dilloduck
Diamond Member
Oh c'mon Pro--a lot of passion and typing went into that !
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So, if you think that all human cells are alive, then it stands to reason that all human sperm and egg cells, based on their potential to become people, should have rights.
And, if a tapeworm was WITHIN the confines of my body, it has placed itself under MY jurisdiction. That means that any part of my body
It is not alive before birth, as I have so eloquently described, rinsed, and repeated several times now,
And no, of course dead things do not grow. =)
OK. Im ignorant,
Wow. Misogyny at its lowest.Sure. Are they important enough to kill another human being over? No.
Women are not the sexual gatekeepers. It is not our responsibility to "be the brakes", chick
I prefer intelligence and understanding, but I might be in the minority if D.C. is any indication.Oh c'mon Pro--a lot of passion and typing went into that !
They cannot die as a result of their own actions while in the uterus
They are NOT alive, because they are not individuals.
Again, you are on my ignore list (I am adding you right ed now) because you are nothing but a flaming fucking retarded ass wannabe little punk, who can't give a logical argument
Okay, really. Does it bother you to sound this uneducated in public? "Cell, tissue, organ, organism." I TOLD you to go look them up before you started flapping your gums, but did you listen? A tumor IS alive. It is living tissue, part of the living organism in which it exists, which is why it grows. Ditto for moles. As for diseases, they are caused by these things we call "micro-organisms". Note the word "organism" in there. They are alive, despite being microscopic.
So, if you think that all human cells are alive, then it stands to reason that all human sperm and egg cells, based on their potential to become people, should have rights.
Brilliant...
One more time for the mentally-challenged among us: cell, tissue, organ, organism. Since you clearly only use your Internet hookup to surf porn, I'll even look it up for you.
Cell (biology) - New World Encyclopedia
A cell is the basic unit of life, being the smallest unit of life that can carry on all life processes, including maintenance, growth, replication, and self-repair.
Tissue - New World Encyclopedia
Biological tissue is an aggregation of interconnected, morphologically, and functionally similar cells, and associated intercellular matter, that together perform one or more specific functions within an organism. Organs are usually composed of several tissues.
Cells work together harmoniously in a tissue to perform a function(s), such as epithelial tissue in the stomach producing the enzyme pepsin to help with digestion, or muscle tissue providing movement. Each cell not only performs actions for its own maintenance, self-preservation, and self-strengthening, but also performs specific actions that contribute to the larger entity, the tissue and the body. The body, on the other hand, supports the individual cell by providing food, oxygen, and other necessary materials, and by transporting away toxic waste materials. Each cell actively depends on the other cells in the body to perform their functions and thus keep the body in proper functioning order.
Organ (anatomy) - New World Encyclopedia
In biology, an organ (Latin: organum, "instrument, tool") is a group of tissues that perform a specific function or group of functions.
Organs, exemplified by such diverse components as brain, eyes, and liver, are one of several levels of organization in living organisms. A given organ is usually thought of as being a component of an organ system, a group of organs that work together to perform a set of related functions, such as the digestive system composed of the mouth, esophagus, intestines, and other organs. At a lower level of organization an organ is an aggregation of several tissues that interact to perform a specific function, such as the heart pumping blood or the stomach digesting food.
In biology and ecology, an organism (in Greek organon = instrument) is an organized, individual living system (such as animal, plant, fungus or microorganism).
There are two main classes of objects: non-living objects that are essentially inert and obey physical forces in a purely mechanical way (eg., water in oceans, sands in deserts) and living things (Luria et al. 1981). Individuals in the second group have the quality known as "life." This class of matter includes individuals with the capability of reproducing and producing new organisms that are more or less like themselves (Luria et al. 1981). The concept of organisms is one of the fundamental concepts in biology and is used as the basis for discussions of evolution, ecology, genetics, and so forth.
And while we're at it . . .
The concept of organisms is centered on the characteristic called "life." A difficult term to define, life is that quality or property that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate objects. Although universal consensus on a definition is lacking, biological properties common to the known organisms found on Earth (plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria) are that they are carbon-and-water-based, are cellular with complex organization, use energy and undergo metabolism, possess a capacity to grow, maintain homeostasis, respond to stimuli, reproduce, and have various adaptations to the environment.
This is not rocket magic, Punkinhead. Sperm and ovum are cells. They are not separate, distinct organisms. They are merely components of a larger organism. They are alive, assuming that they are still functioning parts of a still living organism, but they are still only components of a larger whole. A fetus is not a component of a larger whole. He is himself an organism, separate and distinct from other organisms, despite being a symbiote with another separate and distinct organism.
Sorry, hun, but not everything gets those rights. Otherwise, we would all be on death row, every time a finger hits the keyboard. We lose millions of cells every time we touch something. Those poor, poor little babies. AWWWW..
Trust me, "hun", you do NOT want to go down a road where humans are denied rights on the basis of the desire of others to have them around. Judging by your posts here, the most useful thing YOU do is add body heat to the room. This is basic biology, and it's not as though I haven't tried to keep you from waving your ignorance of same like a banner in front of everyone.
Thats okay. I forgive you for being narrow about this. You are always welcome to think of a fetus as a person. I don't. Suck it, because I also do not give a rat's ass what your feelings towards me are, lol.. They are merely ad hominem attacks in lieu of an actual argument of logic.
Saw it, answered it, read Prole's answer. If you want to be gullible enough to believe that robot is sentient and just like a person while a fetus is akin to a tumor, I yield to the muleheaded determination of your imbecility. Go ahead and be dumb and make everyone laugh at you.
No- it circulates the mother's blood, also. It gets its oxygen from the mother. It has a 100% dependence on the survival of the mother, and the health and well being of the mother, to survive its gestational period of growth.
If fetuses circulate the mother's blood through their own bodies, how does that work when the fetus and the mother have different blood types?
Fetal Circulation
"Blood from the mother enters the placenta and comes in close proximity to the fetal blood that has returned from the fetus to the placenta through the umbilical arteries. Once the two circulations are in close proximity in the placenta, the oxygen (O2) and nutrients, like sugar, protein and fat molecules can move from maternal to fetal blood, and carbon dioxide (CO2) and waste products can move from fetal to maternal blood. The maternal blood returns from the placenta to the mother's veins for her systems to take care of the waste. The new well nourished fetal blood returns to the baby through the umbilical vein. The umbilical vein goes to the liver and splits in to three branches, one of which connects to the inferior vena cava, a major vein connected to the heart. In this way the well nourished blood reaches the fetal heart to be sent to the rest of the body."
Notice that the maternal blood never enters or mixes with the fetal blood.
It is true that, like all parasites/symbiotes, a fetus needs a host to live. However, needing a host to live is not the same as not being alive.
And, if a tapeworm was WITHIN the confines of my body, it has placed itself under MY jurisdiction. That means that any part of my body that it has holed up in, is STILL my body. Since I have to take care of my body, then I have to take care of all parts of it, and rather than picking and choosing, I would opt to have instruments or medication introduced to rid me of the tapeworm. Same goes for a fetus that is unwanted. It is still within the confines of MY uterus. My uterus does not suddenly belong to the fetus. The fetus does not have property rights over my body. To say otherwise is preposterous.
It is subjected to the health and well being of my uterus, as well. If my uterus does not want it, it will dispose of the fetus/ embryo naturally.
Stop changing the subject. You jump back and forth from "Not alive" to "in my jurisdiction". The question here isn't what the location is, or who gets to be in charge of that location. The question is whether or not location determines life or lack thereof. Clearly, since you have to topic-hop, we both know that it does not, and an organism can be inside of another organism and still be alive.
Also, the uterus, even the healthiest ones, are not exactly the easiest places to adapt to, and lock on. That is (again) why 30% of all pregnancies will end in miscarriage before the woman ever knew she was pregnant.
So what? Because people die on their own, that makes it okay for you to kill them?
No a fetus is contained within the woman's self, because it does not have property rights to the WOMAN'S uterus. It does not have any guarantees that the woman will continue breathing throughout the 9 months of gestation.. It does not have any guarantees that she will not die or be seriously injured. It is completely dependent on her well being, and as such, cannot be considered a self contained individual.
Blah de blah fucking blah topic hop. Not interested in your lame-ass attempts to apply legal concepts to biology in an attempt to avoid the biological question you yourself raised with your ignorant, outdated assertion that fetuses are not living, distinct organisms, in direct conflict with accepted medical science.
Show me one fetus whose mama died at 28 weeks gestation, and still continued to a full term pregnancy.
Prediction of survival for preterm births by weight and gestational age: retrospective population based study -- Draper et al. 319 (7217): 1093 -- BMJ
"738 deaths occurred in 3760 infants born between 22 and 32 weeks' gestation during the study period, giving an overall survival rate of 80.4%. "
Guess they don't necessarily NEED the mama to live or to continue to a full-term pregnancy to survive, huh?
Hence- it is NOT self contained. It DOES need the mother's biological input. Or, it will not survive to birth. THIS is a medical fact.
Too bad you don't get to define the term "self-contained", Noah Webster. No matter how much you want it to mean "can survive under any circumstances in any location", it doesn't. If it did, YOU would not be self-contained, since you cannot survive outside the environment for which YOU are designed, either.
And clearly, it's NOT medical fact that he won't survive the birth.
It is not alive before birth, as I have so eloquently described, rinsed, and repeated several times now, for you.
Eloquently? Is THAT what you think your twaddle was? Eloquent?!
Your claim was that dead or alive it is not any less alive or less of an individual. Sorry, but dead things are not alive. That is a fact, honey buns.
Uh, no, I said nothing of the sort. I'm not surprised, however, that you missed out on English class while you were skipping Biology.
Something that needs to be inside of another thing, to be able to grow, is not an individual. An individual is capable of property rights.. Fetuses do not have property rights.
This isn't a matter of property rights, tweeko. Please stop trying to confuse the issue with your topic-hopping. This is biology, and human laws do not apply to biological fact.
But again- feel free to think of all fetuses that way, if you want to. I am not bashing you for thinking of fetuses as people, for YOURSELF, I am arguing for allowing everyone to have property rights over their own bodies, and not be pressured and abused into making decisions that force them through 9 months of gestation, weight gain, and painful child birth, all because you cannot accept that other people might not think of their fetuses as people. Do you understand?
Yes, I understand. You're an imbecile who can't understand basic science and cannot keep subjects separate and distinct long enough to make a coherent argument. That is what I understand, and trust me, everyone else understands it by now, too.
Fetuses do no harm? What??? Don't you know that pregnancy raises blood pressure, causes a great deal of weight gain, scars and mutilates the body, often tears the vagina, causes morning sickness, which gives women a whole plethora of other problems- dental issues, esophagal erosion, etc.. And I am sorry you never heard of gestational diabetes or ectopic pregnancies. Something close to one in a hundred women die during childbirth.
You are saying that these things are not harmful to the mother???
Sweetie, we've all realized how much self-hatred you harbor for your femaleness. We get it. We can see how much you truly hate children and motherhood, and how you seem to think you are doing your child an enormous favor merely by deigning to allow him in your life (and I'm sure THAT is an enormous treat). However, if you can reign in your visceral repulsion toward being a woman for just a moment, you will see that normal, healthy pregnancies do no more permanent damage to the woman's body than the simple process of aging does. Is it uncomfortable? Sure, but so is having periods every month (in fact, I find those more uncomfortable than I do being pregnant). Are we now to make laws viewing menstruation as an intolerable invasion of your rights because you had them "forced" upon you?
Do us all a favor and take your gender-hatred issues off the message board and back into group therapy where they belong.
OK. Well, you can call that an argument, I reckon. An individual is a singular person. Not two people living within one body.
According to whom? You? You think dogs and humans can cross-breed, so you'll excuse me if I'm not going to accept you as an expert on anything, including breathing in and out. Certainly your little linked definition says nothing about location.
OK This is not about my FEELINGS. I never once said I feel this way or that way. Your posts are all very much that way, in the sense that you continuously show your personal vindiction for me, just because you cannot agree to disagree on when personhood or life begins.
Actually, that's ALL you've said is your feelings. You feel that I think you're a bad person for having killed your child. And deep down, you feel that I might be right, and so you feel that you must defend to the death the woefully flawed reasoning that you used to make that decision, so that you can feel that you're not the bad person you're afraid you might actually be. It's fascinating psychology, but I'm not getting paid to deal with it, so save it and stick to the facts.
The truth is, I have no personal vindictiveness toward you. In all brutal honesty, you're nothing whatsoever to me except a halfwit who happens to have found the same website I have. You just need to believe that I'm judging you to avoid dealing with your latent guilt. If you had to accept that I'm just stating impersonal fact - and boundless contempt for your ignorance - rather than a personal judgement, you might have to actually face the possibility that you were wrong. Again, a fascinating psychological study, but not really my problem.
No matter how much YOU wish, not everyone is going to agree with you on this subject. I hate to burst your bubble, but that is reality.
I don't need everyone to agree with me, because unlike you, my self-image doesn't depend on convincing myself that I didn't make a mistake. All i need are the facts that you can't refute.
Oh wow, I mention ONE study on psychology, because it is how we relate to the human looking face (including primates) and you start talking about me giving you all kinds of bullshit information on FEELINGS???
Exactly how many studies on feelings was I supposed to wait for you to mention before I was allowed to comment on them? If only ONE study is exempt from response, what's the magical number before I get to remark on your post?
Yikes... I would just really REALLY like for you to try to keep up with the conversation, for once. This is SAD.
Sadder than your belief that dogs and humans can interbreed?
You have yet to post anything of medical relevance, or logic, really. Mostly, you just flame, because you are pissed off at my logic and facts, and cannot refute them. Boo, hoo! Here have a tissue- Then take a breather, and come back when you are ready to actually DISCUSS this, like a civilized human being would.
Sorry, sweetie, but just because you don't like something doesn't mean you get to pretend it didn't exist. Mostly, what I do is state biological fact - like the definitions of cells, tissue, organs, and organisms and the differences between them, like the biological definition of life, like the fact that the dog-faced people in carnivals are actually human with a medical condition called hypertrichosis, like the fact that beings from two different genuses cannot interbreed - intermixed with justly-deserved derision for your ignorance in needing such simple facts explained and proven to you.
If you have any logic or facts, it must have been hidden somewhere behind your belief that dog-human hybrids exist.
Tell me again how I'M the one who can't discuss.
Thats cool, Fuck it- whatever- But she supports every choice you make, no matter how ridiculous you are in coming to that decision. If you want to go ahead and have 20 babies, feel free. Maybe she doesn't.
More than half of all abortions are had by women who already have children. But yeah- I guess they are all illiterate dickheaded bitches too.
Damn the luck. .
You said it, I didn't. Hey, if I kill my 14-year-old, is that morally okay because I allowed my 20-year-old child to live? Does that justify it?
That's an example of your "logic": abortion isn't a bad thing as long as you've already granted one child his life.
But hey, it's better than "dogs and humans can breed", so I'll grant that your posts are improving.
Honey, I am not the one throwing ad hominems left and right. I don't even know what you look like, but I can SEE the steam coming out of your ears.
Really? You can see me through your computer screen, can you? Or are you seeing me in your crystal ball, right next to the human-dog hybrids?
Fetuses are not alive- so there is no existence of life there. The only thing left is the fetus itself. Growing and alive are not interchangable.
That's your "logic", is it? "Fetuses aren't alive, therefore they aren't alive"? You call that an argument?
Growing is a hallmark of a living organism. Things which are not alive do not grow.
On a very basic, third grade level, sure.
And no, of course dead things do not grow. =)
But this is not a question of a fetus who is growing being dead. It is about the fetus not being alive YET.
There is no "yet" to it. Fetuses meet the biological requirements of life, incuding that they grow. They are alive by definition. When a fetus ceases to meet those requirements, he is declared dead and removed from his mother's body before he can rot and kill her. What is it you think the doctor was checking for every month during pregnancy, when he examined you and listened to the baby's heartbeat and all the other stuff? He was making sure the baby was still alive. Call him and ask him, and he'll tell you the same thing.
Diamonds GROW, lots of minerals grow, as do mountains, and bubbles.. but they are NOT LIVING THINGS...They are NOT alive.
They don't grow in the biological sense, you nitwit. Oh my God in Heaven. You just get dumber by the moment, which is going to require rewriting of the laws of physics pretty soon. NOW you're telling me that you don't know how mountains are formed?
Once again, you have made the entire rest of your post unworthy of answering. Hell, you've made your post unworthy of pissing on.
Mineral growth. I wouldn't have thought you could top the dog-human hybrid, but I stand corrected.
How is a fetus self-contained? It has its own separate genetic structure, its own separate brain, nervous system, circulatory system, digestive system, and respiratory system. While he is designed as a symbiote - or a parasite, if you prefer - to take the nourishment and oxygen he requires out of the system of another organism, that does not make him a part of that organism, any more than a tapeworm is a part of your body simply because it is designed to exist inside of it.
The placenta and umbilical cord are biological machines, if you will, akin to the respirators and IV units hospitals use to feed and oxygenate patients and designed to take those things from one place - the mother - and channel them into the fetus. The fetus is self-contained in that all of his systems work and keep him alive and functioning without any input from anyone else. By the scientific/medical definition, a fetus is alive.
Being designed to live inside the body of another creature does not make something not alive. You can define fetuses as parasites if you wish, although they aren't really since they do no harm to the mother if everything goes well, but that doesn't make them non-living. Bacteria are living organisms, tapeworms are living organisms, the offspring of marsupials in their pouches are living organisms, but all of them are designed to live in an environment of attachment to the body of another creature.
"Blood from the mother enters the placenta and comes in close proximity to the fetal blood that has returned from the fetus to the placenta through the umbilical arteries. Once the two circulations are in close proximity in the placenta, the oxygen (O2) and nutrients, like sugar, protein and fat molecules can move from maternal to fetal blood, and carbon dioxide (CO2) and waste products can move from fetal to maternal blood. The maternal blood returns from the placenta to the mother's veins for her systems to take care of the waste. The new well nourished fetal blood returns to the baby through the umbilical vein. The umbilical vein goes to the liver and splits in to three branches, one of which connects to the inferior vena cava, a major vein connected to the heart. In this way the well nourished blood reaches the fetal heart to be sent to the rest of the body."
Notice that the maternal blood never enters or mixes with the fetal blood.
It is true that, like all parasites/symbiotes, a fetus needs a host to live. However, needing a host to live is not the same as not being alive.
Stop changing the subject. You jump back and forth from "Not alive" to "in my jurisdiction". The question here isn't what the location is, or who gets to be in charge of that location. The question is whether or not location determines life or lack thereof. Clearly, since you have to topic-hop, we both know that it does not, and an organism can be inside of another organism and still be alive.
So what? Because people die on their own, that makes it okay for you to kill them?
Blah de blah fucking blah topic hop. Not interested in your lame-ass attempts to apply legal concepts to biology in an attempt to avoid the biological question you yourself raised with your ignorant, outdated assertion that fetuses are not living, distinct organisms, in direct conflict with accepted medical science.
Prediction of survival for preterm births by weight and gestational age: retrospective population based study -- Draper et al. 319 (7217): 1093 -- BMJ
"738 deaths occurred in 3760 infants born between 22 and 32 weeks' gestation during the study period, giving an overall survival rate of 80.4%. "
Guess they don't necessarily NEED the mama to live or to continue to a full-term pregnancy to survive, huh?
Too bad you don't get to define the term "self-contained", Noah Webster. No matter how much you want it to mean "can survive under any circumstances in any location", it doesn't. If it did, YOU would not be self-contained, since you cannot survive outside the environment for which YOU are designed, either.
And clearly, it's NOT medical fact that he won't survive the birth.
Sweetie, we've all realized how much self-hatred you harbor for your femaleness. We get it. We can see how much you truly hate children and motherhood, and how you seem to think you are doing your child an enormous favor merely by deigning to allow him in your life (and I'm sure THAT is an enormous treat). However, if you can reign in your visceral repulsion toward being a woman for just a moment, you will see that normal, healthy pregnancies do no more permanent damage to the woman's body than the simple process of aging does. Is it uncomfortable? Sure, but so is having periods every month (in fact, I find those more uncomfortable than I do being pregnant). Are we now to make laws viewing menstruation as an intolerable invasion of your rights because you had them "forced" upon you?
The truth is, I have no personal vindictiveness toward you. In all brutal honesty, you're nothing whatsoever to me except a halfwit who happens to have found the same website I have. You just need to believe that I'm judging you to avoid dealing with your latent guilt. If you had to accept that I'm just stating impersonal fact - and boundless contempt for your ignorance - rather than a personal judgement, you might have to actually face the possibility that you were wrong. Again, a fascinating psychological study, but not really my problem.
I don't need everyone to agree with me, because unlike you, my self-image doesn't depend on convincing myself that I didn't make a mistake. All i need are the facts that you can't refute.
Tell me again how I'M the one who can't discuss.
You said it, I didn't. Hey, if I kill my 14-year-old, is that morally okay because I allowed my 20-year-old child to live? Does that justify it?
Growing is a hallmark of a living organism. Things which are not alive do not grow.
There is no "yet" to it. Fetuses meet the biological requirements of life, incuding that they grow. They are alive by definition. When a fetus ceases to meet those requirements, he is declared dead and removed from his mother's body before he can rot and kill her. What is it you think the doctor was checking for every month during pregnancy, when he examined you and listened to the baby's heartbeat and all the other stuff? He was making sure the baby was still alive. Call him and ask him, and he'll tell you the same thing.
Diamonds GROW, lots of minerals grow, as do mountains, and bubbles.. but they are NOT LIVING THINGS...They are NOT alive.
They don't grow in the biological sense, you nitwit. Oh my God in Heaven. You just get dumber by the moment, which is going to require rewriting of the laws of physics pretty soon. NOW you're telling me that you don't know how mountains are formed?
OK- Go ahead and adopt one, then.
See- you can't do it. It is not an individual.
Other parasites die, if the host dies. Fetuses and embryos do not share these qualities, and are not parasites, by definition.
Actually, Mountains are made from volcanoes, but we do not need to get into that. We know that without volcanoes, mountains could not exist.
Why oh why do some people even bother letting their fingers even touch a keyboard, in the viscinity of a discussion board is beyond me.