A Conception's Right To Life

[Dawkinsrocks]

Stop press: The word 'foetus' is redundant.

A foetus is a child.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Stop press: The word 'child' is redundant

A child is an adult.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Stop press: The word 'adult' is redundant.

An adult is a corpse.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

And as we all know a corpse has an inalienable right to life

 

[palerider]

A fertilsed egg is always called a chick????

There is no such thing as a fertilized egg. The term fertilized egg is outdated and inaccurate. It is used by those who want to appear that they know something without actually knowing anything at all.

"Often,this morula is inaccurately referred to as a ‘fertilized egg’ because the blastomeres remain inside the female parent’s oocyte outer cell membrane. That is an incorrect characterization, because the 23 -chromosome oocyte no longer exists; all the cells within the morula have the unique genome—46 chromosomes and a complement of mitochondrial DNA —of the newly conceived individual life." Moore and Persaud, The Developing Human, 6th ed., (p. 43)

That really made me laugh. I have never seen such a desperate argument in my life

Presentation of fact seems desparate to you? I suppose not being in posession of any yourself, who knows how facts may appear to you.

 

[palerider]

This thread should be titled 'a misconception's right to be debated'

Accurate enough for the pro choice side of the debate. Your side has litte other than misconception, mischaracterization, fabrication and outright lies.

 

[palerider]

And as we all know a corpse has an inalienable right to life

If you are trying to be cute in lieu of presenting a rational defense for your position, you are failing as miserably as if you were attempting to present a rational defense.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

So, if you crack an egg open and see a little black spot indicating that it is fertilised you no longer call it an egg?

Is that what you are saying?

Cos if it is you are ridiculous.

 

[palerider]

So, if you crack an egg open and see a little black spot indicating that it is fertilised you no longer call it an egg?

Is that what you are saying?

Cos if it is you are ridiculous.

It is an embryo. Maybe you are so stuck in the mundane (common) language that you simply aren't capable of understanding that it isn't always accurate.

Maybe you believe the "shell" is the egg and you have heard the shell called an egg all your life and never allotted any intellectual wattage at all to what is inside. Maybe you just aren't very smart. Who knows? But clearly you lack any real knowledge at all in the field of developmental biology. At this point you are simply railing that the world is flat.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

A couple of posts ago you said that all scientists refer to it as a chick.

Now it's an embryo.

 

[palerider]

Here are some very elementary sites for you dawkins. Lots of pictures. Very few big words.

http://www.ext.vt.edu/resources/4h/virtualfarm/poultry/poultry_development.html#

http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~browder/chick.html

http://animalsciences.missouri.edu/reprod/EmbryoDevelopment/poultry/sld001.htm

If you go to your local library (yes, they will even let you in) and go to the reference desk and ask them for some children's books on the development of chicks, they will help you find some. Look at the pictures, and read some of the words if you can and in no time, you will know as much as most 4th graders about the developmental biology of a chicken. Good luck to you.

 

[palerider]

A couple of posts ago you said that all scientists refer to it as a chick.

Now it's an embryo.

One in the same dawkins, depending on species. If I am speaking of a human embryo, I am also speaking of a human being. If I am speaking of a horse embryo, I am also speaking of a horse.

Forget the links I just provided, they are far too advanced for you. Maybe the chidren's library is over your head as well. I do pity you dawkins. The educational system of the US has indeed cheated you.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I am struggling to keep up with your continual change of terminlogy, that is all.

You didn't explain why earlier today a fertilised hen's egg was a chick but later it was an embryo.

Like when you call a foetus a child or a baby and object when I describe an early stage foetus as a few brainless cells which is precisely what it is.

And as you seem to blur the development of a fertilsed egg into a full grown adult who then becomes a corpse I don't understand why you don't call a foetus a corpse and extend the same rights to it.

It is all so confusing and as a luminary like you can't explain it consistently and coherently what hope is there for me who can't even tie my own shoelaces.

 

[Lagboltz]

So if hitler had anesthetised them his actions would have been acceptable to you? You really should work on following your "rational" to its logical conclusion.

Truthfully, I have never thought about humane ways of committing large scale genocide. I will leave these musings to you.

You still are looking for loopholes in the definitions and not trying to understand the points I'm trying to make, but this is good. Between you and I we should be able to come up with a definition of sentience (or equivalent) that we can both agree upon, that would rationally allow first trimester abortion without violating any moral or legal objections. On the topic of abortion, you didn't interpret the definitions the same as I did, so let me clarify.
Let's use definition #1:
Adj. 1. sentient - endowed with feeling and unstructured consciousness;

To avoid further confusion, let's consider the word "endowed"
Endowed: To equip or supply with a talent or quality.
I cover the word "feeling" further down.

I suppose that would be true if you could prove that sentience is what makes a human being. Your argument seems to suggest that those who lack the ability to feel, (ie, those who are severly mentally retarded or those with a condition known as CIPA, some lepers, and everyone who is under a general anesthetic are not sentient creatures and therefore no longer human beings. Is that your argument? You really should work on following your "rational' to its logical conclusions.

Well, we are really getting off topic here. I am largely concerned with abortion, the subject of this thread, but you raise issues that nevertheless are important..

There have been recent cases, such as Mrs Schiavo who was comatose for 15 years, and congress became involved in the issue of removing the feeding tube. It turned out her brain suffered severe atrophy. These are indeed serious issues that lie outside the scope of first trimester abortion.

My definition of "endowed" should satisfy you on your above objections.

In this context, someone who is "endowed" with sentience should be construed mean that they continue to have the endowment even if they are temporarily in deep sleep via anesthetic or otherwise, and that the endowment persists during that period and returns when awoken, unless the endowment, for some catastrophic reason, is terminated (such as death during an operation, etc.).

CIPA and lepers: A person so afflicted, would lose the sense of touch, but would in general continue to be able to think, see, hear, etc. They nevertheless have conscious awareness, and should be considered sentient. You have a definition of "feeling" that I had not considered. Let's use the definition, not specifically as sensory feeling of touch, but to mean the capacity to experience emotions, or responsiveness, etc. I'm sure you will find loopholes in that, so we could possibly remove the concept of feeling from the definition of sentience.

Severely mentally retarded: If the severity is to the level of being comatose, I have already covered that. The brother of a friend of mine was a 10 year old with the mind of a 3 month old. All he could do was sit there, make verbal noise when he looked at people and wave his arms in the air when he was excited about that. He was fully sentient in the way I defined it. Do you really want to explore the depth of retardation?

I don't think you are honoring my request in the last post:
"if you have any problems ..., please give me the benefit of doubt and try to look at other definitions that would be appropriate to the context of what I am discussing..."

There is, and never has been any problem in substantiating your position on abortion. You are pro abortion.

I have already stated that I am not pro-abortion. I think it is a bad method for birth control. I am pro-choice. There is a difference, you know. I must let the woman decide.

The problem you are having is rationally defending your position and this sentience tangent hasn't helped you a bit as you have not proved that sentience is what makes a human being a human being. If it is, then you are saying that those who are afflicted with certain disorders and the severely mentally retarded are not, in fact, human beings.

I am having no problem rationally defending my position. You are having a problem understanding it. I really think you choose definitions of the various words I use simply to create barriers in our discussions. Sentience is not a tangent. It is a primary factor that makes us human. This has been a subject of philosophers for well over 2 thousand years. Obviously you are anti-abortion. Understandably you are shying away from sentience because it destroys the rationality of your desire to eliminate the choice women now have.

When it comes to the question of abortion and the fetus without a nervous system, there is no question what sentience means.

 

[Lagboltz]

Why did the egg cross the road?

Dawkins! you !@#$% (eggsplicative deleted.)
Eggsactly what are you trying to eggspress here with your eggsesive eggagerations. Your eggregious eggspositions are a bad eggsample that lead some here to egghibit a negative eggsperience.