I hate the way the term "Life" is used in discussions involving abortion and stem-cell research.

[Odin2005]

(Reposted from the Abortion is Murder thread)

IMO it's a euphemism for "soul" used in order to avoid violating the separation of church and state. Sperm and egg cells are "human life" too, each is a genetically unique haploid individual separate from the diploid unicellular individual that produced them. The whole ethical philosophy used to justify anti-choice policies is an intellectually bankrupt attempt to justify using religious ideology to influence policy. When 99% of abortions happen a fetus has the mental capacity of a lizard, yet we eat meat from animals with a greater mental capacity than that every day.

it all comes down to the essentialistic, religious notion of a "soul" that magically appears at conception. It's total nonsense.

[Sinistrous]

1. Very interesting insight.. n/t

[PeaceNikki]

2. As I said elsewhere...

One of the most common pro-life claims is that "life begins at conception." Beyond the obvious controversy of this statement, there is actually a second and more subtle error here. And that is that human life began only once: at the dawn of humanity, with the rise of the first human beings. Since then, there has been a continuum of human life: every sperm, every egg and every zygote have been full-fledged signs of human life, complete with all the characteristics of normal cellular activity, and all 46 human chromosomes. (Half of these chromosomes go unused in the case of sperm and eggs, but all 46 are there nonetheless.) The correct question is not "When does human life begin?" but "When does personhood begin?"

From: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-personhood.htm

[immoderate]

79. You got it. Mildew is life...

According to Genesis, life starts when you start breathing. According to me: every prospective mother can decide for herself. Opinions may vary, but that's the system that always works.

--imm

[paulsby]

3. i think that's rubbish

i think the fetus is a human life. i don't give a fuck what religion says about it. to me, it's just basic science. i'm pro choice too, but i'm not going to hesitate calling it a life. it is.

a sperm is not a human life. neither is an egg.

a fetus, or an embryo is.

it's a dependant underdeveloped human life. but it's a life.

it doesn't say ANYTHING about mental capacity.

it says simply that i recognize that it's a human life.

because it is.

[Odin2005]

4. You obviously did not understand my post.

And are biologically illiterate to boot.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. Please explain how he is biologically illiterate.

[Odin2005]

11. he said that gametes are not human life. That is FACTUALLY incorrect.

[paulsby]

14. gametes have 23 chromosomes

sorry, they are not human lives.

[uppityperson]

16. So how do you define "human life" or "human lives"? Or do you have me on ignore?

Probably on ignore from challenging you on stuff. Oh well.

I wonder how big your ignore list is?

[Odin2005]

17. They are HAPLOID human lives, but biologically they are still human lives.

Each gamete is a genetically unique member of the H. Sapiens. That is like saying that the haploid stage of a certain species of green algae isn't alive.

[paulsby]

24. you are conflating two issues

the issue isn't whether a sperm is alive.

heck, a cancer cell is alive.

the issue is, is the sperm a HUMAN life?

clearly not

[Odin2005]

28. A gamete is not a member of H. Sapiens? WTF are you smoking?

If it genetically human it is human, haploid or diploid does not matter.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. So you are arguing that life begins at the egg and sperm stage? The Catholic argument, interesting.

[Odin2005]

33. I am saying there is no "life/non-life" break point.

there is a perfect continuity of living matter between parents, gametes, and offspring.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

35. Clearly the Courts disagree with you.

[Odin2005]

39. Courts can change scientific facts?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. And you think an egg is universally recognized scientifically as a viable human life? mmkay.

[Odin2005]

43. It's a genetically unique HAPLOID human indivudual.

Why doesn it seem like I'm talking to a wall? :banghead:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. It is not a viable human life which is what the abortion argument is about.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

101. Because the First Rule of Righ-Wing Trolling is...

"Be a wall."

[paulsby]

42. it's as much a semantics argument as it is a scientific one

a gamete is a product of a human life, but it is not in itself a human life.it can never be anything OTHER than a gamete until there is a meeting with a complementary gamete (iow sperm and egg).

when those two meet you have a human life.

[Odin2005]

44. Didn't I just HAVE this discussion. You STILL don't get it!

:banghead:

[paulsby]

49. no, you don't get it

apparently...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

108. What kind of life are they?

Goat? Celery? Earthworm?

[paulsby]

13. maybe because i didn't use the

same high school biology words he did, with his "big brain"

haploid!!

wow. he must KNOW biology

what a friggin' genius!

simple squamous epithelium

duodenum!

aqueous humour!

what fun!

