Miscarriage: Murder!

[Colenzo]

lol why are you guys even talking about secretions so gross

[zoobernut]

lol why are you guys even talking about secretions so gross

Because I plan on making a chicken that will endlessly secrete fried chicken from its chicken nipples. I need to understand DNA and hormones and shit.

[Plow]

Um did you even read my post or look up what Witches Milk is? (Galactorrhea)

The secretion glands don't suddenly appear at puberty you are born with them. In fact males and females are both born with the secretion glands. The only thing that puberty does is allow for them to become larger and produce more tissue so they can produce larger amounts of milk.

Yes hormones cause witches milk but the milk is coming from *gasp* the secretion glands already present in the babies body. Hormones from the mother are just the triggering factor. Also this is rare but a baby born with a tumor on the right gland will cause unusual hormone levels to be secreted which can cause the same thing so it isn't always the mother and it isn't always caused by puberty.

Again you are confusing development with growth.

you're misunderstanding

the hormones cause the baby to develop secretion glands, and the intensity of them causes them to actually secrete

when removed from the hormones, the secretion glands go away and are not rebuilt


you're right, they don't "suddenly" appear, their development is triggered by high estrogen levels and progesterone

[kuronosan]

you're misunderstanding

the hormones cause the baby to develop secretion glands, and the intensity of them causes them to actually secrete

when removed from the hormones, the secretion glands go away and are not rebuilt


you're right, they don't "suddenly" appear, their development is triggered by high estrogen levels and progesterone

As I was saying, the hormones cause the secretion glands to grow. They are already present (and very small and under 'developed'). There is no hormone 'intensity'. There is only quantity. The higher the quantity, the higher the mechanism of action. This is all controlled by the nervous system, mind you.ine levels. Growth is triggered by hormone levels. Ever heard of human growth hormone? It's not called human developmental hormone. Heard of Testosterone? It doesn't cause penis development or testicular development. It causes growth and differentiation. Action and reaction. Like 99% of all hormones in your body, it causes an effect which is often making something more pronounced (such as tissue, which grows... it doesn't 'develop').

Development on a biological level is the action of a cell becoming what it was designed to do. Stem cells develop into Mammary tissue. That mammary tissue then amasses and grows into breasts. Stem cells develop into immune cells, or keratinized cells, or whatever cells, all influenced by gene expression and hormone signaling. Once a cell has developed, it cannot develop further. It either grows in number, forming a tissue, or it dies.

So as I said before. While we're arguing semantics on a tight issue of what a fetus is or isn't and when it is or isn't human... you are still wrong on human development.

Plow, you're way out of your element here.

[zoobernut]

Again Kuronosan is spot on. When you are born your body is fully developed. The only part of you that is incomplete and continues to develop after birth is the brain and your bones. Bones continue to calcify and the brain continues to develop new neural pathways and structures.

Plow you are still wrong about the glands on the breasts. The glands that secrete milk are fully developed and exist when you are born. They are done developing the only effect that hormones have on those glands are they cause the glands to grow larger.

Again difference between development and growth on a biological level.

[archibaldcrane]

And whether you are developing, or growing, you're a live human organism.

Just wanted to bring it back home for the kiddies

[Beckwin]

you can be an organism developing into a human, or you can be a human that is growing

stop trying to have your cake and eat it too, archi

[Demosthenes11]

does anyone else find it hilarious that people care so much about this argument and it's all based on arbitrary definitions?

[mightyg]

Infant mortality rate is somewhere around 6/1000 supposedly. That's just at birth.

[archibaldcrane]

you can be an organism

What species is that organism?

om nom nom this cake is delicious.

[Beckwin]

the same that a cancer cell found in a human is.

in general it doesn't affect my stance either way; viability is the dividing line for me personally. but don't try to pervert the science (in this case, development vs. growth) in order to support your stance/ride the fence/antagonize.

does anyone else find it hilarious that people care so much about this argument and it's all based on arbitrary definitions?

does anyone else find it hilarious that definitions stop mattering when they don't support your argument?

[archibaldcrane]

the same that a cancer cell found in a human is.

A cancer cell in a human is not an organism.

[zoobernut]

And whether you are developing, or growing, you're a live human organism.

Just wanted to bring it back home for the kiddies

Nah in the beginning you are just cells. Cell life but not human life.

[archibaldcrane]

Nah in the beginning you are just cells. Cell life but not human life.

Nah.

Even Beckwin agrees that you are an organism.

[ZarakiKujata]

can't be arsed to read the thread so dunno if anybody brought this up yet but, if the babies had guns maybe their mothers wouldn't be able to murder them.

[Beckwin]

I might've been incorrect to use the term organism:

In biology, an organism is any living system (such as animal, plant, fungus, or micro-organism). In at least some form, all organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole.

I dunno if an early zygote/fetus/whatever is capable of maintaining it's own homeostasis. I'll let the bio/med guys clear that up though. And at the earlier stages, I don't think there's much in the way of response to stimuli. Definitely do not possess ability to reproduce in their current stage of development.

[Kerberoz]

Page 8 and it's still about semantics? Wish I could say I was surprised..

[Beckwin]

and yes, by the way, this is all relevant because of the framing involved with the argument "it's just like killing a human!" to claim it's the same as killing a developed, highly-conscious, independent human being is dishonest.

[archibaldcrane]

I might've been incorrect to use the term organism:



I dunno if an early zygote/fetus/whatever is capable of maintaining it's own homeostasis. I'll let the bio/med guys clear that up though. And at the earlier stages, I don't think there's much in the way of response to stimuli. Definitely do not possess ability to reproduce in their current stage of development.

Tons of single-cellular organisms maintain homeostasis - bacteria, fungis, etc. - what is your basis for questioning whether a multi-cellular human organism in zygote form can?

Single cellular organisms also respond to stimuli.

A 2 year old girl is not able to reproduce in her current state of development, but she's still an organism.

Anything else? It seems like the argument is "it's really small, it couldn't possibly do the same things that trillions of other single-cellular and microscopic multi-cellular organisms do!" I don't understand that logic.

[archibaldcrane]

and yes, by the way, this is all relevant because of the framing involved with the argument "it's just like killing a human!" to claim it's the same as killing a developed, highly-conscious, independent human being is dishonest.

The framing is dishonest, the comparisons are dishonest, calling a fetus a "baby" is dishonest.

Calling the life form "human" is not.