Miscarriage: Murder!

[zoobernut]

Not sure how I can make it more clear.

The article chosen for the OP "poisons" the argument by bringing up a separate case in a completely different state without actually discussing the reasons behind the event...

In order to make the claim that the new law means falling = murder.


I was simply pointing out that the entire discussion is ruined before it starts, but since he agreed with that "poisoning" it was fine... as soon as it's "poisoned" the other direction, it's not.

That was a very not clear way to put it and you could have just pointed out that the original article did that instead of quoting me and writing out some poorly worded sentence. There are lots of ways to make it more clear. Also our argument about when a "human life" begins had very little to do with the original argument.

But ok at least now we know what you were trying to say.

[Plow]

Fetus is to a human as what

a Caterpillar is a butterfly
a maggot to a fly
tadpole is to a frog

It's life but there are legitimate arguments as to when a fetus stops becoming a parasite and becomes its own entity.

generally agreed to be at about 18 years



and yeah I guess I should have "I don't know how but I'll try" ;p

and I haven't finished reading thread yet lol, just pointing small stuff out as I see it

[Ksandra]

plow stop putting everything in quotes, you're making me read what your saying in Chris Farley's voice and that's not helping you any.

[Rhinox]

[Plow]

I was just doing it cuz poisoned is not the word I would have used ><

But in all seriousness, if you guys don't gain some respect for life you're going to end up having abortions in a van down by the river.

[Pirian]

plow stop putting everything in quotes, you're making me read what your saying in Chris Farley's voice and that's not helping you any.

See I'm what you call a "Motivational Speaker"


blah blah blah

live in a van down by the river

[Ksandra]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uecapxuY-k

See I'm what you call a "Motivational Speaker"


blah blah blah

live in a van down by the river

<3 the skit but not the right one. They don't have it on youtube so here's the hulu version:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/2331/satur...bennett-brauer

[Plow]

wow forgot all about that one >.>

pretty sure he does it a few times as foley tho

[Mayareira]

Redrum, Redrum!

[Plow]

Until the organism stops dividing to develop and starts dividing to grow, it is not alive. You don't get any more scientific than that.

bolded = essentially never, unless you have degenerative issues, in which case it can even be argued that often development technically increases but is simply overridden by loss

The human life as a technical argument thing is silly, sperm and eggs function as individual organisms produced and supported by the body, and come together to form a new human organism.

It's not a dog, it's not strawberry jelly, it's a human.


The question is at what point it gains rights.

The more reasonable of either side will generally agree either at conception, at the fetal stage, or somewhere in between.

The outliers on the anti-abortion side will tend towards all out birth control, masturbation, etc. being wrong, the outliers on the other side will stretch into the 3rd trimester.


What's more interesting about this is what Ivve went into, where do we establish limits on being a "bad" parent?

Do they have to be downright like violently endangering kids for the law to step in? Or can the law step in because they think McDonald's 6 days a week is abuse?

Same deal in both discussions though, the problem is establishing a middle ground when there will always be those on both sides utterly unwilling to accept anything less than 100% of their belief on the matter.


It seems to me that the people behind the law had reasonable intentions, something akin to "well if you're out drinking your ass off and driving around like an idiot and you cause harm to an unborn baby through sheer negligence/stupidity, you're going to get into some extra trouble." But it is obviously a really slippery slope.

It's really unfortunate that it's common enough to be an issue, too.

[kuronosan]

Plow, who the hell invited you and your flip-flopping devil's advocate bullshit into the topic?

bolded = essentially never, unless you have degenerative issues, in which case it can even be argued that often development technically increases but is simply overridden by loss

Once an organism has developed all of its organs and its stem cells have almost totally differentiated (other than the peripheral and marrow stem cells that stay with you throughout adulthood) it is done developing and then starts to actually grow. From then on out, everything is a function of growth and not development.

It can never be argued that development technically increases but is simply overridden by loss. Your body has a finite supply of chromosomes that begin to degenerate after the loss of your telomeres. Your body degenerates every time your cells divide, by a few nucleotides at a time.

Overridden by loss? Your body is always regenerating lost cells, that's why your cells divide, genius. If development 'technically' increased you would either have cancer or you'd fucking be Wolverine. The reason we die or age is because our ability to replace lost or damaged tissue declines as we get older, and once cardiac muscle is lost your heart stops beating. Hence, why the majority of old folks die of heart failure or kidney failure.

Certain cells cannot be replaced once they are made, and that amount of cells grows the older we get.

I can't stand it when you mosey into a topic thinking you know what the fuck when you just talk unbelievable amounts of shit.

The reason this 'technical crap' is important is because it helps distinguish what is actually a functional organism and what is just a bag of fucking cells, regardless of species.

There is a pretty stark difference between a human being and a human that has yet to be.

[Demosthenes11]

why is it that I can't stop agreeing with every single post kuya makes lately?
officially call me a dickrider

[Plow]

Plow, who the hell invited you and your flip-flopping devil's advocate bullshit into the topic?

Nice to see you too, buddy, I'm sure you'll have lots of brilliant insight and friendly conversation to add.

Once an organism has developed all of its organs and its stem cells have almost totally differentiated (other than the peripheral and marrow stem cells that stay with you throughout adulthood) it is done developing and then starts to actually grow. From then on out, everything is a function of growth and not development.

