It's not a baby?

[The Laughing Man]

Sure looks like one to me:

http://a799.g.akamai.net/3/799/388/548d06926b51bd/www.msnbc.com/news/1917437.jpg

[James]

I think that attempts to sensationalize abortion miss the point that it has social causes that need addressing, like poverty and delinquincy. No one LIKES the fact that abortions happen.

[Minnesota]

No. It's a fetus.

[Joe Meert]

Scientifically speaking this is a fetus. From the looks of it, it is near full term and quite cute. Is this an attempt to link evolution with abortion? That and Hitler will get you a full forum, but both are off-topic w/respect to evolution.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Dee Dee Warren]

What is the issue of the thread? I do not believe this belongs in Biology. I will give Jinx a bit to see where he wanted to go with it, otherwise it will be moved to Political Science.

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114770#post114770)
Joe Meert:

Scientifically speaking this is a fetus.

And scientifically speaking, a pregnant woman is a gravida. So your point is, what? Colloquially speaking, a woman who wants her child will say "I am with child" or "I have a baby growing inside me.

Actually, this seems very much a biological question not a political one.

[Joe Meert]

Actually, this seems very much a biological question not a political one.

JM: Biologically speaking a fetus of this age could surive without the mother. A more immature fetus could not. What's your point?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Minnesota]

Today @ 05:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114790#post114790)
Socrates:



And scientifically speaking, a pregnant woman is a gravida. So your point is, what? Colloquially speaking, a woman who wants her child will say "I am with child" or "I have a baby growing inside me.

Actually, this seems very much a biological question not a political one.


IS this your new standard for defining terms, whether they're colloquial or not? Gotta say, it is original.

[The Laughing Man]

It often seems that people who use the phrase "scientifically speaking" are hiding from the truth. They are also extremely inconsistant. Do they call us "homo sapiens" all the time, or do they use words like "humans" and "people?" Do they use the terms "phalanges," "cranium," "leukocyte" and "erythrocyte," or do they use the terms "fingers/toes," "head," "white blood cell" and "red blood cell?" They use "fetus" like it means that the unborn child is something else - something that is to be flippantly disregarded as virtually unimportant or even detestable (particularly when they call unborn children "parasites").

In any case, these pictures are from the new 3-D ultrasound technology developed by GE. From the top left to the top right and the bottom left to the bottom right, the pictures show an unborn child at 7, 9, 13, 16, 23, and 35 weeks. What is the biological difference between them? Age and development? How is that different from born humans?

[dawnghost]

the only way of convincing me that people who are pro-choice are not hypocrites, would be mass suicide.

if a person suggests that someone can take the life of a fetus away because the fetus is not human yet, that's because maybe in the history of that person the fetus stage has never existed.

if it did exist, then maybe life wouldn't be too important for that person, and supposing his/her mother had decided for abortion, he'd be agreeing with that decision 100%*.

now, to prove that life isn't important for that fetus because it's not human yet (even though its genetic material pretty much states so)*, I'd require every single pro-choice person in the world to hold a gun against their heads and pull the trigger.

that would prove to me they were not a bunch of hypocrites, but they'd still be a bunch of idiots.


*it's important to notice that an "undesired life" comes either from irresponsability or violence. and in both situations, it's not the fetus' fault.

*btw, suppose a man called Jack submits himself to surgery and changes his sex to female. now, suppose you examine his genetic material. guess what: XY.

now suppose you examine the genetic material of a fetus. guess what: human.


.

[Sher]

Even more amazing to me are those that support abortion ... yet fight for the rights of animals

... but that is for another section of the board, I suppose.

Soc, Jinx ... you two made great points about science terminology :thumb:

(Dawnghost, the science area is in a heavy mod period ... "idiots" is gonna get you busted ... just a friendly reminder)

[DivineOb]

Today @ 06:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114818#post114818)
dawnghost:

the only way of convincing me that people who are pro-choice are not hypocrites, would be mass suicide.

if a person suggests that someone can take the life of a fetus away because the fetus is not human yet, that's because maybe in the history of that person the fetus stage has never existed.

if it did exist, then maybe life wouldn't be too important for that person, and supposing his/her mother had decided for abortion, he'd be agreeing with that decision 100%*.

now, to prove that life isn't important for that fetus because it's not human yet (even though its genetic material pretty much states so)*, I'd require every single pro-choice person in the world to hold a gun against their heads and pull the trigger.

that would prove to me they were not a bunch of hypocrites, but they'd still be a bunch of idiots.


*it's important to notice that an "undesired life" comes either from irresponsability or violence. and in both situations, it's not the fetus' fault.

