WizardofOz
New member
It doesn't take long.
source
Brain regions of a 4 week old human embryo
Do you then oppose abortion after the 4th week?
"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
It doesn't take long.
source
Brain regions of a 4 week old human embryo
Do you then oppose abortion after the 4th week?
gcthomas
New member
That is the start of the formation of the central nervous system, but the cross linking is missing, as are the peripheral nerves. I would generally oppose abortion after the nervous system functions sufficiently for suffering or pain to happen. (I think that is around twenty weeks, but I'm not an expert). If it became apparent that suffering could happen at an earlier age, I'd reassess.
(I also oppose the wanton killing or harm to animals for the same reason - unnecessary suffering.)
After 20 weeks, I'd support abortion if there was a real and present danger to the mother's life, with the bar set higher as the pregnancy progresses (where suffering is going to happen regardless).
You are not supporting a standard like: Murder is OK if the victim feels no pain. There must be more to your standard to help disguise the truth.
Even more vague.
People can be murdered with any level of "unnecessary suffering". There must be more you use to disguise your position from the truth about it.
There is never a need to stop delivering the baby in order to murder him. If the mother's life is in danger, deliver the child. Don't stop halfway and shove a pair of scissors into his skull.
At conception the baby has everything he needs to build the rest of himself.
It is never safe to deliver the baby significantly before term. But when the mother will most certainly die, the baby should be delivered early. When this course becomes necessary, there is never a need to stop delivering the baby in order to kill him.
Abortion for the life of the mother is never necessary.
gcthomas
New member
Agreed, but it has not yet been built, so it isn't there.
Say the problems happen at 16 weeks? Delivering it will kill it. How is this different from abortion?
alwight
New member
But again this "person" is clearly not an actual person at all, of which two out of three zygotes never even get to the point of starting the process to becoming a person.
I see no intent to kill any persons in this debate, though some seem strangely content that two out of three of their supposed "persons" are doomed to fail naturally, if they really do consider them to be such.
The engineer and scientist are vying for a lady's love. She tests them by saying that they both start at an equal position away from her and move to a point half-way toward her, stop, and then move half-way again and stop, and keep doing this until the first one to reach her gets her. As the engineer starts moving, the scientist laughs and doesn't move. He exclaims to the engineer that he can never actually reach her. The engineer, upon reaching the girl, hugs her and says "close enough."
You'd think as an engineer that 1 second would be close enough.
No, the logical conclusion of what you say is lost on you.
If you want to say a zygote is just a blueprint, it is a blueprint wherein you just add water and time to make the product. It would be the same as dumping water on the draftsman's table and watching it grow into the product that was being designed on the table.
Therefore, the drafting table would be the product.
And if a car could grown from the drafting table, the drafting table would be considered the car.
From Wiki:
| Early pregnancy factor (EPF) or early conception factor (ECF) is a protein associated with mammalian embryos shortly after fertilization.[1][2] It may be composed of more than one molecule.[3][4] It was first described in 1976.[4] |
It isn't laziness per se or desire to have abortions. It is a matter of reality that we can already see what women will do because they are already doing it. Just because there are women that take birth control has nothing to do with it.
It's true that things can get confused because neither I, nor the most strident pro-lifer, is against abortion in all it's definitions.
But, so that we can try and reason with people like you that hate clear definitions, we use your term as best we can. It's the charity we offer you that no one except Mighty Duck has offered in this thread.
It isn't implantation that we care about, it's murdering a human that we care about. So, if there are forms of birth control like certain pills that keep a woman from ovulating, but those can also be used to stop implantation, they would stay legal.
It would be the intent that mattered, not controlling whether one gets pregnant or not.
Last edited:
Alate_One
Well-known member
That's a poor analogy for the complex interaction and support that we term "pregnancy". It certainly isn't just "dumping water and nutrients" on a fertilized egg. It's more like having a highly trained group of construction workers both inside and outside of the cell assisting it in completing the blueprints. The point remains though, the zygote is not the thing it will become.
