Hambone

I am arguing about cellular semantics?  I thought this was about abortion and the fact that the fetus is a human. Maybe I should repost that article here for you. 

 

If you have something to say Hambone about cells and what not, just say it.  You have been saying nothing for 2 pages now.  This isn't a guessing game and I am getting bored.  I made my argument 2 pages ago that the fetus is human and that it can feel pain.  You said it didn't.  What I want to know now is what do you have to say to counter those FACTS that those websites stated?  If it doens't come out soon, I am going to put this thread to rest.

Well, you could dodge some questions a little more, I'm trying to help lead you to a conclusion. I full explained the whole deal on fetal pain,

if

you

would

just

READ!

http://www.gamrs.co/forums/in...5&t=3225&st=100

It's there chief, look real hard.

Babies Are Stupid

If abortionismurder.org can sneak up in the topic, respond to this.

The ultimate goal of Buddhism is to end the cycle of rebirth. The general goal is not always the bodhissatva (pardon the spelling) path either. Heaven is typically a reward for the soul, and Buddhism denies the soul, atman, whatever name you want to attach to it. There is no personal identity, we are all simply transient bundles of energy which are doomed to seperate and reform until the cycle can be broken. Gods aren't even worshipped, they are simply beings that have not attained Nirvana yet. The Buddhist concept of Nirvana is not analogous to Heaven.

Pwnd!

you

It is important, I don't know how you can fail to recognize that. You're arguing about cellular semantics, and you hardly know what a cell is. That sounds more hypocritical to me than any abortion-performing doctor. And please be more specific on what you want me to adress in your sacred article. That pregnancy quote came from an article you quoted to support your argument. Please tell me why pregancy increases maternal health, that was what the article said.

I love it. Some of the jokes are too esoteric for kids, but they're hilarious! Good show for all ag3s.

sad

And as for the question of cell differences, feel free to answer that one to. I'll be dissapointed if I have to explain, but I'm sensing that I'm going to have to.

Some reasons by doctors documented

Those are satisfactory reasons, but not nearly all. It doesn't mention the mentally healthy, satisfied doctors that have the mental fortitude to be scorned by people like you and not particularly care. I'll pursue that route no further. To illustrate my point though, please explain this quote. You're using the article to prove your points, surely you understand this and wouldn't mind elaborating:

"Why is the birth of a child a "devastating" event when it has been proven that pregnancy even greatly enhances the health of the mother?"

he isn't attacking your intelligence, he is simply saying that you do not have enough knowledge in the feild of biology to understand the workings of cells and cell structures.  And maybe you do need to be more educated in the feild of biology to understand what you've read, and posted.

Precisely. And I already adressed that article, please see above post.

seagull

Asi Asi

Fetuses generate electricity and display fixed action responses, why don't you read what I wrote again. I thought the computer analogy would be sufficient; excuse me for assuming. Pain is relative, there is no physical entity called pain. Pain is a result of series of chemical and electrical interactions between a region of neurons and the brain, which is not excessively developed in a fetus like yours or mine. I hoped my Reader's Digest explanation of how a neuron works would help you to see that "pain" should not be your defining characteristic for evidence of human life; again, a poor assumption by me. I've answered some trivial notions you've brought up, now it's time to pay the piper. You have not come up with one satisfactory answer to my doctor question. I find that remarkable. I can live with that though. But you don't understand cells either. Here's the problem with this: you're talking to me about nerve cells, pain, cranial interpretation, and you don't know anything about the biology behind it other than the oversimplified reading from your source. Your knowledge is not sufficient to continue a biological justification for a pro-life stance, you just don't know enough about biology. What you know is apparently based solely on short articles, some of which are from questionable sources like "abortionismurder.org". You just plainly don't know what you're defending; the trend is for less of your words and more quotes from some sources. Do more background research in biology instead of blindly quoting sources, there's some things I'm having to explain that I shouldn't. Pain does not indicate that something is human. I'm trying hard to avoid insults, but that point needed to be made. You tried to convince me a sperm is not living, I can quote that if necessary. That's just one example of why your opinion of what "life" and "human" is questionable.