Growth and sustenance are both maintained through development. This is not a tough concept, we don't consume brain cells and simply slide them into place as we lose old ones.

It can never be argued that development technically increases but is simply overridden by loss. Your body has a finite supply of chromosomes that begin to degenerate after the loss of your telomeres. Your body degenerates every time your cells divide, by a few nucleotides at a time.

Overridden by loss? Your body is always regenerating lost cells, that's why your cells divide, genius. If development 'technically' increased you would either have cancer or you'd fucking be Wolverine. The reason we die or age is because our ability to replace lost or damaged tissue declines as we get older, and once cardiac muscle is lost your heart stops beating. Hence, why the majority of old folks die of heart failure or kidney failure.

Certain cells cannot be replaced once they are made, and that amount of cells grows the older we get.

I can't stand it when you mosey into a topic thinking you know what the fuck when you just talk unbelievable amounts of shit.

I was most directly referring to degenerative conditions such as Alzheimer's, and similar diseases that affect the brain and different parts of the body, most commonly muscles and bones themselves.

They can trigger increased development as a response to the atrophy, but it's not enough to keep pace with the degeneration.

The reason this 'technical crap' is important is because it helps distinguish what is actually a functional organism and what is just a bag of fucking cells, regardless of species.

There is a pretty stark difference between a human being and a human that has yet to be.

There's a pretty stark difference between a baby and you or me, too. You certainly can't say that baby has finished developing and is exclusively now growing.

[Ivve]

why is it that I can't stop agreeing with every single post kuya makes lately?
officially call me a dickrider

I'm so relieved you're making it official! Nothing worse than dickriding in sin.

[kuronosan]

Growth and sustenance are both maintained through development. This is not a tough concept, we don't consume brain cells and simply slide them into place as we lose old ones.

You're confusing development with growth, Plow. Development is when cells divide until they reach a stage where mitosis/meiosis is no longer used to differentiate cells. Growth would be the constant replacement of red blood cells or bone tissue. Your red cells develop from a stem cell into a red blood cell, they don't grow - yes. A human being, however, while they can develop into an adult, do not 'develop' into adults on a cellular level. Their cells divide and facilitate growth.

I was most directly referring to degenerative conditions such as Alzheimer's, and similar diseases that affect the brain and different parts of the body, most commonly muscles and bones themselves.

Degenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's use your own body's degenerative capabilities (similar to how your body breaks down bone to remake bone) in order to cause this to happen. So yes, you are correct. This same process is a little different in muscle. Your body doesn't break down muscle to make new muscle. Exercise or atrophy breaks down muscle and it is only replaced when the body has a reason to replace it.

They can trigger increased development as a response to the atrophy, but it's not enough to keep pace with the degeneration.

But here again, Plow - you don't 'develop' new muscle. You grow new muscle. Muscle cells may develop, but in the general term of development used in relation to a developing organism you are not developing muscle. You are replacing it. The body can only work so fast with the amount of nutrients, enzymes, and cells it contains. The reason why degenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's are so dangerous is because they often break down tissues that cannot be replaced. Liver tissue regenerates. Nerve tissue does not.

There's a pretty stark difference between a baby and you or me, too. You certainly can't say that baby has finished developing and is exclusively now growing.

In terms of an organism, it has finished developing. If you're talking about human development using a broad term, then you are correct. Human beings never stop developing. If you're talking about humans in terms of the organism made up of cells, they stop 'development' once they become a fetus and from then on out the body is simply growing and reacting normally.

Why else do you think puberty takes so long to onset? It's not because it's a magic time and the body feels right. Social and chemical changes (and even genetic factors) determine when the body is ready to release sufficient levels of hormones to start. Puberty is starting at a younger age these days because of many factors.

I dunno how else to put it. Women develop breasts, but in terms of development the breasts are always there, they just haven't grown yet.

[Olo401]

Also, is anyone else concerned by people who seem to care more about fetuses than they do about babies that have made it as far as being born? I don't see a big movement from these pro-life people forcing parents to quit smoking or give their kids vitamins every day. AS LONG AS THEY GET BORN, WHO GIVES A SHIT WHAT HAPPENS NEXT, AMIRITE

I'm glad someone brought this up, because the same fucking morons who march in front of Planned Parenthood offices shouting that abortion is murder are the exact same fucking morons who want to stop health care reform that could potentially keep poor children who have already been born alive, and who want to cut funding that feeds, clothes, provides shelter and education to poor children. Love the fetus, ignore the child - That's the mantra.

[Uzor]

I'm glad someone brought this up, because the same fucking morons who march in front of Planned Parenthood offices shouting that abortion is murder are the exact same fucking morons who want to stop health care reform that could potentially keep poor children who have already been born alive, and who want to cut funding that feeds, clothes, provides shelter and education to poor children. Love the fetus, ignore the child - That's the mantra.

That's because a health care reform would affect then economically. You can't have unknown children eating food YOUR money bought, now can you?

[Restrat]

no, that certainly wouldn't be very Christian like!

[Izzy]

http://i.somethingawful.com/u/garbag.../Goreld_01.jpg

That thread made me laugh pretty good.

[Mizango]

Oh man this is rich.