*btw, suppose a man called Jack submits himself to surgery and changes his sex to female. now, suppose you examine his genetic material. guess what: XY.



I'll be amused to see how many pro-lifers fall for this and think you are really using this argument ;).

[Joe Meert]

In any case, these pictures are from the new 3-D ultrasound technology developed by GE. From the top left to the top right and the bottom left to the bottom right, the pictures show an unborn child at 7, 9, 13, 16, 23, and 35 weeks. What is the biological difference between them? Age and development? How is that different from born humans?

JM: The difference would be development, age and viability outside of the mother. With today's technology, the fetus at 7,9,13 and 16 weeks would not be viable outside the mother and the fetus at 23 weeks might survive. At 35 weeks, the fetus is nearly full term and would most likely survive.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Archimedes]

Today @ 06:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114818#post114818)
dawnghost:

the only way of convincing me that people who are pro-choice are not hypocrites, would be mass suicide.

...

that would prove to me they were not a bunch of hypocrites, but they'd still be a bunch of idiots.

In this period of heavy moderation the above statements that call pro-choicers either hypocrites or idiots and wishes that they'd commit a mass suicide seem a bit inflammatory. However, I propose to the moderators that instead of editing dawnghost's post you move the whole thread to Political Science Department where it belongs, and where such statements fit right in. How about it?

Personally, I don't care what you call it, but if a mother's choice to abort depends on whether she calls the fetus a "baby" or a "lump of flesh", then she shouldn't abort. (In my humble, chauvinistic opinion.)

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114929#post114929)
Joe Meert:

JM: The difference would be development, age and viability outside of the mother. With today's technology, the fetus at 7,9,13 and 16 weeks would not be viable outside the mother and the fetus at 23 weeks might survive. At 35 weeks, the fetus is nearly full term and would most likely survive.

The age of viability outside the mother is dropping all the time with advances in technology. So if this is the criterion for becoming human, it would mean that a 22-week-old "fetus" was not human, say, 20 years ago and now it is.

[James]

Today @ 11:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114984#post114984)
Socrates:

The age of viability outside the mother is dropping all the time with advances in technology. So if this is the criterion for becoming human, it would mean that a 22-week-old "fetus" was not human, say, 20 years ago and now it is.

And I suppose that eventually we'll be able to create a wholly new human being from a fully differentiated skin cell by coaxing it back into stem cell state and allowing it to gestate.

[Joe Meert]

Today @ 11:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114984#post114984)
Socrates:



The age of viability outside the mother is dropping all the time with advances in technology. So if this is the criterion for becoming human, it would mean that a 22-week-old "fetus" was not human, say, 20 years ago and now it is.

JM: I never said the fetus was not a human fetus nor did I make any point about 'criterion for becoming human'. I think you are on a hair trigger when it comes to my posts.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[DivineOb]

Today @ 04:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114984#post114984)
Socrates:



The age of viability outside the mother is dropping all the time with advances in technology. So if this is the criterion for becoming human, it would mean that a 22-week-old "fetus" was not human, say, 20 years ago and now it is.

I think the issue is when the 'unborn child' is classified as a person, not as a human. There is no question that it is human at the time of conception.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 03:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114804#post114804)
Minnesota, replying to:


Socrates: And scientifically speaking, a pregnant woman is a gravida. So your point is, what? Colloquially speaking, a woman who wants her child will say "I am with child" or "I have a baby growing inside me.

IS this your new standard for defining terms, whether they're colloquial or not? Gotta say, it is original.

Nope. It should have been obvious that I was asking for consistency. That is, refer to BOTH the unborn baby and the mother by colloquial terms or BOTH by medicalese (fetus and gravida).

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114986#post114986)
Joe Meert:

JM: I never said the fetus was not a human fetus nor did I make any point about 'criterion for becoming human'. I think you are on a hair trigger when it comes to my posts.

Who's on a hair trigger? I never said you did, and was merely making a point relevant to the thread.

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114985#post114985)
James:

And I suppose that eventually we'll be able to create a wholly new human being from a fully differentiated skin cell by coaxing it back into stem cell state and allowing it to gestate.

I'm not interested in suppositions, but in current biological actualities: the beginning of individual life is at conception/fertilization.

[SLPx]

Today @ 06:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114818#post114818)
dawnghost:

the only way of convincing me that people who are pro-choice are not hypocrites, would be mass suicide.

Rubbish. This has no logic or reason behind it. This is akin to the creationists who proclaim that evolutionists should have their vestigial organs removed if they think they are useless.

