is describing the number of weeks that a fetus normally forms after conception to birth, in which a fetus (the scientific name) then referred to as an infant.
    Historically, under both English Common Law and U.S. law, the fetus has not been recognized as a person with full rights. Instead, legal rights have centered on the mother, with the fetus treated as a part of her. Nevertheless, U.S. law has in certain instances granted the fetus limited rights, particularly as medical science has made it increasingly possible to directly view, monitor, diagnose, and treat the fetus as a patient.
    Good reference of historical importance. As stated before this is an article about fetal rights. Historically, many things were not as they are now. People used to believe a small baby was inside sperm, as some state. Some believed blacks were not human. They used social darwinism to justify their claim.

    Stand to Reason | Are Blacks Human Beings?

    Oh yes, even those already born have been argued as being non human, and not a person. By govt. officials themselves. laws have been placed according to such beliefs. Not just in the U.S. either.

    I must cut this short.






    What evidence is there to back up what you are saying?
    Already posted all of it on this thread. there are more out there, but I'm good.


    do you think abortion should be legal?
    Yes and No. In some cases, enduced abortion may be the only result, while in others - not even close.
    Last edited by chero; December 22nd, 2013 at 08:28 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    do you think abortion should be legal?
    Yes and No. In some cases, enduced abortion may be the only result, while in others - not even close.
    What does "enduced abortion may be the only result" mean? Result of what?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #235  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    do you think abortion should be legal?
    Yes and No. In some cases, induced abortion may be the only result, while in others - not even close.
    What does "induced abortion may be the only result" mean? Result of what?
    Result of medical complications to pregnancy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Result of medical complications to pregnancy.
    I agree that in some cases, an attempted abortion might result in an induced abortion, which would certainly qualify as a medical complication to pregnancy. However that doesn't really say much. It's like saying that an operation to remove a cancerous kidney might result in you having one less kidney, and invasive surgical procedures generally result in medical complications. Accurate but I think everyone understand that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Result of medical complications to pregnancy.
    I agree that in some cases, an attempted abortion might result in an induced abortion, which would certainly qualify as a medical complication to pregnancy. However that doesn't really say much. It's like saying that an operation to remove a cancerous kidney might result in you having one less kidney, and invasive surgical procedures generally result in medical complications. Accurate but I think everyone understand that.
    It's nothing like that. the two are not the same. Medically and biologically, the two are not the same. therefore could never be a "like."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    It's nothing like that. the two are not the same. Medically and biologically, the two are not the same. therefore could never be a "like."
    In English, the word "like" means "similar in some ways" not "the same." For example:

    Your hands are like your feet; they both have similar bone structure, and a similar number of appendages, but they are not the same.
    Euros are like dollars; they are both money. They are not the same.
    Kidneys are like livers; they are both human organs. They are not the same.

    See? If you are still confused google "analogy."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #239  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    It's nothing like that. the two are not the same. Medically and biologically, the two are not the same. therefore could never be a "like."
    In English, the word "like" means "similar in some ways" not "the same." For example:

    Your hands are like your feet; they both have similar bone structure, and a similar number of appendages, but they are not the same.
    Euros are like dollars; they are both money. They are not the same.
    Kidneys are like livers; they are both human organs. They are not the same.

    See? If you are still confused google "analogy."
    analogies need something in common. pregnancy has nothing in common w/ cancer. what a vile comment about your mother and yourself. you should be nicer to both.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #240  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    analogies need something in common. pregnancy has nothing in common w/ cancer.
    Since you missed the point I will be clearer, and will not use rhetorical devices.

    I asked you if abortion should be legal. You said "Yes and no. In some cases, enduced abortion may be the only result, while in others - not even close . . . Result of medical complications to pregnancy." Yes, induced abortion will often be the result of a legal abortion. Yes, an abortion is sometimes performed due to medical complications of pregnancy, or to prevent complications of pregnancy. None of those statements are illuminating.

    So I will ask again. Should abortion be legal? If there are cases where you think it should not be, who should decide which case is OK and which isn't?