Morals, speaking of which. Money so far, is the only response coming from my doctor question. There really is a quite simple answer, but it would involved taking an opposite point of view to what all of you pro-life advocates have apparently lived with perpetually. Prove me wrong if you can, I'd like to hear some independent thought.

So what you're attempting to explain is, the only way it feels pain is if the mother does something?  Would it be able to feel something coming inside and slicing it open?  I don't mean the general reaction of the brian.  I mean would it feel the pain just as much as we would?

No, read more carefully. The necesities for "pain" are ions involved in an active trasport to produce electricity. If you "don't mean the general reacion of the brian," what do you mean? Pain is brain is pain. There is no pain without developed "brian". So no, it would not be able to "feel the pain just as much as we would." That was my point....

When you eat eggs in the morning, are you eating a chicken?  No, you are eating an unfertilized egg of the chicken.  There is no chicken because the male did not fertilize it.

No comment.

Ok.  Read the links I posted.  Sperm are nothing but an extension of the man's body.  It isn't a human.  No more than a drop of blood is.  Sperm's mission is to fertilize the egg to create a human, so before this is done, it is just an extension of the male.  It is not a human being but can be a part of one.  So you can not compare sperm to the actual fetus.  It isn't the same.

The reason I asked you the second question, about the differences between three cells I listed, was because you're trying to champion the rights of something you don't understand. If I recall correctly, you tried to convince me that a sperm and an egg cell were not living in the previous abortion thread, so it wouldn't hurt you to know a thing or two about cell life cycle and anatomy.

PAIN

 

Documented proof that the fetus can feel pain.

 

 

Pain can be detected when nociceptors (pain receptors) discharge electrical impulses to the spinal cord and brain. These fire impulses outward, telling the muscles and body to react. These can be measured. Mountcastle, Medical Physiology, St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, pp. 391-427 "Lip tactile response may be evoked by the end of the 7th week. At 11 weeks, the face and all parts of the upper and lower extremities are sensitive to touch. By 13 1/2 to 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except for the back and the top of the head, are sensitive to pain."  S. Reinis & J. Goldman, The Development of the Brain C. Thomas Pub., 1980

 

"The fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain. Without doubt a partial birth abortion is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant. R. White, Dir. Neurosurgery & Brain Research, Case Western Univ.  

Here's your well-thought out "post" (quotes) about Pain. The quotes you supplied us state that a fetus feels pain because it's nerve cells are active. First of all, let's give these a name. We'll call the generic nerve cell a "neuron," terminology is one of my peeves. "By 13 1/2 to 14 weeks", nerve cells are well differntiated, poorly defined. I'm positive you don't know how a neuron works, so I'll explain the oversimplified, typical activity. A neuron operates something rather famous called the Na+/K+ pump, an active transport to create an electrical gradient which can then be used to generate enough electricity for an impulse to the brain for interpretation. So a fetus produces electricity, and responds to certain stimuli. Great. A battery produces electricity, Paramecium responds to stimuli. Remember the fixed action responses we talked about in the first abortion thread? This isn't different. Evolution is totally foolish, I agree, but if for some reason you were to believe it, fixed responses developed as early as kingdom Monera, using the 5-kingdom taxonomy. A fetus displays fixed action reponses, it's not developed enough to even call instinct. Now, back to the sodium/pottasium pump. The only, I repeat, only way a fetus can obtain these two ions is from the mother. So if you're saying a fetus is human because it can experience pain, this is just a consequence of diet. Some days it would be more human than others. But that's not even the point. I'll use an analogy that everyone here can understand. Put your Half-Life disc into a Pentium 4, 2.3GHz computer. It will run well. Put the same disc into a Pentium 6-week-old, 50MHz computer. It will try to run, it will not be functional. You can zap a fetus' brain with all the electricity it can produce. The only response it will elicit is fixed action response. This is just simple brain mechanics and knowledge of development. A field sometimes called "psychology", which chuckleslove affectionately calls "totally bogus". One other thing from that site, "Thumbsucking has been photographed at 7 weeks after fertilization." Show me a picture of a 7 week old fetus and tell me why this ever so slightly might have been synthesized. Moving on...

