The abortion issue troubles me mightily

[alang1216]

When does a human being's (or any mammals) biological aging begin?

That should tell you something.

I actually had trouble getting a definite answer but if I had to guess it would be late teens or early twenties for humans. Not sure what that should tell me?

On a more positive and hopeful note, this link is just for you and your Mrs.

 

[alang1216]

Are you telling me that you believe that an unfertilized egg is a new and genetically distinct human being?

It is a new and genetically distinct human cell. Human cell does not equal human being.

That if left unfertilized would never be anything more.

Which is a round about way of saying that you do not believe that an unfertilized egg is a new and genetically distinct human being.

But is the egg really a new and genetically distinct human cell? Or does it have the genetics of the mother? Which means it is really just a new human cell.

If a fertilized egg is not provided with a protected place to grow and all the nutrients it needs it too would never be anything more.

The unfertilized egg is unique, it doesn't have exactly half of the mothers chromosomes since it is distinct from every other egg the mother has. The sperm is the same. Two unique sets of chromosomes merge to create a unique set of chromosomes. I just don't see that new unique set as being so very different from the unique set of the egg and sperm.

So you are saying it does not have it's mother's DNA?

If a man and women have twenty kids each one is unique. If the egg and sperm were exactly the same as the mother's and father's, 1/4 of the kids would exactly match another sibling. Since that is never the case, each egg and sperm is unique in the universe.

 

[ding]

Are you telling me that you believe that an unfertilized egg is a new and genetically distinct human being?

It is a new and genetically distinct human cell. Human cell does not equal human being.

That if left unfertilized would never be anything more.

Which is a round about way of saying that you do not believe that an unfertilized egg is a new and genetically distinct human being.

But is the egg really a new and genetically distinct human cell? Or does it have the genetics of the mother? Which means it is really just a new human cell.

If a fertilized egg is not provided with a protected place to grow and all the nutrients it needs it too would never be anything more.

The unfertilized egg is unique, it doesn't have exactly half of the mothers chromosomes since it is distinct from every other egg the mother has. The sperm is the same. Two unique sets of chromosomes merge to create a unique set of chromosomes. I just don't see that new unique set as being so very different from the unique set of the egg and sperm.

So you are saying it does not have it's mother's DNA?

If a man and women have twenty kids each one is unique. If the egg and sperm were exactly the same as the mother's and father's, 1/4 of the kids would exactly match another sibling. Since that is never the case, each egg and sperm is unique in the universe.

So you are saying that if they did a DNA test on the mother's egg, they couldn't prove that it was from the mother?

 

[Taz]

One thing at a time. Do you have proof that a soul enters a childs body at birth? Or not?

You made the claim.

No scientific proof, just the fact that nobody remembers being in the womb, so consciousness doesn’t start there.

What were your thoughts three weeks after you were born? What language were you using at the time?

I agree, consciousness/soul might not even start at birth.

Dafuq?

You are the one who claimed babies get a SOUL "at birth!"

I don’t know what planet he’s on but it’s not earth, he thanked me for that clearly sarcastic post about the soul not being able to pass through the mother’s body.

I must have read your post wrong, but yes it is possible, until proven otherwise, that the soul can't penetrate a body that's already occupied by another soul. (I lean towards re-incarnation and am agnostic).

So you guys a laughing at ME. So what's your take on all this? Chuz, you've yet to say why you oppose abortion, instead you Chuz Deflection. So come on, what's your deal?

 

[LittleNipper]

As I posted before, the infant mortality rate in Appalachia has risen to 16% while the national abortion rate is 14%.

That means Republicans are letting children die while fighting for the fetus. So what if abortion for unwanted children was outlawed. Would the infant mortality rate skyrocket to 25 or 30% in Red States? Would Republicans be OK with that?

They just want to get them born and if they die - so what, we did our part. After they are born, we don't care. It's NOT our responsibility. We only MAKE them have the baby. After that, we don't care.

The national abortion rate is presently about 18% now.

 

[alang1216]

If a man and women have twenty kids each one is unique. If the egg and sperm were exactly the same as the mother's and father's, 1/4 of the kids would exactly match another sibling. Since that is never the case, each egg and sperm is unique in the universe.

So you are saying that if they did a DNA test on the mother's egg, they couldn't prove that it was from the mother?

No idea where you got that from. We can determine if your DNA has any Neanderthal DNA so I doubt the minor differences between mother and egg would mean they couldn't prove that it was from the mother.

 

[ding]

If a man and women have twenty kids each one is unique. If the egg and sperm were exactly the same as the mother's and father's, 1/4 of the kids would exactly match another sibling. Since that is never the case, each egg and sperm is unique in the universe.

So you are saying that if they did a DNA test on the mother's egg, they couldn't prove that it was from the mother?

No idea where you got that from. We can determine if your DNA has any Neanderthal DNA so I doubt the minor differences between mother and egg would mean they couldn't prove that it was from the mother.

So it's not genetically distinct per se.

