[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[The New California Republic]

What is meant by reproduction in this sense is the ability for the cells of the organism to reproduce themselves in order for the organism to grow and keep living.

Nope. That's not what was meant, as shown by the fact that reproduction and cell mitosis are two separate and distinct points:

5. The Art of Reproduction

10. Cell Mitosis

[Celritannia]

There are actually sacks of potatoes with higher levels of intelligence than some of the arguments presented ITT the past couple of pages, jfc.

I don’t think its lack of intelligence, just misinformation that’s spread and become a staple in media due to the influence of the pro abortion lobby. Many people don’t realize how much lobbying is done by these groups

But what is the percentage of abortions carried out by Planned Parenthood next to the other things they do?
They help with so much more than just abortions.

[The New California Republic]

I don’t think its lack of intelligence, just misinformation that’s spread and become a staple in media due to the influence of the pro abortion lobby. Many people don’t realize how much lobbying is done by these groups

Misinformation like...?

Fuck knows.

[Godular]

There are actually sacks of potatoes with higher levels of intelligence than some of the arguments presented ITT the past couple of pages, jfc.

orly.

Which ones?

Come on now, don't be shy.

[Neanderthaland]

Not necessarily. Cork stoppers have cells in them but they're not alive.

Cork cells aren’t alive, they don’t undergo cell respiration

Cells are immaterial to this argument. If I scratch my nose, I'm killing a large number of nucleic human cells. No one seems to care.

[Kexholm Karelia]

Cork cells aren’t alive, they don’t undergo cell respiration

Cells are immaterial to this argument. If I scratch my nose, I'm killing a large number of nucleic human cells. No one seems to care.

I agree, I was just pointing out the difference between a cork cell and fetal cells. However looking at individual cells isn’t the point of it, but rather that together the fetal cells form a living organism

[Neanderthaland]

Cells are immaterial to this argument. If I scratch my nose, I'm killing a large number of nucleic human cells. No one seems to care.

I agree, I was just pointing out the difference between a cork cell and fetal cells. However looking at individual cells isn’t the point of it, but rather that together the fetal cells form a living organism

To the extent that a fetus is a living organism, it is not an independent living organism. Or able to sustain homeostasis. It lacks coherent or capable neurology. It metabolically acts as though it is a part of the body in which it is contained, and can be fairly treated as such.

[San Lumen]

Fetuses can not sexually reproduce and don't breathe.

Fetuses, however, have sexual organs, and that constitutes as potential to reproduce, which is really all that matters since then a prepubescent child would be considered not alive as well. As for breathing, they still do it, just not in the way out of womb humans do. Cell respiration is a form of breathing, and that’s exactly what a fetus does.

That doesn’t mean it’s a life that has rights. It a fetus is a human being why doesn’t the census count them?

Did you know about half of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus for unknown reasons? If life begins at conception wouldn’t that make every woman whose had more than period a serial killer?

[Kexholm Karelia]

That doesn’t mean it’s a life that has rights. It a fetus is a human being why doesn’t the census count them?

What kind of argument is this supposed to be?

Did you know about half of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus for unknown reasons? If life begins at conception wouldn’t that make every woman whose had more than period a serial killer?

I’m not seeing where that conclusion came from, please elaborate

[San Lumen]

That doesn’t mean it’s a life that has rights. It a fetus is a human being why doesn’t the census count them?

What kind of argument is this supposed to be?

Did you know about half of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus for unknown reasons? If life begins at conception wouldn’t that make every woman whose had more than period a serial killer?

I’m not seeing where that conclusion came from, please elaborate

If a fetus is a person why aren’t they included in the population count?

If life begins at conception then shouldn’t that be how one looks at it?

Here is another question should a stillborn be investigated as a potential homicide?

[Godular]

Cells are immaterial to this argument. If I scratch my nose, I'm killing a large number of nucleic human cells. No one seems to care.

I agree, I was just pointing out the difference between a cork cell and fetal cells. However looking at individual cells isn’t the point of it, but rather that together the fetal cells form a living organism

What about it?

[The Spook Who Sat By The Door]

What kind of argument is this supposed to be?

I’m not seeing where that conclusion came from, please elaborate

If a fetus is a person why aren’t they included in the population count?

If life begins at conception then shouldn’t that be how one looks at it?

Here is another question should a stillborn be investigated as a potential homicide?

I guess some people feel like they can win arguments by asking questions that are so ridiculously stupid that their opponents just walk away.

[San Lumen]

If a fetus is a person why aren’t they included in the population count?

If life begins at conception then shouldn’t that be how one looks at it?

Here is another question should a stillborn be investigated as a potential homicide?

I guess some people feel like they can win arguments by asking questions that are so ridiculously stupid that their opponents just walk away.

No its meant the show the absurdity of their argument.

[The Spook Who Sat By The Door]

I guess some people feel like they can win arguments by asking questions that are so ridiculously stupid that their opponents just walk away.

No its meant the show the absurdity of their argument.

Obviously you believe that's what it's "meant" to do. For people who enjoy rhetoric and logic, that's not what it does. It reeks of immaturity and desperation.

[The Marlborough]

What is meant by reproduction in this sense is the ability for the cells of the organism to reproduce themselves in order for the organism to grow and keep living.

Nope. That's not what was meant, as shown by the fact that reproduction and cell mitosis are two separate and distinct points:

5. The Art of Reproduction

10. Cell Mitosis

Oy vey this thing again. First of all I was speaking at the individual level, in which case something like homeostasis and the ability for one's own cells to replicate is the more important characteristic to determine life in regards to reproduction since there were these bizarre arguments made that lacking gonads meant a fetus is a not alive. Which is blatantly absurd. What they are talking about for point 5 is population level reproduction. A population needs to be able to reproduce or else it goes extinct; not every individual within that population however has to reproduce or even have the capability of reproducing. Otherwise not just fetuses would be considered not alive: women who have hit menopause, people infertile from birth, anyone who undergoes a sex reassignment surgery, eunuchs, people who voluntarily become infertile so on. Hell one could push this argument to say that until puberty, no one is alive. And if none of these groups are alive then much like fetuses, they also wouldn't have rights.

The only person to offer a decent argument is Senkaku on the basis of things such as nutrient intake and waste management. Which Senkaku I forgot to reply on but in terms of waste management, that is handled by the placenta which is a fetal organ, not a maternal organ. It's temporary but technically is an organ of the fetus, not the mother which covers both waste management and nutrition. That the fetus is dependent upon the mother for nutrients is generally considered irrelevant since there are numerous species in which not all members participate in the acquisition of food or at least primarily do not do so eg queen ants which, ideally, spend as little time as possible on their own before establishing their own colony after which the vast majority, if not all, of their food intake will come from foragers. That a fetus can intake nutrients and convert it into energy is considered sufficient given the stage of development and particular circumstances.

[The Marlborough]

What kind of argument is this supposed to be?

I’m not seeing where that conclusion came from, please elaborate

If a fetus is a person why aren’t they included in the population count?

If life begins at conception then shouldn’t that be how one looks at it?

Here is another question should a stillborn be investigated as a potential homicide?

Stillbirths are by and large caused by natural causes such as infection, problems with the placenta, the umbilical cord wrapping around the neck, etc. I assume you're referring to the case out of California of that woman charged with murder after she continued using meth which was linked to her child being stillborn. Cases like that are not common and not the cause of most stillbirths.

[Godular]

Nope. That's not what was meant, as shown by the fact that reproduction and cell mitosis are two separate and distinct points:

5. The Art of Reproduction

10. Cell Mitosis

Oy vey this thing again. First of all I was speaking at the individual level, in which case something like homeostasis and the ability for one's own cells to replicate is the more important characteristic to determine life in regards to reproduction since there were these bizarre arguments made that lacking gonads meant a fetus is a not alive. Which is blatantly absurd. What they are talking about for point 5 is population level reproduction. A population needs to be able to reproduce or else it goes extinct; not every individual within that population however has to reproduce or even have the capability of reproducing. Otherwise not just fetuses would be considered not alive: women who have hit menopause, people infertile from birth, anyone who undergoes a sex reassignment surgery, eunuchs, people who voluntarily become infertile so on. Hell one could push this argument to say that until puberty, no one is alive. And if none of these groups are alive then much like fetuses, they also wouldn't have rights.

The only person to offer a decent argument is Senkaku on the basis of things such as nutrient intake and waste management. Which Senkaku I forgot to reply on but in terms of waste management, that is handled by the placenta which is a fetal organ, not a maternal organ. It's temporary but technically is an organ of the fetus, not the mother which covers both waste management and nutrition. That the fetus is dependent upon the mother for nutrients is generally considered irrelevant since there are numerous species in which not all members participate in the acquisition of food or at least primarily do not do so eg queen ants which, ideally, spend as little time as possible on their own before establishing their own colony after which the vast majority, if not all, of their food intake will come from foragers. That a fetus can intake nutrients and convert it into energy is considered sufficient given the stage of development and particular circumstances.

So what does the life thing have to do with anything?

I mean... y'all have rather impressively gotten off track. I mean, not just you but in general.

[The Marlborough]

So what does the life thing have to do with anything?

I mean... y'all have rather impressively gotten off track. I mean, not just you but in general.

Because some have been making the argument that fetuses are not actually alive which must come as a shock to the biologists that study embryology.

[Godular]

So what does the life thing have to do with anything?

I mean... y'all have rather impressively gotten off track. I mean, not just you but in general.

Because some have been making the argument that fetuses are not actually alive which must come as a shock to the biologists that study embryology.

I HATE that track... mostly because it's a trivial concern in the grand scheme of things.

[Katganistan]

even if that means a a child is forced to give birth and face permanent health issues as a result?

Reductio ad absurdum

How, when it's an actual case?

[Katganistan]

If a fetus is a person why aren’t they included in the population count?

If life begins at conception then shouldn’t that be how one looks at it?

Here is another question should a stillborn be investigated as a potential homicide?

I guess some people feel like they can win arguments by asking questions that are so ridiculously stupid that their opponents just walk away.

Those questions are the logical ones to ask someone who has insisted on the points being argued.

[Senkaku]

Oy vey this thing again. First of all I was speaking at the individual level, in which case something like homeostasis and the ability for one's own cells to replicate is the more important characteristic to determine life in regards to reproduction since there were these bizarre arguments made that lacking gonads meant a fetus is a not alive. Which is blatantly absurd. What they are talking about for point 5 is population level reproduction. A population needs to be able to reproduce or else it goes extinct; not every individual within that population however has to reproduce or even have the capability of reproducing. Otherwise not just fetuses would be considered not alive: women who have hit menopause, people infertile from birth, anyone who undergoes a sex reassignment surgery, eunuchs, people who voluntarily become infertile so on. Hell one could push this argument to say that until puberty, no one is alive. And if none of these groups are alive then much like fetuses, they also wouldn't have rights.

The only person to offer a decent argument is Senkaku on the basis of things such as nutrient intake and waste management. Which Senkaku I forgot to reply on but in terms of waste management, that is handled by the placenta which is a fetal organ, not a maternal organ. It's temporary but technically is an organ of the fetus, not the mother which covers both waste management and nutrition. That the fetus is dependent upon the mother for nutrients is generally considered irrelevant since there are numerous species in which not all members participate in the acquisition of food or at least primarily do not do so eg queen ants which, ideally, spend as little time as possible on their own before establishing their own colony after which the vast majority, if not all, of their food intake will come from foragers. That a fetus can intake nutrients and convert it into energy is considered sufficient given the stage of development and particular circumstances.

So what does the life thing have to do with anything?

I mean... y'all have rather impressively gotten off track. I mean, not just you but in general.

You must admit it's way more fun to talk about random biology concepts than about abortion.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

So what does the life thing have to do with anything?

I mean... y'all have rather impressively gotten off track. I mean, not just you but in general.

You must admit it's way more fun to talk about random biology concepts than about abortion.

While I admit biology chatter HAS slackened off greatly since creationists haven’t shat out any decent threads of late, it’s still something of a moot issue.

Yes the fetus is alive. No, that isn’t particularly special.

[Katganistan]

Because some have been making the argument that fetuses are not actually alive which must come as a shock to the biologists that study embryology.

I HATE that track... mostly because it's a trivial concern in the grand scheme of things.

Let's go back to, "Since McFall v. Shrimp established that no living person can be compelled to donate blood, organs, etc. to another even if that person would die without it, why must a person be compelled to bear a fetus to term if they do not wish it? Do fetuses have more rights than living persons?"

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

I HATE that track... mostly because it's a trivial concern in the grand scheme of things.

Let's go back to, "Since Shrimp vs. McFall established that no living person can be compelled to donate blood, organs, etc. to another even if that person would die without it, why must a person be compelled to bear a fetus to term if they do not wish it? Do fetuses have more rights than living persons?"

Well, you know me. That’s my fav’rit.