Impatient guy aren't you? Well, I'm going to go point by point until it becomes tedious, retyping things I've already said. Let's go, CBH first.

Why would a doctor perform an abortion? Dude, money. And if you don't want an abortion to happen adopt the kid. Some parents would agree with that. But even the most evil man in america, me, is against abortion. The kids that have their chance on life could just become the doctor that saves YOUR kid from cancer or a disease in the future. These people have just as much right to live as anyone else. And if you're for abortion, you should have been aborted. All be it, the kid could become the next Hitler, maybe not, but life is not like "hitting the reset button." You can't just erase your 'mistake.' You had sex, you got her pregnant, or you got pregnant, it was YOUR choice. And if it was rape, well, I don't have the answer for that. But give the kid a chance, he could become a top student or even the next Chuck Norris

Again, to jump at "money" barely shows surface level comprehension of the logic and thought process of the doctor. You don't know the reasons if all you say is "money". You talk about the possibilities of the kid which are being taken away. I discussed this already in the other abortion thread, but I'll retype it for your reading satisfaction. Ok, maybe the kid will be great. Maybe he won't. The point is, does it matter? Is not fertilization the random combination of gametes anyways? 1/10,000,000 sperm x 1/30,000 eggs is totally random anways. The other 99,999,999 sperm and 29,700 eggs (on average for eggs), die, just as if they were aborted. Why not? The end result is the same, so chance is the same thing as an abortion in actuality. The unfertilized eggs and sperm, and all their "potential," die. But no one ever hears about giving them a chance.

Geico

[i am really at a loss as to how you are going to dispute the facts.  Time?  You seem to have a lot of time to keep posting these long posts again and again.  I have a good idea where you are going in regards to zygotes and cells and all of that.  My links disproves the idea that the fetus, cell, zygote, etc is nothing but a cell, parasite as you once called it. You can take all the time you want to dig up something to try and dispute the information I posted, but you can't.  It is BIOLOGICAL fact.  It is a human, plain and simple.

Bluntly, you're flat wrong

I'm writing two English papers, one ironically about inhumanity of certain modern laws. Wait. I have lots to say. Time, as I said, is my issue.

I'm still waiting on responses to my two assertions. The answer is "my doctor doesn't perform abortions," or doctors who perform abortions are evil and corrupt. It is not "things that do not matter to this topic of abortion." No one here understands abortion morals and ethics. Again I ask, why would a doctor perform an abortion? I need one satisfactory response. And another "things that do not matter to this topic of abortion", my question about the fundamanetal differences between cell types is essential. The pro-life stances I've read so far are the champions of fetal rights. I've read everything from morning-after treatments are evil, to Playaa's view that rape victims should be forced to carry to term, "that's what adoption is for" or something to that extent. So tell me, fetal activists, what you know about the zygote in the context of my previously asked question. Do you even know what you are defending? Give me links to articles; they mean something to me, but what do they mean to you? Two questions have sticky ends here, satisfy me.

ZD, in response to getting off topic and being "proven wrong," I am doing neither. The questions I ask are the topic, and you provided me with a lot of information at once. I will respond to your points, I'm not avoiding them. Time is an issue for me at the moment, don't misunderstand me.

One more thing for pro-life people. I want someone to tell me, using appropriate terminology, about the differences between a typical muscle cell, a cancer cell (pick a fun one if you love specifics: lung, colon, breast), and a zygote. Talk to me intelligently about cell structure and anatomy, metabolic activity, and DNA. When your done talking about the differences in those three categories, let's talk about legal rights of each cell.

Fascinating, but it could have been summed up by "I can't." I'm not misinformed. Neither is a person probably majoring in Biology/Biochem, attending 4 years of medical school, and possibly further education. M.D.s aren't handed out to people who don't understand the workings and science of the human body. Anyone else care to venture a reason? So far I'm thoroughly convinced that no one here can figure out why a doctor would perform an abortion.

Time