 

[alang1216]

If a man and women have twenty kids each one is unique. If the egg and sperm were exactly the same as the mother's and father's, 1/4 of the kids would exactly match another sibling. Since that is never the case, each egg and sperm is unique in the universe.

So you are saying that if they did a DNA test on the mother's egg, they couldn't prove that it was from the mother?

No idea where you got that from. We can determine if your DNA has any Neanderthal DNA so I doubt the minor differences between mother and egg would mean they couldn't prove that it was from the mother.

So it's not genetically distinct per se.

You're barking up the wrong tree here. You and your mother are genetically distinct from each other but your DNA would reveal your relationship.

 

[ding]

If a man and women have twenty kids each one is unique. If the egg and sperm were exactly the same as the mother's and father's, 1/4 of the kids would exactly match another sibling. Since that is never the case, each egg and sperm is unique in the universe.

So you are saying that if they did a DNA test on the mother's egg, they couldn't prove that it was from the mother?

No idea where you got that from. We can determine if your DNA has any Neanderthal DNA so I doubt the minor differences between mother and egg would mean they couldn't prove that it was from the mother.

So it's not genetically distinct per se.

You're barking up the wrong tree here. You and your mother are genetically distinct from each other but your DNA would reveal your relationship.

Agreed. The tree I was barking up was your attempt to diminish the importance of a new genetically distinct human being by arguing that an unfertilized egg is a new and genetically distinct human cell.

Is it really genetically distinct if it can be proven it came from an existing person?

 

[alang1216]

If a man and women have twenty kids each one is unique. If the egg and sperm were exactly the same as the mother's and father's, 1/4 of the kids would exactly match another sibling. Since that is never the case, each egg and sperm is unique in the universe.

So you are saying that if they did a DNA test on the mother's egg, they couldn't prove that it was from the mother?

No idea where you got that from. We can determine if your DNA has any Neanderthal DNA so I doubt the minor differences between mother and egg would mean they couldn't prove that it was from the mother.

So it's not genetically distinct per se.

You're barking up the wrong tree here. You and your mother are genetically distinct from each other but your DNA would reveal your relationship.

Agreed. The tree I was barking up was your attempt to diminish the importance of a new genetically distinct human being by arguing that an unfertilized egg is a new and genetically distinct human cell.

Is it really genetically distinct if it can be proven it came from an existing person?

Your logic escapes me or you don't understand what DNA is. Are you really genetically distinct if it can be proven your DNA came from an existing person (your mother)?

 

[ding]

So you are saying that if they did a DNA test on the mother's egg, they couldn't prove that it was from the mother?

No idea where you got that from. We can determine if your DNA has any Neanderthal DNA so I doubt the minor differences between mother and egg would mean they couldn't prove that it was from the mother.

So it's not genetically distinct per se.

You're barking up the wrong tree here. You and your mother are genetically distinct from each other but your DNA would reveal your relationship.

Agreed. The tree I was barking up was your attempt to diminish the importance of a new genetically distinct human being by arguing that an unfertilized egg is a new and genetically distinct human cell.

Is it really genetically distinct if it can be proven it came from an existing person?

Your logic escapes me or you don't understand what DNA is. Are you really genetically distinct if it can be proven your DNA came from an existing person (your mother)?

In the context of establishing personhood... absolutely. That's why they use it in a court of law.

""Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte." Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

 

[alang1216]

In the context of establishing personhood... absolutely. That's why they use it in a court of law.

""Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte." Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

Uniqueness is actually rather common in the world of DNA. The egg, sperm, and zygote all have a unique set of chromosomes. In fact I'd guess that every cell in your body has a unique set of DNA although the differences are usually too small to have a noticeable effect unless they make the cell cancerous. With all this uniqueness why should I consider the uniqueness of the fertilized egg to be more valuable than any other body cell, egg, or sperm?

 

[MPS777]

It’s also due to having a brain. A zygote doesn’t have, and has never had, anything close to a brain.

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland

Remember my original question pertained to human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization, not a fetus (a fetus has a brain).

Right. Which means that it is a moot point. Gestational weeks are measured from the first day of the woman's last menstruation and not from the day of conception. Though it does not provide an accurate fetal age (which is roughly 2 weeks less than the gestational age), it is the simplest way for an OB/GYN to age a pregnancy since the day of conception is often not known. Hence, if an abortion occurs at 8 weeks gestation, it is actually aborting a 6 week embryo.

No, it’s a great example of how almost all of us value some lives more than others. A crying four year old in the corner of the room, or a 1000 frozen embryos, what do you save? Be honest.

And has no bearing whatsoever on the fate of a child in the womb. It's a canard whose only purpose is to justify a wrong as a right.

I’ve already attained consciousness, and still have the capacity. False equivalency.

And that has nothing whatsoever to do when you began to exist as a human being.

If someone premeditatedly kills an innocent healthy 16 year old girl, or an innocent healthy 61 year old male, the punishment for the killer would be roughly the same. They’d be looking at (at least) a very long prison sentence. That’s because society views the lives of those two people killed as morally equivalent. So given that, and all that I’ve discussed so far about moral equivalency, I’ll ask you again: do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization?

What percentage of abortions are done at 48 hours?

>>>“Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point”
You are really fixated on this. I don’t see it as particularly relevant to the inquiry concerning the moral implications of a human that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization versus one that’s existed 48 months since fertilization.

>>>”Which means that it is a moot point”
Not a moot point, an abortion can happen at any time after fertilization.

>>>”And has no bearing whatsoever on the fate of a child in the womb. It's a canard whose only purpose is to justify a wrong as a right”
A human is a human, whether in the womb or not right? Not all “wrongs” are equal. Individuals and societies weigh the moral implications of wrongs, rights, and situations, then ascribe proportional punishments/responses. And most people I know would save people that have “consciousness capability” over the 1000 embryos that don’t.

>>>”And that has nothing whatsoever to do when you began to exist as a human being”
But consciousness has much to do with the moral implications of my being. Before I had consciousness, I did not care if I existed or not; when I’m no longer capable of consciousness, I won’t care if I exist or not.

>>>”What percentage of abortions are done at 48 hours?”
Is the percentage really relevant if every human matters equally? Just one killing would be morally unacceptable. And yet people sometimes take loved ones off life support knowing that it will kill them. And most people I know don’t think a rape victim should be punished if they take an “abortion pill” a week after they’re raped.

I think I might have to ask the question differently, do you think the punishment for the premeditated killing of an innocent human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization, should be equal to the punishment for the premeditated killing of an innocent human that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization?

 

[Chuz Life]

In the context of establishing personhood... absolutely. That's why they use it in a court of law.

""Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte." Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

Uniqueness is actually rather common in the world of DNA. The egg, sperm, and zygote all have a unique set of chromosomes. In fact I'd guess that every cell in your body has a unique set of DNA although the differences are usually too small to have a noticeable effect unless they make the cell cancerous. With all this uniqueness why should I consider the uniqueness of the fertilized egg to be more valuable than any other body cell, egg, or sperm?

Lol.

Still can't tell the difference between a CELL and an organism?

 

[alang1216]

Lol.

Still can't tell the difference between a CELL and an organism?

Can you tell the difference between a CELL and an organism? Hint: it's an easy test.

1:

2:

3:

 

[Chuz Life]

Lol.

Still can't tell the difference between a CELL and an organism?

Can you tell the difference between a CELL and an organism? Hint: it's an easy test.

1:

2:

3:

It's plenty easy when you have even just a little more information than only a few pictures. Isn't it? I'm betting you know which is which, just from the search you made to find those images.

 

[Chuz Life]

When does a human being's (or any mammals) biological aging begin?

That should tell you something.

I actually had trouble getting a definite answer but if I had to guess it would be late teens or early twenties for humans. Not sure what that should tell me?

On a more positive and hopeful note, this link is just for you and your Mrs.

Funny you can google images of complex cells and organisms to TRY and dupe me. . . . but you can't find a credible link on when an organism's aging begins.

 

[alang1216]

When does a human being's (or any mammals) biological aging begin?

That should tell you something.

I actually had trouble getting a definite answer but if I had to guess it would be late teens or early twenties for humans. Not sure what that should tell me?

On a more positive and hopeful note, this link is just for you and your Mrs.

Funny you can google images of complex cells and organisms to TRY and dupe me. . . . but you can't find a credible link on when an organism's aging begins.

You're too paranoid. I went out of my way NOT to dupe you. The correct answer is they are all single cells AND organisms. See you couldn't be wrong unless you chose not to answer.

The aging issue is, like all biology questions, complex and depends on your definition of aging. Is it when growth stops or when we begin to show the signs of age? If you have a better link, share.

 

[Chuz Life]

When does a human being's (or any mammals) biological aging begin?

That should tell you something.

I actually had trouble getting a definite answer but if I had to guess it would be late teens or early twenties for humans. Not sure what that should tell me?

On a more positive and hopeful note, this link is just for you and your Mrs.

Funny you can google images of complex cells and organisms to TRY and dupe me. . . . but you can't find a credible link on when an organism's aging begins.

You're too paranoid. I went out of my way NOT to dupe you. The correct answer is they are all single cells AND organisms. See you couldn't be wrong unless you chose not to answer.

The aging issue is, like all biology questions, complex and depends on your definition of aging. Is it when growth stops or when we begin to show the signs of age? If you have a better link, share.

Good god, when does the fucking clock start ticking on an individual organism's fucking life span? It's not fucking rocket science.

 

[alang1216]

Good god, when does the fucking clock start ticking on an individual organism's fucking life span? It's not fucking rocket science.

Aging is a major field of study. To me aging starts once we stop developing but you really want to know what is the first stage of life.

You want me say "at conception" and yes, that is a stage. Creation of the egg and the sperm are also developmental stages and the egg is likely years if not decades old at conception.