Very Late Term Abortion V. Early Term

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1302561256' post='2227601']
folks are welcome to prove how it's the same from conception. is a snowball a snowman? is a lego a lego man?
[/quote]
You just named parts of a whole. An embryo is "part" of a human. Embryos don't lock together like legos to make a human. That's why your analogy doesn't work.

If you have balls, you say it's okay to kill helpless humans. If you're a flooping sissy, you deny personhood. Because you are gutless. Or, alternatively, stupid. Those are the options: Stupid or a big flooping sissy.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1302561347' post='2227602']
nihil says it's more clear later.
[/quote]
Clearer taken to mean easier for the poor fools who support abortion to understand.

[dairygirl4u2c]

that embryos don't lock together to form a human is irrelevant. embryos don't lock together to form a human, no.... but cells do. just as one puts a snowball next to the next one, the earliest form during pregnancy is a single cell, not an embryo, and combines with the next one, etc. the cells form together to make the embryo, the beginning stages of a human. just as snowballs form together to form presnowmen, not actual snowmen.
arguably.
i'm arguing it's all uncertain.

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1302566071' post='2227635']
that embryos don't lock together to form a human is irrelevant. embryos don't lock together to form a human, no.... but cells do. just as one puts a snowball next to the next one, the earliest form during pregnancy is a single cell, not an embryo, and combines with the next one, etc. the cells form together to make the embryo, the beginning stages of a human. just as snowballs form together to form presnowmen, not actual snowmen.
arguably.
i'm arguing it's all uncertain.
[/quote]
An embryo is a complete human. It's not an individual cell (which is what a Lego is comparable to).

The single cell is complete in itself and then subdivides and differentiates within itself under its own guidance. That embryos don't lock together is completely relevant that analogy. The egg and the sperm are your legos.

I accept your surrender.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Winchester

[dairygirl4u2c]

"On the sixth day of human development, the embryo is a blastocyst comprising 100 or so cells arranged as an outer layer, within which is a cavity and an eccentrically placed inner cell mass. Normally, the outer cells will invade the uterine wall and form the placenta, while the inner cell mass will form the embryo itself. But at this stage, the inner cell mass is undifferentiated. Its genes have not yet been programmed and it is like a blank canvas. Animal studies show that if these cells are excised and grown in the laboratory they have two important properties: they will go on dividing for ever, and they can be induced to form a wide variety of cell types according to what chemical stimulus is provided. Thus, large numbers of brain cells or heart cells can be produced on command, available for therapy."

also there's something unreverent for embryos to have gills, tails, and look so similar to so many other life forms, like lizards etc. just seems like if we were so completed even at the earliest stage, there'd be something more unique. not necessarily gotta be that way, but this stuff lends itself more to 'more like mere cells like a blank canvas' and less to 'complete human'
http://home.honolulu.hawaii.edu/~pine/book1qts/embryo-compare.html

in the case of identical twins. it seems weaker to say a person is splitting into two persons. are there two persons that are one and then split into two? no. there's, arguably, one, and then another comes from that. it just seems weak to say one person came from another person. more like groups of cells split from each other. also, the twins can then recombine. so a person is lost? a soul is lost?

"Embryonic existence is very precarious. Zygotes, blastocysts, and embryos have a high failure rate, which throws cold water on the anti-choice claim that every fertilized egg is sacred. Scientists estimate that 55 to 65% of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted in the first few days or weeks of a pregnancy, usually without the woman ever knowing she was pregnant17. It's called "fetal wastage." Another 10 to 15% of pregnancies are miscarried in the months to come. Fetal wastage occurs because early embryonic forms have a high defect rate—most early miscarriages are caused by genetic defects in the fertilized egg. This shows that eggs and embryos do not yet qualify as human beings according to Nature herself—at best, they represent tryouts for the human race.