[uppityperson]

15. Let's simplify this, unless you'd rather just snark...

You wrote "a sperm is not a human life. neither is an egg.

a fetus, or an embryo is."


"Odin he said that gametes are not human life."


How is a sperm or an egg not human life?

[Odin2005]

18. because they don't have a SOUL! DUH!!! *SARCASM*

Anyone who doesn't think our cultural tradition in the belief in a, incorporeal soul is not affecting their opinions on this are fooling themselves.

[paulsby]

22. well, among other things

they have 23 chromosomes.

they cannot become a human without a radical event occurring - namely ... conception.

there are mutations that have more (or less) than 46. down's syndrome, etc.

but let's get down to the essence

what MAKES a human life? - when a sperm and an egg MEET and merge

those two sets of chromosomes (to borrow a line from the torah, since you brought it up) cleave as one set.

all monty python skits aside, the sperm is not a human life. it's a PIECE of the puzzle but by itself, it has no future.

nothing else does, at least not in the natural world, make a human being, but the merger of these two unique cells.

that is a human life. before and unless it happens, you don't have a human life.

[uppityperson]

27. I did not bring up the torah, but copy/pasted what you wrote

So for you, "human life" is a fertilized egg. Right? Double checking because I want to make sure of what you are saying, too easy to misunderstand things here in internet land. Thanks

[paulsby]

48. sorry, i was confusing you with the OP

he was the one who made the argument that by bringing up this human life thang, it's inherently a religious argument. i said "rubbish". and here we are.

yes, a fertilized egg is a human life. within it's boundaries ( the cell wall) lies everything necessary for it to develop into a person.

note that personhood is more than just being a human life.

that's the whole bioethics thang.
or we can get into singer.... but i'd rather not (he thinks infanticide is ok up until the 3rd month AFTEr birth, since it is not yet a person, but i digress)

[uppityperson]

56. "personhood is more than just being a human life."

If you define human life as a fertilized egg, I very much agree that personhood is more than just being a fertilized egg.

Remembering way back to my college days, something about defining life, something as being alive, if it included reproduction, growth, movement.

[tnlefty]

59. Sorry, a fertilized egg has the capacity for life, but it isn't...

I know, and I carried a fetus for 24 weeks, he didn't survive, so I'm firmly convinced it's when a being comes out of a woman, can take a breath, even if it has to go into the NICU as did my first (born 7 weeks pre-term) and has a good shot at survival.

Conception may make the potential for life, but there are many pitfalls along the way and that first breath means a whole hell of a lot.

[paulsby]

62. you can be convinced of whatever you want

if it makes you feel good.

a fetus is a dependant form of life. it doesn't breathe on it's own for instance.

doesn't mean it's not a human life

[tnlefty]

106. If it makes you feel good?

You are quite the piece of work aren't you?

No, a fetus is a dependent potential form of life. A fetus can't sustain itself so it is a potential form of life, not a living breathing being.

[paulsby]

107. except that's wrong

not being able to sustain itself is not a distinguishing factor in whether or not something is a form of life.

a newborn baby can't sustain itself either. thus, actording to you, a newborn baby is only a potential form of life.

fascinating

[tnlefty]

111. No, it breathes, urinates, takes care of it's own waste, but needs

parents to survive. I breastfed babies, how about you?

Might be more than fascinating.

[stray cat]

12. The biology is completely sound - the diploid fetus has all the components required as a human being

it just needs time to grow.

[JonQ]

21. No, he wasn't wrong

a fertilized egg (zygote) is different than an unfertilized egg or sperm. Neither of those on their own could be considered a human. But a zygote contains the full compliment of genetic material to make a person, and if left to it's own devices generally will (barring spontaneous abortion).

Huge distinction between the two. Acknowledging a biological fact doesn't mean you have to ban abortion. It is a human life, but at that point it has no rights and represents only a potential person, so the mothers rights take precedence.

[Odin2005]

30. A gamete is a genetically unique HAPLOID human individual

That the diploid form of H. sapiens is muchy different from the haploid form doesn't change the fact that they are BOTH human.

There are many organisms where both phases are free-living organisms, there is nothing inherently special about diploidy.

[JonQ]

36. "There are many organisms where both phases are free-living organisms"

Not a single one of which is humans. Some animals reproduce asexually, doesn't mean it applies to us.

"That the diploid form of H. sapiens is muchy different from the haploid form doesn't change the fact that they are BOTH human."

Only one can divide in to a human. You may as well argue that your liver is human all by it's lonesome.

