Hard News: Medical Matters
588 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 24 Newer→ Last
-
-
I take it you believe a baby is not a human being or a homo sapien.
-
ha, i take it you believe an acorn is not part of the genus Quercus,
你在那里做什么工作?
-
Grant,
Is a sperm a human ?
Is an unfertilised egg a human ?
How is a fertalised egg more human than an unfertalised egg ?
There are millions of processes that have to occur before a sperm and an egg can become born as a baby. Why do you believe that the sperm fertalising the egg is the crucial one that turns these cells into a baby ?
Brent -
some of the comments here on abortion are a bit silly. Actually really silly. Isn't it possible to be rational and stick to facts rather than emotions . Of course, it would help if more of you actually read every word of the court judgement.
Here's my offering
big-news.blogspot.com/2008/06/time-to-uphold-or-reform-abortion-law.html
-
http://www.big-news.blogspot.com/2008/06/time-to-uphold-or-reform-abortion-law.html
.. that should be, for those interested.
-
ha, i take it you believe an acorn is not part of the genus Quercus,
It well probably is! However the logic question I provided linked the component entities through the difference in development rather than by what order, genus or phylum they belonged to.
It's OK to admit you didn't choose the right answer, you know?
你在那里做什么工作?
What manner of chicken scrawl is that?!? I mean, I understand what you're getting at, but you missed half your brushstrokes!!
I'm just messing with ya ;)
My job in Taiwan is to administrate the game of cricket such that the CTCA can be accepted as an affiliate member of the ICC. I am, nominally, the secretary of the Chinese Taipei Cricket Association and we are about to have our first foray into being actively part of the game this weekend in Taizhong.
Go the FCC :)
-
Grant,
Brent.
Is a sperm a human ?
No.
Is an unfertilised egg a human ?
No.
How is a fertalised egg more human than an unfertalised egg ?
Because he has everything any other human being has. Why would he not be?
There are millions of processes that have to occur before a sperm and an egg can become born as a baby. Why do you believe that the sperm fertalising the egg is the crucial one that turns these cells into a baby ?
Because that is when the process is completed. Everything after that is just growth. When do you think a baby becomes a person?
Brent
Grant.
-
Grant, somethings will be denied to you in this life , like the ability to grow any life inside of you if you are male. Abortion is rational progression in society ,as we move away from sex rules set down by a jewish hill tribe thousands of years and embrace the reality of our fleeting, bizarre and finite existence in this universe. Abortion law is a consequence of an understanding of our own bizarre , ultimately useless chemistry (we all die and measured in a universal sense, it's fast).
Jeremy. That's a fairly useless position to support. If you truly believe that life is a "fleeting, bizarre and finite existence" then what is the point of opposing a view that says life begins at conception?
-
That's exactly the point. You keep mislabelling your personal definitions as "facts". (e.g. "human life" starts at conception -- by your definition). Making such a statement is not sufficient to make it true; which is why you have been asked to provide some supporting argument. Replying by a re-statement is, not surprisingly, unconvincing.
Combined with the repeated dismissal of others' observation-based statements (which might be rather better candidates for factual status!) as "so many words" ... it just screams "troll".Linger - do you believe a baby at conception is not alive?
Do you believe a baby at conception is not human?Would you like to state your opinion if it differs from mine and support it using science?
-
I have been told (and do correct me if I'm wrong) that up until about 14 days after conception, there's no difference between tissue that will become the placenta and tissue that will become the embryo, and that prior to 14 days, it's still possible for it to divide, making twins. If this is true, it means that at conception, the "baby" is not a distinct organism, and is potentially, well, "babies".
That all sounds reasonable except for your conclusion. Of course he's a distinct organism. He is certainly not his mother which is the only other organism he could possibly be.
I look at it like this - throughout our lives we go through different stages of growth. At certain stages we have certain abilities and not others. When we are first conceived and up until 14 days or thereabouts we have the ability to clone ourselves. Astoundingly some of those clones also have the ability to merge back into one person!
Pretty amazing stuff to think about! People are cool! :thumb:
-
There is no difference between a human and a person!
-
Frankly Grant, Jeremy's accurate summation of human (indeed *all*) life is the point of opposing your inane (basic dictionary def: empty, void, silly, senseless) and baseless-in-reality contention that *human life* begins at conception - only the potential for human life starts then.
Read Peter A's extremely good posts again.
Recognise that many of my female relatives shed concepti (what you inanely think of as 'human babies') every so often *without even noticing*.
Sheesh. All others, please ignore the emphases. When I think of how Grant & his like have attempted to stymie stem-call researxh - and how that could help other of my relatives - because of their fatuous (to my way of thinking) beliefs, I grow asterisk prone...
-
"Jeremy. That's a fairly useless position to support. If you truly believe that life is a "fleeting, bizarre and finite existence" then what is the point of opposing a view that says life begins at conception?"
I support the right of all sisters to decide when, where and how and if they will grow life in their bodies.I support the lives of all sisters
who want to control huge life turning decisions. Let's support the sisters . Let men fuck right out of the abortion issue. Life is so short. I support the life of our sisters. -
Grant Dexter: I've deleted your post referring to anon, and I'm only sorry I was out and didn't spot it sooner.
If you don't like that, feel free to fuck off.
-
Oh, oh, sorry Russell. Get rid of the one of mine which quotes it, too. :)
-
Oh, oh, sorry Russell. Get rid of the one of mine which quotes it, too. :)
Done.
-
Grant
There's a simple way to solve this. How do you feel about Democracy?If there was a referendum held tomorrow in which Kiwis were asked if they preferred to maintain the status quo on the availability of abortions or if they should be much harder to obtain which way do you think the outcome would go?
Would you have a problem with that?
-
James Bremner
I read an article (that I can't find to link to) that stated that current research into fetal pain pegged the 16th week as the time by which the fetus is sufficiently developed to feel pain.
You need to be very careful in this area with fuzzy terms like 'feel'. I'm a mouse guy so my human development is shaky but for this you need several things to be in place:
Pain receptors, not just pain fibres, the terminal receptors must have formed.
The pain fibres terminate in the Spinal Cord and make an afferent connection.*
That connection ultimately makes contact with a neuron in the sensory cortex.
Even then you do not get 'feeling' unless and until the foetus is able to do the perception thing and we are very, very fuzzy about exactly when that happens and 16 weeks seems mighty early to me.*Note that if the connection in the spinal cord forms a reflex arc with a motor neuron you will get a reflex response to stimulation even with no connection to an aware brain. Ditto coordinated movements, remember a headless chook can still run. So reaction to stimulus and movement do not signify sentience.
I know foetuses can perceive in the 3rd trimester, we would sing 'Old MacDonald' to the eldest when in the car. After the youngest was born she would drop instantly to sleep if we sang it. But 16 weeks, no.
-
Deborah's take sums up how I feel about the moral issues very, very well, so I no longer feel compelled to write anything about it.
-
Anon, what a dreadful decision to have to make, and how brave you are to have made the right decision. My sincere condolences on the loss of your baby girl.
I have nothing to say about abortion that hasn't been said already by a number of my PA sisters. I just wanted to let you know that you aren't alone, so thankyou for sharing that. -
Thanks Jeremy (and all the other fellas here) who get it.
It does make a difference knowing one's right to one's own bodily autonomy is supported by most men nowadays.
And cheers Deborah for your tautoko earlier. Like you, I can't be bothered engaging with the "forced birthers" as we feminazis call them.
Can someone wake me up when women count as people, all the time, in all situations?
-
Deborah's take sums up how I feel about the moral issues very, very well, so I no longer feel compelled to write anything about it.
Wow. That's a prodigious piece of blogging. Everyone should read it.
-
Grant Dexter:
When I say "at conception" that is a layman's term to acknowledge conception as the first instance of a new human's life.
There you go again, using terms like 'instance' that try to make a process an event. You betray yourself with your choice of words, iow your mindset is wrong. Get with reality.
I understand my terminology may not be acceptable in your workplace, but I would hope that my meaning is clear. Would you mind telling me what might be the point of being so pedantic about the process of conception? Are you going to propose legislation based on what you know?
Well firstly your meaning is clear, that is not the problem. The problem is that it is wrong in the sense that it does not describe reality. That is not reality's problem, it is yours.
Secondly, Yes! we should propose legislation based on what 'we' (being humanity) 'know' (being the corpus of science). Which means that your formulation that a 'baby' exists from conception is seen as completely bogus so we move on and find a much better, workable scheme based on knowledge and not emotive weasel words. Got it yet?
And a definition of life is important if we are going to recognise it on Mars or Europa or Enceladus or even here on earth. New Scientist had a bit last week on some enigmatic things found in crystals from acidic and highly saline lakes in Oz where nothing we know of should live. The debate is still going on that one. But the point is that many people are realising, as I hinted wrt rna viruses that the boundary between life and non-life is not hard and fast which is why we cannot define it. Nature has no joint there for us to carve it at.
-
Thanks, Stephen, and Anorak. Of course I support you, as I think do most of the people posting here... It's a shame about the others, 'tho.
And Anon, your story is heartbreaking. I'm so sorry.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.