DNA is irrelevant. There are species which can reproduce through cloning rather than male/female fertilization. The offspring it carries is genetically identical. Unique DNA does not give that organism any special rights to another's body.
Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?
- Thread starter Lakhota
- Start date
DNA is irrelevant. There are species which can reproduce through cloning rather than male/female fertilization. The offspring it carries is genetically identical. Unique DNA does not give that organism any special rights to another's body.
If it's seperate from it's mother and father than seperating it from it's mother should not be an issue.
Yes, because it is. Nature is going to do what Nature is going to do, and neither you nor Hillary Clinton nor every ******* liberal in America is big enough to change it.
Nevertheless, what Nature does and does not dictate for other species is irrelevant to humans, who do NOT have a biological imperative to kill their young, defective or not. Witness the fact that YOU are here.
You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can't say on the one hand that Mother Nature Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will then turn around and disregard the fact that Mother Nature also has the right to force a whole lot of other things.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
I'm not to impressed with you either, but I'm an optimist.
A fetus takes it's entire life from the mother - oxygen, nutrition, removal of toxins etc. It does not function as an independent being until it's born. It has NO rights to the mother's body.
All organisms do not die when you remove them from their natural environment - that is false. For example, every domestic animal species was once a wild species, removed from it's natural environment and domesticated.
My you make demands, considering you're sole source thus far has been...well...you.
Ooh, look, more "This is how I perceive it, so it must be OBVIOUS, and LOGICAL, and that makes it SCIENCE!"
Let me show you how this is done, since education in anything but throwing tantrums clearly passed you by.
Organism - An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. Organism - Biology-Online Dictionary
See anything in there about dependence? Me neither.
"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
Hmmm. Looks like a scientific report that disagrees with you.
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
Still batting 0 with the embryologists, it seems.
So let's move on to natural environment, because you seem to think it's a difference between "outdoors" and "indoors".
All organisms are designed to live in a certain type of environment. Fish, for example, are designed to live underwater, and will die if you remove them from it. Likewise for marine mammals. Furthermore, those animals designed by nature to live in water can only do so in certain types: some can only live in freshwater, some only in salt. Some can only live in water at lighter pressures (near the surface, in other words), some are designed to live with greater pressure. If you remove any of them from the environment they're designed for, they will die.
Human beings are land animals, designed to live surrounded by air and subject to normal land gravity. If you remove a human from an environment surrounded by air, he will die. Likewise, if you remove humans from normal land gravity for any great length of time without compensating technology, it is also detrimental to their health and potentially life-threatening.
Also, land animals are designed for different types of environment on land. While penguins, for example, can survive quite happily in Antarctic conditions, very few other animals can without technological compensations. Meanwhile, penguins cannot live outside of that environment without human intervention.
Meanwhile, some animals are designed to live in one type of environment at one stage of their life cycle, and another at a different stage. Most tadpoles, for example, are aquatic. During that stage of their lives, they cannot live outside of water. When they leave that life stage and metamorphose into frogs or toads, their natural environment changes.
There are many species of organism for whom their natural environment is the body of another organism. If you remove them from that environment, they will die.
In the case of the fetuses of animals which birth live young, as humans do, their natural environment is the body of their progenitor until they outgrow that stage in their life cycle, at which time their natural environment changes.
This shouldn't be difficult for a leftist to grasp: it's an integral part of the environmentalist/animal rights platform. It's the reason why the EPA has regulations allowing it to seize control of specific pieces of land with endangered species on them: because those species can't live outside of THAT environment.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
Wow, you don't understand even the most basic biological concepts, do you?
Yarddog
Diamond Member
- Jun 13, 2014
- 20,276
- 15,060
- 2,405
I think just about everything pisses you off. I didnt say anything was fact, I did say it was my opinion. Does not all the DNA in the egg come from the mother? and does not all the DNA in the sperm come from the father? So baby is a mix of the mother and father, its pretty basic. I should have used the word It's instead of " the" in describing DNA content. Its a moot point anyway, if you don't like someones comments, your free to correct them,leave comments of your own thats cool, but telling people not to comment seems to border on thought police or is it arrogance? again, I said it was my opinion , .. translation..." i could be wrong, dont take it as fact"
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
Yes, because it is. Nature is going to do what Nature is going to do, and neither you nor Hillary Clinton nor every ******* liberal in America is big enough to change it.
Nevertheless, what Nature does and does not dictate for other species is irrelevant to humans, who do NOT have a biological imperative to kill their young, defective or not. Witness the fact that YOU are here.
You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can't say on the one hand that Mother Nature Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will then turn around and disregard the fact that Mother Nature also has the right to force a whole lot of other things.
First of all, the saying is CORRECTLY quoted as "Eat your cake and have it". Anyone can have cake and eat it; eating it and still having it is more difficult.
Second of all, I never said Nature had "rights". It's NATURE. It has no use for human concepts such as "rights". It is, and it does what it does, and no amount of legislation or bitching about "rights" is going to change the implacable reality of it. Nature doesn't "have a right" to "force" a woman to do something: it simply functions, and you exist in it, and that's that.
Furthermore, I disregarded nothing. I stated facts. Nature determines that human reproduction works the way it works. You can like that arrangement, or you can hate and resent it. Won't change anything. Nature also determines that humans do not have a biological imperative to destroy their offspring, and what other species do or do not do is irrelevant to that fact.
chikenwing
Guest
- Feb 18, 2010
- 7,387
- 837
- 190
You saying DNA dosnt matter, when it's your unique DNA that determines you are an individual, from momont of conception, untill you die. Saying other wise is just simply wrong
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
No, stupidity pisses me off. The fact that so many people exhibit it about so many topics doesn't change the base fact of what bothers me.
We're talking about facts; your opinion is not requested and is not meaningful. This topic is not philosophy, or creative writing. It's biology. So please do not tell me what your "opinion" of biological fact is, because I don't care any more than Nature does.
Please try to keep the discussion straight, as well. You started with "the egg has all the DNA from the mother". Now you're trying to talk about whether or not the mother is the sole source of the DNA the egg has. If you can't convey what the hell you're talking about clearly from one post to the other, I reiterate that you have no business discussing science, and should stop trying to make statements about it.
Yes, a baby is a combination of genetic material from two different sources, making it a separate, unique organism.
There's no "thought police" about saying that you are unqualified to comment on science, since you clearly know nothing about it. It's equally clear that the meanings of words, particularly when strung together into sentences, is also an area you're weak in. "Learn science, or shut up about it" means "you are unqualified in this area".
At the point where you said, "This is my opinion", you should have either gone back and changed all of your sentences from statements of "This is how reality is" to "This is my half-assed and uninformed guess about how I FEELZ it is", or just deleted the post, because that qualifier made the entire post useless bullshit.
This is me leaving my comments, since you don't seem to get that: You're ignorant, and pretty much everything you believe about biology and embryology is wrong.
oreo
Gold Member
Well obviously, the woman because none of the rest would exist without her.
What Reich wingers fail to realize and why they can't win National elections anymore, is because they fill the debate platform with abortion, planned parenthood and who's going to defund it--LOL. Basically debating a 45 year old already settled U.S. Supreme court issue, that belongs no where on a political platform. Something no politician in this country could do anything about anyway.
In 2012 Republicans chased off women by double digits, younger women by 36 points which secured a second term for Barack Obama. This by making their platform again about abortion, that went into who's not going to pay for birth control pills, to what is legal--legitimate rape questions.
Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History
In 2016--not learning anything from 2012 they did it again. 1st debate was about guess what? Abortion, and who's tougher on defunding planned parenthood. They lined the stage with several knuckle dragging neanderthals again Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, & Rick Perry. Who don't give the 3 exceptions, or want to require sonogram testing on pregnant women prior to an abortion. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul actually promising their supporters a "personhood" amendment to the U.S. Constitution--LOL
There is no candidate in this country that can win the Presidency if he/she doesn't give exception for the life of the mother, rape and incest. They wouldn't make it too the starting line and would creamed in a National election. Women are the largest voting block in this country, and you have to take them seriously.
That's one thing about Republicans, they never learn anything from past mistakes and prior loss's, they just pick up and double down on them. In 2012 it was women, in 2016 it's still women but now add to that Hispanics, when they needed 46% of this block to win the White House, Trump is polling at a negative 80%.
GOP Win Will Need More Than 40 Percent Of Latino 2016 Vote, Says Study
Latino conservatives: If Donald Trump is the nominee, we will not work to elect him
Poll: 75% of Latinos Have Negative View of Donald Trump
And for those reasons, I doubt the next Republican President has even been born yet.
Last edited:
Being able to live completely independent is not one of the requirements to be recognised as a seperate being. Conjoined Twins are a perfect example of this. . . They are two organisms which happen to be joined together and in most cases need to remain that way for survival.
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
I've been pro-choice all of my life and I have three children, one of whom was a "surprise". I've never had an abortion.
To suggest that if your mother is pro-choice, she would never want or have a child is a total fallacy.
You may not have noticed that I said when "I can hear two heartbeats." That does not include using ultrasound or a stethoscope.
"As early as the sixth week of pregnancy, when the embryo is four weeks old, a vaginal ultrasound may detect a fetal heartbeat and show it as a regular flutter, says the American Pregnancy Association. By the seventh week, detection of a heartbeat is likely. You can hear your unborn baby's heartbeat with a stethoscope by 17 to 20 weeks of pregnancy."
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,541
- 2,165
- Banned
- #436
"Being able to live completely independent is not one of the requirements to be recognised as a seperate being. Conjoined Twins are a perfect example of this. . . They are two organisms which happen to be joined together and in most cases need to remain that way for survival."
. . . which has nothing to do with a fetus and personhood.
‘The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."’
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
. . . which has nothing to do with a fetus and personhood.
‘The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."’
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
Redfish
Diamond Member
So, five seconds before birth the child has no rights but 5 seconds later it does? Do you really believe that?
Redfish
Diamond Member
who has the right to force a woman to feed, clothe, bathe, and nurture a child for 18 years? Why not just let the mother kill the kid whenever it becomes too inconvenient to keep it?
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,541
- 2,165
- Banned
- #439
Read the court's ruling above. Your silly question has no merit.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
Amazingly enough, "But I'm counting it REALLY EARLY" in no way answers the questions.
One more time for the cojone-impaired, and let's see if you can address it head-on and honestly this time: on what science do you base your opinion that a fetus is a baby when it has a heartbeat? If it wasn't a baby before that, what was it? And whatever your answer to that second question, what is the science for THAT?
Similar threads
- Poll
New Topics
-
Why Not Use IDF Boots on the Ground to Open Straits of Hormuz?- Started by georgephillip
- Replies: 0
-
Epstein files - evidence Trump may be lying, and why are these documents being redacted?- Started by frigidweirdo
- Replies: 1
-
US clears flying taxis for limited use as FAA launches nationwide pilot program- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 1
-
Beyond the Headlines: Why Smart Money Watches SEC Form 4 Insider Trading- Started by BellaJones
- Replies: 0
-