[Odin2005]

41. That still doesn't change the fact that gametes are genetically unique HUMAN indivduals.

A liver cell is not.

[JonQ]

46. A liver cell contains the full DNA content of a human being

from that you could clone a human being.

A haploid cell does not, On it's own, even with alot of work and having around plenty of people in labcoats, isn't going anywhere.

[Odin2005]

51. Of a DIPLOID human being

Gametes are single-celled individuals of the HAPLOID stage in the human life cycle. ALL eukaryotic organisms that undergo sexual reproduction cycle between diploid and haploid phases, each consisting of genetically unique individuals. that in animals the two phases are very different does not matter.

[JonQ]

52. A haploid cell is a dead end

diploid cells divide, form a human being, and then produce their own haploid cells.

On it's own a haploid cell goes nowhere. It requires another one. That is not a fully unique human being. It is half a human being, a potential one. You canj say that to you, philosophically it is the same thing as a human being, but biologically the distinction is quite clear.

[Odin2005]

55. All but a handful of your cells are a dead end, too.

Only the tiny handful of cells that undergo meiosis to produce gametes are not dead ends, in the same why only the tiny number of gametes that meet up are not dead ends.

[JonQ]

61. Meh

if you want to take that route it's more of a philosophical debate.
Point was the original poster was not incorrect. He defined his terms accurately and they can be defended.

I suppose for certain belief systems there is no difference, but biologically there is.

[uppityperson]

9. Define "life" please? That seems to be the purpose of this thread and one of the issues about aborti

abortions. What is "life"? What is your definition to say a combined egg/sperm is "life"? Serious question.

[nemo137]

5. Huh. I hadn't thought about haploid vs. diploid.

Neat.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

6. What does mental capacity have to do with it?

[Odin2005]

10. The anti-choicers like to exaggerate the sentience of 2-month-old fetuses.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

20. What is so important about the 8 week mark?

A signifcant percentage of pregnant women aren't even aware they are preganant at that point. What does sentience have to do with anything?

[Odin2005]

26. The claim is that the nervous system is functioning and so abortion is infanticide or some such BS.

It's just emotional "BABYKILLER!!!" rhetoric in pseudological garb.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

29. So you have research that shows that the nervous system doesn't function before birth? LOL.

[Odin2005]

34. I never said that.

What I meant, and is why I brought up lizard mental capacity and us eating meat of livestock, is that if killing a fetus is bad then eating meat from a slaughtered mammal or bird is bad. I think most anti-choice people are NOT vegans.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. So you are equating eating meat to killing a full term child that has yet to be born?

[Odin2005]

47. Not, with aborting. a 3-4 month-old fetus

aborting a near-full term fetus is extremely rare and is only done because the mother's life is threatened and the fetus ans a deformity (like Anencephaly) making it non-viable.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. Why does it matter?

[Odin2005]

53. Because killing a sapient being wihout just cause is murder.

So the anti-choicers try to make a fetus at the stage where most abortions occur seem as sapient as possible as part of the "baby-killer" meme.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

58. That's ridiculous. No sane person would say killing a 2 day old child wasn't murder.

[Lyric]

65. Nobody said anything ABOUT a 2-day-old child. Hello?

Read carefully and slowly, so you actually absorb it this time:

We. Are. Talking. About. Early. Stage. Embryos.

Not. Full. Term. Fetuses.

Comprendre?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. Odin decided being sapient was relevant to the discussion. Try and keep up.

[Lyric]

71. It is relevant because the anti-choicers wish to falsely portray embryos as sapient

and therefore "people." Odin is arguing that their effort to re-classify embryos as sapient (and therefore as worthy of legal protections as a newborn infant) is dishonest because it relies on a false premise; that embryos are equivalently sapient to babies. That was the entire POINT of this discussion. Try and keep up yourself.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. Newborns aren't sapient that's my point.

[Odin2005]

98. They're not?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

99. No more capable of acting upon judgements than a fetus just before delivery.

[Odin2005]

102. And late-term fetuses are never aborted except in cases of deformation or health emergency.

So you are just parroting anti-choice memes about late-term abortions. 99% of abortions occur in the first trimester.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

103. That is almost always true now.

I'm not parroting anything. I'm trying to understand your completely illogical use of sapiency in this discussion.

[Odin2005]

105. It's because of another illogical argument used by anti-choicers.

Which is why I brought it up. A common anti-choice position is that abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide and then use a argument-by-consequences fallacy involving infanticide to justify belief in a soul (as concealed by the euphemism "human life").

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

110. Your attempts to oversimplify a very complex issue have failed.

[uppityperson]

66. Who is talking about a 2 day old child? You aren't tracking well tonight

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. Odin decided being sapient was relevant to the discussion. Try and keep up.

[uppityperson]

74. Nothing about a 2 day old child though, you threw that in. T.a.k.u. yourself

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. Because newborns aren't sapient either. That was my point.

[uppityperson]

78. sapience:the ability of an organism or entity to act with judgment?

A 2 day old homo sapiens isn't sapient?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. 2 day olds are as capable of acting upon judgements as a fetus immediately before delivery.

[uppityperson]

82. and?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. That both are sapient or neither are.

Hopefully bringing out that it is impossible to make this discussion purely medical, scientific or religious.

[uppityperson]

85. The effort to re-classify embryos as comperable to a newborn is

"dishonest because it relies on a false premise; that embryos are equivalently sapient to babies." (yes, copy pasted from elsewhere).

This is the issue, not are newborns sapient compared to the wise old age of say 25, but are 8 week embryos equivalent to newborns. I don't think so.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

87. Again somehow back to this magical 8 week mark. Why is it relevant?

This is the question that Odin ran from.

[uppityperson]

89. There are no "magical marks" but dates chosen as boundaries for embryo vs fetus,

The name change from "embryo" to "fetus" happens at 8 weeks. Not a lot of difference between an 8 wk embryo and an 8 wk 1 day fetus except 1 day and a name change. Well, there are changes, but no magic involved.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. Abortions often don't happen within 8 weeks so why does it matter?

[uppityperson]

93. ru486 can be used up to 8 weeks and yes, abortions DO happen in that time

Having worked in the past for a ob/gyn doc, they do happen by 8 weeks

They also are done after 8 weeks, true. I don't understand why you have confusion as to "why does it matter?"

The effort to re-classify embryos as comparable to a newborn is "dishonest because it relies on a false premise; that embryos are equivalently sapient to babies." (yes, copy pasted from elsewhere).

This is the issue, not are newborns sapient compared to the wise old age of say 25, but are 8 week embryos equivalent to newborns.

Why does it matter? Because if an 8 week embryo, or 9 week fetus, is reclassified as equivalent to a newborn, the choice for a hygienic legal abortion will no longer be available to those who are not rich/powerful enough to have their own private doctor do one.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

95. I didn't say they never happened I said they often don't.

My question wasn't why does it matter about embryo vs. newborn. My question was why does it matter embryo vs. fetus. My other questions are why is sapiency important to the discussion and how would we possibly test for it on fetuses or embryos?

[Odin2005]

97. That poster seems to have trouble getting the point.

:banghead:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

100. Just because you have trouble understanding the point doesn't mean I had trouble getting there.

[uppityperson]

57. Odin never said that, was talking about 8 week embryos

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

60. Do he or you have research that shows that an 8 week embryos nervous system isn't functioning?

[uppityperson]

67. Odin says "The claim is that the nervous system is functioning and so abortion is infanticide"

He is saying it is. Why do you want to know if he or I have research showing it isn't?



Odin "The claim is that the nervous system is functioning and so abortion is infanticide or some such BS."

FM Dave "So you have research that shows that the nervous system doesn't function before birth? "

UP "Odin never said that, was talking about 8 week embryos"

FMD "Do he or you have research that shows that an 8 week embryos nervous system isn't functioning?"

Again, you are not tracking well tonight it seems. Hoping it is just a night off.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. I was hoping he would clarify. He chose not to though. I don't know why he chose a vegan rant...

instead of answering the question.

[uppityperson]

76. What "vegan rant"?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

77. Post # 34 Hard to believe you could have missed it.

[uppityperson]

81. Thank you, I did miss it. As difficult as that may be to believe, do miss things

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

83. You are quite thorough. It is late though.

It is off to the sleeper chair for my 40th or more night in the hospital this year.

[uppityperson]

86. hoping for a quiet night.

I quit doing er duty yrs back when I got tired of the stress.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

88. I only wish. My dad's been in the hospital for about 2 months this year, I'm staying with him.

[uppityperson]

90. I am sorry. I much prefer being on the provider side than the family side.

Wishing the best for him and peace for all.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

92. Many thanks. Fighting 3 PE's right now. My brother probably saved his life.

My brother noticed his fever while I was at work. Nurse said his temp was 98.1 oral. My brother told her to check it again she did and came back with a 103 axillary temp. White count was fine, no sign of infection, sats at 87% on room air, doctor started a heparin drip suspecting a PE turned out to be the right decision. To be fair I suspect the "nurse" was a CNA.