I stand corrected. Apparently this protein is actually involved in a number of important cellular processes. Pretty fascinating.
| Heat shock protein 10 (Hsp10) in eukaryotes, originally identified as a mitochondrial chaperone, now is also known to be present in cytosol, cell surface, extracellular space and peripheral blood. Functionally besides participating in mitochondrial protein folding in association with Hsp60, Hsp10 appears to be related to pregnancy, cancer and autoimmune inhibition. Hsp10 can be released to peripheral blood at very early time point of pregnancy and given another name called early pregnancy factor (EPF), which seems to play a critical role in developing a pregnant niche. In malignant disorders, Hsp10 is usually abnormally expressed in the cytosol of malignant cells and further released to extracellular space, resulting in tumor-promoting effect from various aspects. Furthermore, distinct from other heat shock protein members, whose soluble form is recognized as danger signal by immune cells and triggers immune responses, Hsp10 after release, however, is designed to be an inhibitory signal by limiting immune response. This review discusses how Hsp10 participates in various physiological and pathological processes from basic protein molecule folding to pregnancy, cancer and autoimmune diseases, and emphasizes how important the location is for the function exertion of a molecule. |
Source
I disagree. If you remove birth control, women will be forced into other options . . . which are worse than birth control.
Really? This is the line you want to go with? When your sort are insisting we call one cell a "baby" and you're complaining to me about definitions.
I want to be clear about precisely what you're interested in protecting, which processes you'd consider "murder" etc.That's not been the implication from most of the members of the personhood movement.
A 4-year-old child is not yet all that he will become.
Alate: He is not fully grown yet. Let's kill it!
Last edited:
alwight
New member
A zygote is not the child it might become.
Failed biology, didn't you?
Or is there a more sinister reason for your dehumanisation of what really is a human male or a human female.
alwight
New member
Yes of course Stripe, in your mind people like me don't really want individual women to be able to make reasoned and rational choices for themselves, about themselves, at all, or to base it simply on the physical evidence rather than a religious dogma.
No in your mind, we "evolutionists" simply want to kill babies, children and "persons" at any opportunity we can get, right?
Remind me Stripe, why exactly do we want to do this?
Yes of course Stripe, in your mind people like me don't really want individual women to be able to make reasoned and rational choices for themselves, about themselves, at all, or to base it simply on the physical evidence rather than a religious dogma. No in your mind, we "evolutionists" simply want to kill babies, children and "persons" at any opportunity we can get, right?
You tell me you monumental retard.
gcthomas
New member
Stripe, alwight was being sarcastic. He meant that you have no good reason to suggest sinister ulterior motives, and perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your justification for your comments?
At the zygote stage? It's hardly even that. To make the analogy more accurate, we should say the draftsman draws a "go" button on his drawing and when he pushes the button it begins to grow into what he is drawing. At some point he has to add nutrients.
Since you've refuted yourself, will you take back your stupid argument that a zygote is just blueprints?
Yeah! The construction workers are part of the drawing. It's so cool.
Since you've refuted yourself, will you take back your stupid argument that a zygote is just blueprints?
The zygote is as much the thing it will become as a child will become an adult.
Since you've refuted yourself, will you take back your stupid argument that a zygote is just blueprints?
Heck yeah! And that fascinating process begins because mom has another human inside her.
Sure, women will murder their children after it is illegal to do so. Making it legal has turned out to be worse.
No, you want to talk about "abortion" when it is murder that is the problem. When you intentionally kill an innocent human it is murder. If you haven't been able to figure out, this is all pro-lifers are worried about.Really? This is the line you want to go with? When your sort are insisting we call one cell a "baby" and you're complaining to me about definitions.
Normally, we don't have to point this out because "abortifacient" is used as a general term meaning intentionally taking a chemical for the purpose of killing the zygote-and-beyond. Whenever I use the term, that is always how I will use it. However, if you have a better term to describe it, then I'll use that. We can even make up a new one just for you... because you're special.
I don't recall. Is it your position that a zygote is a human, but we can kill it anyway because it has no value? If not, when does an organism that becomes a human achieve such? Is a person different from a human?
alwight
New member
He knows that, he just doesn't have a good answer to my question, which he also knows.
lain: