1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Abortion??? anyone??

Discussion in 'House of Debates' started by XxTinaxX, Dec 28, 2006.

  1. fedor50

    fedor50 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    If you want to discard definitions, be my guest - we can finally admit to subjectivism!

    And like you said, the placenta originally comes from the zygote, and is considered 'part of' the embryo and the uterine wall. That's why the word 'unites' is used, as well as the word 'fetomaternal' (belonging to both the foetus and the placenta). See the opening paragraph here - it's wiki, but it's the simplest-written informative description; you can find the more science-y versions as well if you prefer to doubt.
     
  2. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,552
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I didn't discard anything...I simply pointed out that words can be used in different ways and if you believed the word united to mean a hard connection, either you were wrong, or the writer was wrong, and then went on to show why one of you were wrong.

    As to your wiki article, in typical fashion, you miss the entire point...look at the last sentence before the contents...

    "The placenta functions as a fetomaternal organ with two components: the fetal placenta (Chorion frondosum), which develops from the same blastocyst that forms the fetus, and the maternal placenta (Decidua basalis), which develops from the maternal uterine tissue.[4]"

    The two parts of the velcro like connection are described right there...but your selective blindness, I suppose prevents you from seeing what is actually there and only lets you see what you wish you saw. The article, after the contents, goes on to say...

    "In preparation for implantation of the blastocyst, the uterine endometrium undergoes "decidualisation". Spiral arteries in decidua are remodeled so that they become less convoluted and their diameter is increased. The increased diameter and straighter flow path both act to increase maternal blood flow to the placenta. The relatively high pressure as the maternal blood fills intervillous space through these spiral arteries bathes the fetal villi in blood, allowing an exchange of gases to take place. In humans and other hemochorial placentals, the maternal blood comes into direct contact with the fetal chorion, though no fluid is exchanged. As the pressure decreases between pulses, the deoxygenated blood flows back through the endometrial veins."

    The article goes on to say:

    "Deoxygenated fetal blood passes through umbilical arteries to the placenta. At the junction of umbilical cord and placenta, the umbilical arteries branch radially to form chorionic arteries. Chorionic arteries, in turn, branch into cotyledon arteries. In the villi, these vessels eventually branch to form an extensive arterio-capillary-venous system, bringing the fetal blood extremely close to the maternal blood; but no intermingling of fetal and maternal blood occurs ("placental barrier").[7]"

    Face it guy, the science just doesn't say what you want it to say....it never will. Perhaps you can fool people with less education, although at this point, even an attempt on your part to do so is despicably dishonest but you can't fool people who have actually taken time to actually learn the biology.
     
  3. fedor50

    fedor50 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Pale Rider, I did not want to publicly EMBARRASS and EXPOSE you on this forum but you have left me absolutely NO CHOICE...

    Earlier in our argument, you gave me THIS scientific definition of what constitutes an organism..

    So, those three things are your 'properties which allow something to constitute an organism'? Here's some problems with your definition:

    Firstly. you said:

    Your failure immediately begins before you even got started. Any single cell in our body constitutes an individual form of life. A sperm cell for example has its own individual life. So your definition already has you stirring in the WRONG direction.

    But let us continue dissecting your failure and misunderstanding about human biology...

    Again logic has completely left your brain. Single cells in our body ARE already capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing.

    Don't believe me?

    Allow these SCIENTIFIC links to sway any doubts that you might be currently having:

    https://askabiologist.asu.edu/content/cell-division

    http://sciencenetlinks.com/student-teacher-sheets/cells-your-body/

    The short cliff notes version of those links?

    They state explicitly that some single cells in our body grow, metabolize nutrients, and sometimes reproduce.

    Again Pale Rider, this is simply me tearing apart the definition of organism that YOU provided. If you don't like the implications, you're going to have to provide a more better one. OR your definition is flawed...

    Also please do not say that these cells are part of a larger system because that would miss the ENTIRE point. Your definition says nothing about that.

    It only says and I quote: "An individual form of life" which is a qualification that any single cell in my body would meet.

    But wait, your definition and argument runs into much more BIGGER problems than the ones already stated...

    1) If you apply your definition 'on a cellular level' then every single cell in my body (with a few exceptions) is an organism, as the meet all of the requirements 'in some form'.

    2) Newly transplanted liver cells meet all of those qualifications (especially with a still-living donor). And cells with foetal DNA often continue to be made inside the woman even after birth (microchimerism) - so those cells also meet the same qualifications.

    3) A single cell is capable of responding to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development.

    As you can see Pale Rider, the scientific facts and arguments support MY point of view.

    Would you like to try again?

    I did not want to publicly embarrass or expose your lack of knowledge but you have apparently left me NO CHOICE.
     
  4. fedor50

    fedor50 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The debate me and my buddy Pale Rider are having is the subjective issue of what exactly constitutes an organism.

    Firstly, that we consider 'being an organism' to be important is a subjective issue.

    Secondly, dictionary definitions are created through subjective - and certainly not scientific - means. You can't test a definition - it's not science, even if it's used in scientific contexts.

    Thirdly, even through use of the definitions, a single cell from our body matches the definition of an organism that Pale Rider provided to me. It DOES grow, it DOES metabolize nutrients, and it is sometimes capable of reproduction.

    As such, large parts of this are subjective semantics - and also arguable from either side.

    These credible scientific links validate and PROVE my point:

    http://sciencenetlinks.com/student-teacher-sheets/cells-your-body/

    Some relevant quotes from the link:

    "Cells are the smallest living units that are capable of reproducing themselves."

    "The nucleus contains the information that allows cells to reproduce, or make more cells."

    These statements prove that certain cells in our body are capable of reproduction.

    Let us continue...

    "Every cell in your body needs oxygen to help it metabolize (burn) the nutrients released from food for energy."

    THIS statement proves that cells in our body are capable of metabolizing nutrients.

    Here is another scientific link which validates my point:

    https://askabiologist.asu.edu/content/cell-division

    As such, single cells in our bodies match the definition of the word organism provided and given by Pale Rider. As I already told him, his definition did not help his argument, his own scientifically provided definition went against his argument.
     
  5. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,552
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Why lie when anyone reading your posts knows that you have been wishing desperately that you could do just that since our conversations began...and anyone reading our conversation knows that you haven't even come close...in fact, you have failed miserably on every point...and my bet is that you will continue to do so since you are in the wrong at the foundation of your argument. Your only strategy is to try to get as far away from that foundation as possible in an effort to hide that inconvenient fact.

    First off, it wasn't "my" definition...the definition is available through any number of science and common dictionaries. We have been through this already...word games are not a rational basis for a scientific argument...word games may work out for legal arguments on occasion, but not for biological fact. For example:

    Oxford dictionaries defines organism as : An individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form.

    American Heritage Dictionary defines organism as: An individual form of life, such as a bacterium, protist, fungus, plant, or animal, composed of a single cell or a complex of cells in which organelles or organs work together to carry out the various processes of life.

    Dictionary.com defines organism as: a form of life considered as an entity

    The online Medical dictionary defines organism as : An individual form of life, such as a plant, an animal a bacterium, a protist, or a fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.

    The science dictionary defines organism as:
    An individual form of life that is capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing. Organisms can be unicellular or multicellular. They are scientifically divided into five different groups (called kingdoms) that include prokaryotes, protists, fungi, plants, and animals, and that are further subdivided based on common ancestry and homology of anatomic and molecular structures.

    And the list could continue ad nauseum....While they vary somewhat, they all say essentially the same thing which you, in your blindness, madness, stupidity..whatever invariably fail to miss.

    Your failure begins far before that...you seem not to understand the difference between alive, and a form of life. Most of the cells in your body at any time are, in fact, alive, but none of them could be construed by any rational, thinking person to be forms of life...are your individual cells carrying out the processes of life, or are they parts of a whole who are making contributions to the processes of life? Which kingdom would a taxonomist put a brain cell in? All organisms are divided into groups called kingdoms...which kingdom would a skin cell be placed in? See how miserably that line of thinking fails? The failure goes deeper than that, but I am pressed for time this morning.



    Again, are single cells in your body carrying on the processes of life, or are they contributing to the processes of life for a larger entity? Are they alive, or are they individual entities? If they are individual entities can you provide any taxonomical identification for them? By bet is not...you, in your zeal are ignoring the facts and trying to torture simple terms into having meanings that they do not possess.

    Don't believe me?


    Again...are they alive, or are they an individual form of life...are they carrying out the process of their own lives, or are they contributing to the process of life in a larger entity...and more importantly, can you provide any identifying taxonomical information on these individual cells that would be proof positive that science views them as individual life forms rather than mere parts of a life form.

    You making an ass of yourself is more like it...your failure is so deep that I am surprised that you continue to even show up. I am guessing that it is only your abject ignorance that prevents you from seeing the magnitude of your failure and thus being to embarrassed to continue.

    As you can see, any number of sources say what I already provided...different words, but I suppose the authors expect that their definitions are being read by rational people who have some inkling of the topic...clearly you don't.

    And let me guess...in your demented zeal, you never considered, or bothered to look up or research what might qualify as an individual form of life. You didn't even wonder if science had taxonomically identified skin cells and brain cells, and epithelial cells as individual forms of life. You never once considered the difference between being alive and being a form of life. Your argument is so shallow that you should be embarrassed. Is this really the best you can do? Never mind...of course it is as you have proven over and over

    Already addressed...no need to repeat.

    Already addressed...alive, or individual life forms? If they are individual life forms, then kindly provide taxonomical identification which is available for all known forms of life.

    [/quote]
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2016
Loading...

Share This Page