[uppityperson]

94. I REALLY hate ear thermometers. They are fast, but can be very

inaccurate. Fast oral ones are better but still can misread. Good going brother. Had a cousin who died about 30 yrs old from PE. Doc told cousin that just was catching uri's from kids while treating for thrombophlebitis and dropped one day.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

96. It was an oral thermometer she wasn't really paying attention and barely had it in his mouth.

[stray cat]

8. Maybe we don't have to respect any kind of life? After all a plant is alive as well.

and we eat vegetables anyway with no respect for that form of life. If we're no different who cares what someone does to someone else.

[defendandprotect]

19. Nature is Pro-Choice . . . so I think there is a difference . . .

AND, if anyone wants to use religious concepts, the Bible tells them to

"eat what grows in the Garden" --

Certainly a cow doesn't grow in a garden --

Nature provided many ways to control birth -- to interrupt conception -- to

end pregnancies -- and to end fertility if a woman wished --

Much of that knowledge and plants were destroyed by patriarchy --

RU 486, in fact, still uses some of that knowledge --

[Manifestor_of_Light]

72. Then why is early miscarriage so common??

If Nature is pro-choice, mother nature spends a lot of time aborting malfunctioning or otherwise messed up embryos, or maybe the mother's body has a problem so that her body won't support conception (examples: Diabetes, hypothyroidism).

Oftentimes, women will have a period that is just a few days late, and they don't even know they were pregnant.


Typically, the distribution of miscarriage rates by age occurs as follows: younger than 35 years old, 15% miscarriage rate; 35-39 years old, 20-25% miscarriage rate; 40-42 years old, about 35% miscarriage rate; and older than 42 years old, about 50% miscarriage rate.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

104. Do you have a source for those miscarriage rates?

[defendandprotect]

113. Why wouldn't you recognize a natural miscarriage as "pro-choice" . . .

Obviously, nature is identifying that there is something wrong and aborts -- !!!

Same thing for a fertilized egg not adhering to the wall of the womb --
natural -- normal -- as nature sees fit!

Mother Nature decides when these things go forward and when they don't --

Meanwhile, also keep in mind that males are more fragile than females --
more males are lost in these spontaneous natural miscarriages than females --
AND, more males than females die up to the age of two years old --

It is Mother Nature's choice --
And Mother Nature provides reproductive CHOICE for females in many ways --
based on their own desire to have -- or not have -- a child.

Mother Nature also favors females -- we are the majority, though obviously less
than our numbers should be because of constant murderous attacks on females.

Nonetheless, the figure is usually at least females 54% of the population --
if uninterferred with, would probably be 57% -- or more?

[uppityperson]

23. I ask what the definition of "life" is to those using it.

Sometimes I get an answer, sometimes I get attacked, sometimes I get ignored. But if someone is using that term, they really need to define it since it can mean many different things.

[Odin2005]

37. They attack you because the real reason is the belief that zygotes have "souls".

But they can't really say that too often lest they get whacked with the establishment clause.

[defendandprotect]

25. I think the main focus should be on "Pro-Life" Murders of doctors . . .

Fanatical fetal fantasy is just that --

If there were actual respect for life among "pro-lifers" it would begin with the pregnant female --
not with a fertilized egg --

Each woman makes her own individual decision --

MURDER of doctors is clear -- and yet we don't really see sufficient reaction to this
method by the right wing of getting their way --

How many women's clinics have they closed across the US?

This is simply an effort to regain control over women and their bodies --

[Vattel]

32. Don't over-simplify a complex debate.

Many pro-lifers do not rely on any religious notions in making their case against abortion. For example, some argue that aborting a normal, healthy fetus is prima facie seriously wrong because it deprives that individual of a future that, in all probability, would have tremendous value for her.

[Nye Bevan]

54. Not sure that the "lizard" argument really works

A 3-month old baby probably has a lower mental capacity than a dolphin or a chimpanzee. But most people would agree that killing the baby is worse than killing the chimp or the dolphin.

[EndersDame]

63. I think it cheapens life to equate a lump of cells smaller than a rice krispy with a child

I held hands at a clinic and saw the "baby" that the protesters outside were screaming about outside , on the ultra sound and felt that they really downgraded life when they think that my rights should be trumped for a clump of cells

[janx]

64. This is a case of religion.

Some religions teach their congregants that life begins at conception. Others do not.

[Kitty Herder]

109. I'm glad you re-posted this.

It's a great insight.

[Odin2005]

112. Thanks!