Of course, it would go a lot way towards legitimacy is people that call themselves "pro-life" took more active roles in caring for the children in foster care and not opposing legislation that would provide assistance to single moms and such.


if a person suggests that someone can take the life of a fetus away because the fetus is not human yet, that's because maybe in the history of that person the fetus stage has never existed.

I don't think anyone has claimed that a fetus is not human. It is a human fetus, afterall. Emotional hyperbole is a hallmark of this debate.



that would prove to me they were not a bunch of hypocrites, but they'd still be a bunch of idiots.

My, the ad hominems are strong here.... Not to mention the dearth of reason, rationale, and logic....

Of course, other than demonstrating Jinx's propensity toward post-and-run anti-abortion propaganda, what does this thread have to do with evolution?

Let me guess - Hitler loved abortion, too? And therefore, since he was an evolutionist, evoltuion is bad?

[SLPx]

Today @ 04:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114987#post114987)
DivineOb:



I think the issue is when the 'unborn child' is classified as a person, not as a human. There is no question that it is human at the time of conception.
Nor is there a question as to the "humanity" of sperm or ovum. These semantics games are little more than emotional rhetoric employed by those that want to have a say in what women they are not related to and do not even know should do with their future..

[Joe Meert]

Today @ 11:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114997#post114997)
Socrates:



Who's on a hair trigger? I never said you did, and was merely making a point relevant to the thread.


JM: Then why did you quote me?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[SLPx]

Today @ 06:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114817#post114817)
Jinx72:

In any case, these pictures are from the new 3-D ultrasound technology developed by GE. From the top left to the top right and the bottom left to the bottom right, the pictures show an unborn child at 7, 9, 13, 16, 23, and 35 weeks. What is the biological difference between them? Age and development? How is that different from born humans?

Are you KIDDING?

You do not think that a 7 week fetus is any different than a full-term fetus?

There is a HUGE difference developmentally between them!

Just a few biggies:

Peripheral ganglia have only started to develop by the 7th week. This means that not even reflex activity can occur.

The terminal bronchioles have just begun to form. Primitive alveoli do not appear until week 28.

The heart does not reach its 'adult' form until well into the 9th week.

The kidneys do not reach their adult form until the 16th week.
(Interestingly, the adult kidney is the third of three separate functioning structures, the first two of which develop and then regress. The first set, the pronephroi, resemble the structures in fish that form urine, the second set, the mesonephroi, are similar in structure to some amphibian organs. All just a big coincidence, I'm sure :teeth: )

You get the picture..

[James]

Today @ 11:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115000#post115000)
Socrates:

I'm not interested in suppositions, but in current biological actualities: the beginning of individual life is at conception/fertilization.

Why is the beginning of life at fertilization? Why not when the gametes undergo meiosis or when the zygote impregnates itself in the uterus wall? When does life begin for an organism that doesn't require fertilization? What's your definition of "individual," or "life" for that matter? These aren't clear-cut distinctions.

[QED]

I'm not here to talk about abortion, but since it has been brought up, I would like to ask an honest question a piece to those who are pro-choice, and to those who are pro-life. I would love to hear honest answers to these from both groups:

1) To pro-lifers - if the unborn are indeed people deserving of equal protection under the law, should abortion and conspiracy to commit it be prosecuted in the courts under the pre-meditated homicide laws?

2) To pro-choicers - Do you think that the accident of the language in the Constitution (persons born in the United States) is sufficient grounds to consider the unborn a non-person? If not, what is your grounds for considering the unborn to be a non-person or for denying them the right to life? Is there any single qualitative criterion that denies personhood or right to life to the unborn (at any stage in development), and makes real sense?

[James]

QED, I'm one who believes that the issues of abortion are inherently unsolvable due to conflicting moral systems present in politics. The only way to resolve the issue is to solve the problem that causes abortion: unwanted pregnancies.

[QED]

Today @ 12:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115464#post115464)
James:

QED, I'm one who believes that the issues of abortion are inherently unsolvable due to conflicting moral systems present in politics.

LOL. For purposes of my questions the only moral system under consideration is your own. If you see it as impossible to achieve your own moral aims under the current political environment, that is fine - but I'm interested in knowing what your moral aims are, and why.


The only way to resolve the issue is to solve the problem that causes abortion: unwanted pregnancies.

That would be a beautiful, practical solution - though it doesn't answer the questions at the bottom of the current debate.

[James]

Today @ 09:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115527#post115527)
QED:

That would be a beautiful, practical solution - though it doesn't answer the questions at the bottom of the current debate.

That's exactly my point :wink:

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 07:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115362#post115362)
QED:

1) To pro-lifers - if the unborn are indeed people deserving of equal protection under the law, should abortion and conspiracy to commit it be prosecuted in the courts under the pre-meditated homicide laws?

Yes ... if judged in the same manner as pre-meditated homicide is for other humans.

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115005#post115005)
SLPx:

Nor is there a question as to the "humanity" of sperm or ovum. These semantics games are little more than emotional rhetoric employed by those that want to have a say in what women they are not related to and do not even know should do with their future..

How strange that these are called "semantic games" only with the beginning of human life. Biologists seem to have no trouble saying that individual life begins at conception or fertilization for other species. The IRS sure does when it comes to livestock, and conservationist do when protecting bald eagle eggs.

These semantics games are little more than emotional rhetoric employed by those that want to have a say in what babies are deemed worthy to live or die.

[chickenman]

many eggs upon being fertilized have chromosomal abberations that cause spontaneous abortions

- another one of the wonders of god's creation.

[Socrates]

Today @ 10:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115362#post115362)
QED:

I'm not here to talk about abortion, but since it has been brought up, I would like to ask an honest question a piece to those who are pro-choice, and to those who are pro-life. I would love to hear honest answers to these from both groups:

1) To pro-lifers - if the unborn are indeed people deserving of equal protection under the law, should abortion and conspiracy to commit it be prosecuted in the courts under the pre-meditated homicide laws?

Yes. And it's no wonder that NOW opposes double-murder charges against Scott Peterson (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=74201#post74201).

[Lobstrosity]

Today @ 01:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115840#post115840)
Socrates:


How strange that these are called "semantic games" only with the beginning of human life. Biologists seem to have no trouble saying that individual life begins at conception or fertilization for other species. The IRS sure does when it comes to livestock, and conservationist do when protecting bald eagle eggs.
How strange that biologists have no trouble with animal testing. Oh, wait, it's not strange at all. It seems humans value human lives more than animal lives and thus must more rigorously define terms for the purpose of legal matters pertaining to human rights. Since we don't need to worry about what point "animal rights" attach to an animal embryo, there's no reason beyond scientific curiosity to worry about the details of animal fetal development.

[chickenman]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10429765&dopt=Abstract

so, did god program the fgl2 gene, or was it the result of evolution?

[Lobstrosity]

Of course not! The fall programmed it. I suspect that apple was radioactive, which would certainly explain why we weren't supposed to eat it!

[James]

Socrates: I don't know if you noticed my question, but I said:

Why is the beginning of life at fertilization? Why not when the gametes undergo meiosis or when the zygote impregnates itself in the uterus wall? When does life begin for an organism that doesn't require fertilization? What's your definition of "individual," or "life" for that matter? These aren't clear-cut distinctions.

[SLPx]

Today @ 09:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115840#post115840)
Socrates:



How strange that these are called "semantic games" only with the beginning of human life. Biologists seem to have no trouble saying that individual life begins at conception or fertilization for other species.

Which biologists are these?


The IRS sure does when it comes to livestock, and conservationist do when protecting bald eagle eggs.

Humans are not on the verge of extinction due primarily to our own doings.


These semantics games are little more than emotional rhetoric employed by those that want to have a say in what babies are deemed worthy to live or die.

How clever of the resident chemist to change words around.

Of ocurse, when I did that, the results were a clear cut example of something that had been repeatedly denied....

[SLPx]

Gee, I answered Jinx's question on age and developmant and there has yet to be a reply...

[QED]

Sherber & Socrates - thank you for the straightforward answers you gave to my question.

[SLPx]

*bump*

[SLPx]

Hello? Jinxy?


I wonder if it should be considered spam when someone starts so many threads, replies, if at all, with a handful of ad homs and silly quips, then splits?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hello? Jinxy?

As per the insistence of Rufus that anyone who would think it is okay to use "diminuntive names" such as Woody would probably have no problem calling an adult black man "boy" please do not use such expressions during this period. If you think that is straining at a gnat, take it up with Rufus. I certainly would never disrespect ANY adult man in that way and you certainly wouldn't either. But Rufus complained strenously about this, so we are enforcing it right now.

[The Barbarian]

Just as an aside:
John Woodmorappe used "woody" in his email address at one time. I think it's fair to use diminuitives when the person involved uses them to describe himself.

Please keep all comments about Admin/Mod decisions OUT of the threads

... take it to PM, email, or the Janitor's Closet!

Thank you,
Sher

[Dee Dee Warren]

Humans are not on the verge of extinction due primarily to our own doings.

So when life begins can be different depending upon whether or not the life in question is part of an endangered species. So it would be a baby if we were in peril of extinction?