    What a vile comment about your mother and yourself. you should be nicer to both.
    My mother died years ago. I would hope you have enough decency to not attack her any further.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #241  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    What a vile comment about your mother and yourself. you should be nicer to both.
    My mother died years ago. I would hope you have enough decency to not attack her any further.
    I did not attack your mother, if anything I am defending her. saying that pregnancy is a cancer or "like" cancer is an attack on the mother and child, as pregnancy invovles two parties and respect should be given to both.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #242  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Deleted. Not worth it.
    Last edited by billvon; December 28th, 2013 at 03:05 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #243  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chero;508057I
    am pointing out your ignorant attack on your own mother. please refrain from such statements.
    You are a rude, thoughtless and hateful person to use someone's dead mother to try to win your bullshit Internet argument. If you are really going to defend such tactics, I am glad I don't know you.
    recheck the original post. I am not using your mother to win anything. I am providing my viewpoint. Now you are trying to jump at an opportunity, to once again, attack my character rather argue the comment made. In reverse, I went after the comment. I said nothing about your character and made no assumptions as to who you were. Only stated that it is disrespectful to consider pregnancy as a cancer - and said the two had nothing in common.

    It is disrespectful to all mothers and all children that pregnancy would be considered, like cancer. This includes you and your mother. that is my perspective. hate it all you want, but such comments are vile.

    In retrospect, there is a history on this thread of trying to attack my character. perhaps I should just turn away. you have yet to quote me correctly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #244  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,274
    Both gestation and uncontrolled cellular division are growths inside the body that, at best are benign, and at worst potentially fatal to the body.

    The only difference is that one is a method of reproduction to create another human being and the other isn't.

    Reproduction is "supposed" to happen whereas cancer isn't, but they still have similar mechanisms (except Humans use sexual instead of parthenogenesis).

    One is good and the other is bad, but they're both based on growth inside the body that isn't actually part of the original physiological makeup.
    adelady and babe like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #245  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Both gestation and uncontrolled cellular division are growths inside the body that, at best are benign, and at worst potentially fatal to the body.

    The only difference is that one is a method of reproduction to create another human being and the other isn't.

    Reproduction is "supposed" to happen whereas cancer isn't, but they still have similar mechanisms (except Humans use sexual instead of parthenogenesis).

    One is good and the other is bad, but they're both based on growth inside the body that isn't actually part of the original physiological makeup.
    Well said and in context!! Thank you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #246  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Both gestation and uncontrolled cellular division are growths inside the body that, at best are benign, and at worst potentially fatal to the body.

    The only difference is that one is a method of reproduction to create another human being and the other isn't.

    Reproduction is "supposed" to happen whereas cancer isn't, but they still have similar mechanisms (except Humans use sexual instead of parthenogenesis).

    One is good and the other is bad, but they're both based on growth inside the body that isn't actually part of the original physiological makeup.
    forgot that cancer is your own body mutating, where as the child during pregnancy is not the woman's body.

    what do you define as "controlled or uncontrolled cellular growth?" you do not control your own cells and how they replicate (grow). you can not tell them what to do and when to do it.

    just like the cells of the newly forming person, cells operate according to their dna which is "controlled" in the sense that the cells operate to their normal design. your skin cells, your stem cells, etc. operate to their "program" (dna), where as your embryonic stem cells did the same when you were developing inside your mother's womb.


    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/u...enomics/page49
    http://www.nature.com/scitable/topic...ancer-14046590


    what would you define as "mechanisms?" the ability to replicate?

    what would you consider "original physiological makeup?"
    physiology: the branch of biology that deals with the normal functions of living organisms and their parts
    cause pregnancy is a normal function of all mature women.


    a lot of things are potentially fatal to the body; a virus, a bacteria, a bullet. but still - a child within the womb is none of these things nor like any of these things. just as that child is not anything like cancer.


    just because mutation may occur in the baby, does not mean that the entire child is a cancer. again. referring to pregnancy or the child within as cancer or like cancer is technically wrong as it is disrespectful to both all mothers and all children, including yourselves.

    Furthermore, let us not forget that cancer cells remain cancer cells until they no longer exist. are you a cancer?
    Last edited by chero; December 29th, 2013 at 12:40 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #247  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    a lot of things are potentially fatal to the body; a virus, a bacteria, a bullet. but still - a child within the womb is none of these things nor like any of these things. just as that child is not anything like cancer.
    Back up just a minute here. Are you really trying to say that pregnancy and childbirth are not "potentially fatal" to a woman's body?

    Think for a minute before you answer.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #248  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    a lot of things are potentially fatal to the body; a virus, a bacteria, a bullet. but still - a child within the womb is none of these things nor like any of these things. just as that child is not anything like cancer.
    Back up just a minute here. Are you really trying to say that pregnancy and childbirth are not "potentially fatal" to a woman's body?

    Think for a minute before you answer.
    reread the sentence. a child within the womb is none of these things. is "potentially fatal" the same as "things?" no it is not.

    but lets take another step back.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Both gestation and uncontrolled cellular division are growths inside the body that, at best are benign, and at worst potentially fatal to the body.
    I forgot about this. cancer is not potentially fatal. it is fatal, unless treated. there's no potential to it. the potential to pregnancy becoming a danger to a woman's health after something goes wrong. it may happen, it may not happen. pregnancy becomes potentially fatal only after particular events/circumstances. kind of like how normal cells are cancerous after they mutate. before that, there may be potential.

    even after something goes wrong, there may be ways to correct the problem, depending on the issue.

    cancer cells are better to remove/destroy when benign because there is a reduced chance of that cell or those cells spreading through out the body, causing multiple cells becoming cancerous. cancer can not be corrected.

    this furthers the distance between cancer and pregnancy on how they are not a like.
    Last edited by chero; December 29th, 2013 at 03:37 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #249  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    child birth/pregnancy is not like a bullet, virus, bacteria, etc.
    Who says?

    Women who are well off with good access to appropriate healthcare will do better than less fortunate women ... for all problems - the conditions you mention as well as pregnancy and childbirth.

    Women who aren't so well off .... won't do so well.

    And even women in wealthy countries with top-notch obstetric care can still die or be permanently injured from various pregnancy-related conditions.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #250  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    child birth/pregnancy is not like a bullet, virus, bacteria, etc.
    Who says?
    Women who are well off with good access to appropriate healthcare will do better than less fortunate women ... for all problems - the conditions you mention as well as pregnancy and childbirth.
    Women who aren't so well off .... won't do so well.
    And even women in wealthy countries with top-notch obstetric care can still die or be permanently injured from various pregnancy-related conditions.
    are you seriously comparing pregnancy to a bullet?

    danger in something or the quanitity of danger does not make things similar. there is danger all around us. we say things are dangerous. perhaps if you want to compare how dangerous a is to b, that makes sense. but you would still not say that the confines/characteristics of pregnancy is like the characteristics of something else only because there is a presence of danger. that would be like me saying you are like a missle. do you explode on impact or at all? no. yes the danger of you killing someone may be present like a missle, but your characteristics are not a like because of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #251  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,274
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    just because mutation may occur in the baby, does not mean that the entire child is a cancer. again. referring to pregnancy or the child within as cancer or like cancer is technically wrong as it is disrespectful to both all mothers and all children, including yourselves.

    Furthermore, let us not forget that cancer cells remain cancer cells until they no longer exist. are you a cancer?
    Now it seems you're just arguing for the sake of arguing itself.

    If I were feeling sympathetic, I'd say you simply misunderstood the point I was making.

    But I'm not, so I'm going to conclude that you're deliberately ignoring the point I made so you can continue with your own diatribe.
    RedPanda and billvon like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #252  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    but you would still not say that the confines/characteristics of pregnancy is like the characteristics of something else only because there is a presence of danger.
    Well, you're the one who's running the argument that pregnancy is not like cancer despite both being examples of (possibly dangerous) cells replicating within a body. I presume you'd also include autoimmune diseases like diabetes or lupus or scleroderma as similar issues of normal functions of cells or body parts getting a bit out of control.

    Gestational diabetes and gestational hypothyroidism and pre-eclampsia are direct consequences of pregnancy disrupting the normal hormonal/ endocrine functions of the mother's body. These conditions are not related to any pre-existing conditions in the mother, if she weren't pregnant the illness in question wouldn't happen.