Embryos are capable of splitting into two, to form twins, and may even recombine later18. This does serious damage to the idea of unique personhood, and the common anti-abortion belief that a "soul" is infused into a zygote at conception. Do twins share the single soul they got at conception, or is the second twin belatedly given its own soul after cell division? If the latter, which soul is lost if the embryos recombine? These questions are unintelligible if embryos are human beings, but simply moot if they are not. "

plus if mary sellers from 'the independent' says it, it must be true?
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mary-seller-an-embryo-is-not-a-person-629164.html

also people talk about how 'science informed us to change our views' but it used to be not even murder to catholics before quickening to have the abortion, ie when the baby starts kicking etc. i doubt they believed in magic, no baby to poof a baby. im sure they had the same logic to suspect it was something similar to how all animal pregnancies form, from earliest to later. etc
"Historically, a fetus has never (or very rarely) been considered a human being, at least not before "quickening", an old-fashioned term indicating noticeable movement of the fetus. The Catholic Church even allowed abortion until quickening, up until 18694. Further, the wide variety of laws throughout the world were written specifically to protect born human beings and their property. There is virtually no legal precedent for applying such laws to fetuses5. Even when abortion was illegal, it had a lesser punishment than for murder, and was often just a misdemeanor6. The anti-choice view of fetuses as human beings is therefore a novel and peculiar one, with little historical or legal precedent to back it up. "

just more argument evidence is all

Edited April 12, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

Because stuff dies, it ain't sacred.

That's flooping brilliant. Wow, I had no idea the intellectual giants I would be facing, who would come down with the damning cold water cause it dies argument.

Still a complete being, from the moment of conception with its own identity. That it can produce from itself a replicant isn't an argument againt it being complete.

The year 18964, eh?

Ensoulment wasn't part of my argument. My argument works on a scientific and legal level. It's a human. If you want to kill it and you're strong enough, go to town. If that's the rules you want to live by, then let's do it.

[Peter John]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1302562446' post='2227610']
You just named parts of a whole. An embryo is "part" of a human. Embryos don't lock together like legos to make a human. That's why your analogy doesn't work.

If you have balls, you say it's okay to kill helpless humans. If you're a flooping sissy, you deny personhood. Because you are gutless. Or, alternatively, stupid. Those are the options: Stupid or a big flooping sissy.
[/quote]

An embryo is a complete human being. He or she is not yet capable of surviving independently, but is no less a complete person -- not just a part of a person. He or she has not yet developed a complete body, but is still a complete person. Is someone lacking arms or legs an incomplete person? Is someone with an undeveloped cerebrum an incomplete person?

[Amppax]

[quote name='Peter John' timestamp='1302582368' post='2227730']
An embryo is a complete human being. He or she is not yet capable of surviving independently, but is no less a complete person -- not just a part of a person. He or she has not yet developed a complete body, but is still a complete person. Is someone lacking arms or legs an incomplete person? Is someone with an undeveloped cerebrum an incomplete person?
[/quote]

To continue this argument, is a child an incomplete person? The embryo is merely a stage of human development. it's not as if a child could survive on its own either, is it ok to kill a child because you cannot take care of it? If you heard of someone who killed their five day old baby (after birth) you would view that as no less grave then killing a 3 year old child. It's the same with an abortion.

[Tally Marx]

From the moment of conception, nothing is added to the embryo besides food (like born children and adults). The cell division, the growth... All that is within the embryo itself, programmed into the genetic makeup. No more is added to them, than to you.
As for them dying a lot... There are lots of children today who are imperfect, and alive only because we now have the medical/scientific knowledge to keep them so. Children with Downs, spinabifida, etc. etc. used to never live. They were rejects of nature, imperfect and doomed to death. If this was the natural course of things, are they not peolple? Imperfection does not claim inhumanity. And it is very different for a sick/deformed someone to die because we lack the knowledge to save them, than for a sick/deformed someone to die because we killed them.

As for the OP....
Today, viability is 21 weeks.
Eighty years ago, it was full term.
Has the embryo/fetus changed? Not at all. Viability has nothing to do with the unborn and everything to do with our medical knowledge.
We should not condemn them as inherently less important because WE lack skill.

[Ed Normile]

[quote]As for the OP....
Today, viability is 21 weeks.
Eighty years ago, it was full term.
Has the embryo/fetus changed? Not at all. Viability has nothing to do with the unborn and everything to do with our medical knowledge.
We should not condemn them as inherently less important because WE lack skill. [/quote]

Adding to what Tally posted above, this is due in great part to our lack of knowledge, and probably seems pitiable to God as He sees the life that child would have led from the moment of its inception.

ed

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1302569138' post='2227647']
Because stuff dies, it ain't sacred.

That's flooping brilliant. Wow, I had no idea the intellectual giants I would be facing, who would come down with the damning cold water cause it dies argument.

Still a complete being, from the moment of conception with its own identity. That it can produce from itself a replicant isn't an argument againt it being complete.

The year 18964, eh?
[/quote]
Isn't that the year Ron Conte predicts the Third (or is it Fourth?) Coming of Christ?

While I have that guy on "ignore," I gave in to morbid curiosity and just had to check out what that nonsense that was about.

The truth is that the Church has [i]never[/i] said abortion is okay, but has always taught that it is a grave evil.

But, hell, somebody said otherwise on TEH INTERNET, so we know it must be incontestable fact!


And the lizard/fish "argument" is equally moronic. I read somewhere how those famous embryo illustrations were based on some inaccurate illustrations used from way back when to prove evolution, but have since been proven inaccurate, but have become standard text-book illustrations.

My wife and I were looking at pictures in pregnancy books at pictures of a 6-week-old human embryo, and I noted how the actual in utero photographs looked nothing at all like the weird lizard or salamander-like creatures in the pen-and-ink drawings, but were recognizably human babies, although in an early stage of development.
The lizard pics may be outdated and proven scientifically inaccurate, but I suppose they're politically correct and serve the propaganda well; after all, most people will have fewer qualms about killing something that looks like a lizard or a fish than if it looks like a baby.

Even more imbecilic is the "lego" argument. Nobody stacks or connects together different embryos to make a human being (other than maybe in some Frankenstein-style monster movie).

[Socrates]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1302605925' post='2227753']
To continue this argument, is a child an incomplete person? The embryo is merely a stage of human development. it's not as if a child could survive on its own either, is it ok to kill a child because you cannot take care of it? If you heard of someone who killed their five day old baby (after birth) you would view that as no less grave then killing a 3 year old child. It's the same with an abortion.
[/quote]
Human development continues long after birth. A newborn infant is far less developed physically and mentally than a 21-year old.

If the right to life depends on development and ability, does an adult have more of a right to life than a child, and does the right to life progressively decline as a person ages past his prime?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1302648441' post='2227936']
Isn't that the year Ron Conte predicts the Third (or is it Fourth?) Coming of Christ?

[/quote]
Nah, the world ends in 9000.

[dairygirl4u2c]

on the ron conte point.
we have ten days until the 'warning'
http://www.catholicplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4505
just so it's known
his predictions have failed before. he called that B16 would be called b16 and ever since then he's thought himself a prophet of sorts. eventually his cult will scatter as it's shown he's full of it

Edited April 12, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[Amppax]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1302605925' post='2227753']
To continue this argument, is a child an incomplete person? The embryo is merely a stage of human development. it's not as if a child could survive on its own either, is it ok to kill a child because you cannot take care of it? If you heard of someone who killed their five day old baby (after birth) you would view that as no less grave then killing a 3 year old child. It's the same with an abortion.
[/quote]


[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1302648635' post='2227938']
Human development continues long after birth. A newborn infant is far less developed physically and mentally than a 21-year old.

If the right to life depends on development and ability, does an adult have more of a right to life than a child, and does the right to life progressively decline as a person ages past his prime?
[/quote]

You definitely didn't understand what I was saying. I'm not saying that the right to life depends on development, that's absurd, not sure how you got that from what I said. The questions were rhetorical, ok? I was making the point that no matter where a person is in their development, it is always gravely wrong to kill them, be it by abortion, euthanasia, etc. Going back to the point of this thread, i was arguing that an abortion would always be wrong, whether early or late, precisely because how developed a child is has no bearing on the fact that there a human being.