    I'm still not sure about your position. Are you really arguing that pregnancy and childbirth are not inherently dangerous to the mother?
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #253  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,443
    [QUOTE=chero;508403

    [/QUOTE]


    cause pregnancy is a normal function of all mature women.
    No, it isn't a normal function of ALL mature women, by far. Many MATURE women do not get pregnant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #254  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    cause pregnancy is a normal function of all mature women.
    No, it isn't a normal function of ALL mature women, by far. Many MATURE women do not get pregnant.
    Correct. I over simplified it. All women of child bearing age who maintains eggs, has a uterus, maintained healthy body, etc. etc.
    the point is, pregnancy is a normal function. it has to go sideways in order for any condition to develop in which it becomes dangerous. for some women this risk is elevated due to genetics, environmental factors (e.g. drug exposure, physical damage, etc.). so for pregnancy to become potentially dangerous, things have to go out side the normal function.

    of coarse risk does not mean it will absolutely go one way or another. sometimes things just don't happen the way they are supposed to. these characteristics are nothing like cancer.

    pregnancy with everything going normal, hey you got a healthy baby and healthy self.
    cancer with everything going normal, it spreads - you got stage 4...nobody is healthy.
    Last edited by chero; December 30th, 2013 at 11:33 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #255  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Well, you're the one who's running the argument that pregnancy is not like cancer despite both being examples of (possibly dangerous) cells replicating within a body.
    some of your cells replicate within a body. they are still not cancer and they are not like cancer. replication is a characteristic of life. from that we can say the two are living.
    will a doctor ever say, "your skin cells are growing like cancer cells?" Only if they are cancer cells, in which case you have cancer and now you are in danger. you don't have the potential of being in danger. you are in danger, and must react immediately. otherwise, your normal cells are growing like normal cells.

    I presume you'd also include autoimmune diseases like diabetes or lupus or scleroderma as similar issues of normal functions of cells or body parts getting a bit out of control.
    No, since that is the body, unable to function normally.


    Gestational diabetes and gestational hypothyroidism and pre-eclampsia are direct consequences of pregnancy disrupting the normal hormonal/endocrine functions of the mother's body. These conditions are not related to any pre-existing conditions in the mother, if she weren't pregnant the illness in question wouldn't happen.
    gestational diabetes is new to me. I'll post all three web sites I used to "read up." Interesting quotes follow each link.

    Preeclampsia & Eclampsia: Risk Factors, Signs & Symptoms, and Treatment
    If undiagnosed, preeclampsia can lead to eclampsia, a serious condition that can put you and your baby at risk, and in rare cases, cause death.
    What is Gestational Diabetes? - American Diabetes Association®
    untreated or poorly controlled gestational diabetes can hurt your baby.
    Hypothyroidism During Pregnancy Causes, Symptoms, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Management - MedicineNet
    "While pregnancy itself is a natural state, and by no means should be considered a "disease," thyroid disorders during pregnancy may affect both mother and baby."
    Each presented condition needs to be looked at separately. But do these things follow what I have already stated? Yes. Some are normal, some can be dealt with, some can be treated, some occur only because normal body function (not normal before pregnancy, but normal during pregnancy) goes sideways.
    All, do not share characteristics of cancer.


    I'm still not sure about your position. Are you really arguing that pregnancy and childbirth are not inherently dangerous to the mother?
    I believe the statement was "potentially dangerous" in which has been discussed. I have already given a no answer to another person asking the same thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #256  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    pregnancy with everything going normal
    I think you're not getting the picture. It is absolutely normal ...
    for foetuses to die in utero,
    for women's metabolism to be damaged during pregnancy,
    for babies to be injured or die during childbirth,
    for women to be injured or to die during childbirth.

    What you're calling a "normal" pregnancy is what an obstetrician would call an ideal pregnancy.

    If you've never before heard of gestational diabetes and had to look it up, perhaps you should look up a term like obstetric fistula. This problem is now common only in poor areas, but 60 or more years ago it was much, much more common in all countries.
    babe likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. It's immoral to have pre-marital sex!
    By verzen in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 194
    Last Post: January 19th, 2014, 08:20 AM
  2. Can a nihilistic/immoral attitude make you a better liar?
    By Raziell in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: January 23rd, 2013, 02:19 AM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 30th, 2012, 08:20 PM
  4. Is Lying Immoral (Sinful, Illegal)?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 28th, 2009, 04:52 AM
  5. Why the Christian faith is so IMMORAL.
    By charles brough in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: June 26th, 2007, 03:47 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •