Abortion

[Mare Tranquillity]

I am really enjoying watching two men arguing how women should be controlled by law. It kind of reminds me of two male turtles fighting over a female, but she has wandered off and is having sex with another male completely unconcerned about their male posturing and histrionics.

Keep it up boys! The adamantine Pale one against the verbally colorful Mr. Builder.

 

[palerider]

Is it your contention that a fertilized egg can grow into a human being without being attached to the womans body? A simple yes or no will suffice for this point, and then we can continue on from there.

No it isn't. It is my contention that at the point that fertilization is complete, a living human being exists. At the point that the woman's body accepts the child and does not send her immune system to kill it, she is pregnant. And it is my contention that deliberately bringing about the death of that child is abortion. My contentions have been substantiated with credible materials.

Again, until the egg is attached to the utereus, it cannot survive, and in the case of rape where the victim is immediately taken to the hospital for treatment, there simply isn't enough time for this to happen, ergo your point is still moot.

So you are saying that it is fine to deliberately create an environment in which an individual can not survive and that is not killing? Again, you haven't even considered the first order consequences of your argument, much less the deeper implications.

Not so. In my primary business (construction), I've seen where plants have tried to grow on roofs, but lacking sufficient nutrition they have withered and died. There was no intentional germination of the seed from which they began growing, they were deposited there by the wind, birds, whatever.

Well if you can point to examples where eggs have gotten themselves fertilized on the sidewalk, you have yourself an analogy. Deliberately creating a hostile environment for an embryo, however, is not analogous to your plant theory.

Your point was that pregnancy occurs at the moment of fertilization, but unless the egg attaches itself to the uterine wall, whether or not a hostile environment was artificially introduced, it cannot grow.

That is what I said. If a hostile environment is deliberately created so that it can't grow, it is an abortion just as if you set fire to a nursery creating a hostile environment for the child sleeping in a crib. In either case, a deliberate act was perpetrated that resulted in the death of a child.

Your "fact" about pregnancy happening at the moment of fertilization is simply flawed, and has nothing to do with belief. I was simply pointing out that your 'tone' seemed to be getting a bit 'harsh' given that we are far more in agreement than not.

It isn't "my" fact. It is Mosby's Medical Dictionary's fact. It is Steadman Medical Dictionary's fact. It is practically every medical research resource's fact and denial on your part doesn't change it a bit. And my tone gets harsh when I am covering the same ground over and over with a flat earther who denies fact in favor of his faith.

Then on this one small aspect of the subject we will have to agree to disagree, but I will not stand accused of "supporting abortion" simply because you cling to the belief that a victim should be further victimized.

Of course you will if you, in fact support abortion for reasons other than the life or long term health of the mother. You may not like it, and you may deny it until the cows come home, but the fact remains.

Your use of the medical definitions failed to account for the fact that until the egg is attached and receiving nourishment, it cannot grow beyond the point that it's own internal nourishment lasts.

An infant will also run out of internal nourishment at some point as will you. If I lock you in a room and deny you food and water, have I, or have I not killed you? You seem to be under the impression that denying an individual the necessities for life itself does not constitute killing them.

 

[palerider]

I am really enjoying watching two men arguing how women should be controlled by law. It kind of reminds me of two male turtles fighting over a female, but she has wandered off and is having sex with another male completely unconcerned about their male posturing and histrionics.

In typical fashion, you fail to even grasp the nature of the argument. If we were arguing over whether husbands have the right to kill cheating wives, would you think that we were arguing over how the husbands of cheating wives should be controlled by the law?

I note that you failed to answer any of the questions I asked you with regard to making certain activities against the law. Must have hit close to home.

 

[palerider]

Which one of the more than 4000 sects of Christians do you associate with on the Sabbath?

none.

 

[Bob the Builder]

I am not dealing with "simple" biology here. I am dealing with actual biology. Again, for your benefit.

Mosby’s Medical dictionary, 7th Edition, (c) 2006
Pregnancy: The gestational process, comprising the growth and development within a woman of a new individual from conception through the embryonic and fetal periods to birth.

Is "simple" biology any different than "actual" biology?

Ok, I didn't want to have to do this, but since you insist; let's carefully look at your definitions. Mosby defines pregnancy as the "gestitational process, comprising the growth and development......". As I have already stated clearly, unless or until the egg attaches itself to the uterine wall, it cannot grow or develop beyond what it's own nutritional contents will allow. If the egg does not attach, it cannot grow, therefore she is not pregnant, as further evinced by your own definition since without such attachment, the embryonic and fetal periods will not occur.

It might interest you to review Tabers, as it's definition of "pregnancy" is "The condition of carrying a developing embryo in the uterus", which can only occur once the egg is attached to the uterine wall.

Denying fact in favor of your "perception" of what constituties "simple biology" is not the argument of a rational person.

Nobody is denying any "facts", you are simply selectively using those facts to support your own position, regardless of the facts that your definition of "pregnancy" as occurring at the moment of fertilization is flawed. It isn't a matter of "perception" pale, it's a medical fact that without attachment, the egg simply cannot grow and develop into a child.

Preventing egg from meeting sperm is contraception. Deliberately bringing about the death of the child after fertilziation is called abortion. Denying the truth does not alter the truth.

As I said before, we'll simply have to agree to disagree on that point, as we have not established that your definition is in fact the "truth". You are of course fully entitled to hold that belief as your truth. My truth is the one that holds in science, that being that unless or until the egg is attached to the uterine wall, and receiving nourishment from the mother, it is NOT a "child". On the other hand, once it IS attached, and IS receiving nourishment, then it IS a "child".

However, I will point out that statements such as "denying the truth does not alter the truth" without first establishing what the truth is, is the same sort of tripe that abortionists use, and is exactly what I was referring to earlier when I mentioned "hostility". In that vain I offer the following; Simply put, what you are advocating, but attempting to compel a woman to BECOME pregnant as a result of rape can only be described as barbaric, and is the same sort of evil that King William inflicted upon the Irish by invoking "Droit de seigneur" whereby the Lord of the land was "entitled" to take the virginity of the women on his lands, against their will, which is RAPE.

 

[top gun]

I encourage you to go on believing that. When roe is overturned, your outrage will be that much more enjoyable. Or will you simply accept that abortion on demand has ended because the court said so?

Blah, blah, blah same old worn out tired rant you've been proselytizing for 3 years now. The court will be moving even more strongly in favor of women's rights now and you couldn't change it even when you had the Presidency and both Houses of Congress...

You might as well be banking on the return of slavery... cause never are ever gonna happen again.

In case you haven't noticed, members of the court are appointed for life. They are not dependent upon politics. Your belief that this topic has something to do with politics is just one more red herring on your part in an attempt to get the conversation as far away from the fact that human beings are being killed as possible.

I'm a waitin'... 4 decades of precedent and counting and I've been laughing straight in your face for 3 years now... while you keep saying it's all about to change any second now. Women will just give up on their rights and be forced back to the dark ages any day now.

It's kinda like the sign that reads: The Lord is coming... soon!

People who say it "might" believe it. But most realize it's crazy talk.

I am not sure whether I have ever even driven by a women's clinic. I have no idea where they might be located in my town and have no interest where they may be.

Suuure! Hey I never said you weren't smart enough to try and form an alibi. Just be careful... you probably won't last long in jail.

So you are likely to resort to violence. I am not surprised as you are a knee jerk emotionalist as opposed to a rational thinking individual who looks at the broad picture and determines the most effective way to get a thing done. You are exactly the kind of person you rail against; that being one who is willing to take the law into your own hands. In and of itself, that is completely unsurprising. What is surprising is that you were so easily manipulated into admitting it.

And you are exactly what I depict.

A zealot that sees people who'll risk their own lives to shield and keep safe innocent women totally within their legal rights so they can get in the door of a totally legal medical facility from loud, aggressive, dangerous, nutbags known to murder doctors and bomb clinics.

Local authorities and US Marshals... the FACE ACT... hit 'em hard, jail 'em long! For they are without doubt Domestic Terrorists!

 

[Bob the Builder]

No it isn't. It is my contention that at the point that fertilization is complete, a living human being exists. At the point that the woman's body accepts the child and does not send her immune system to kill it, she is pregnant. And it is my contention that deliberately bringing about the death of that child is abortion. My contentions have been substantiated with credible materials.

And you have just made my point for me, if the egg does not attach to her body, it has not been accepted, and therefore she is not pregnant. Thank you.

So you are saying that it is fine to deliberately create an environment in which an individual can not survive and that is not killing? Again, you haven't even considered the first order consequences of your argument, much less the deeper implications.

You still fail to acknowledge the fact that UNTIL THE EGG IS ATTACHED, IT CANNOT GROW, THEREFORE IT IS NOT AN "INDIVIDUAL". Now, what that clear enough for you? If you have evidence that an egg can grow in the womans body WITHOUT being attached to her body, by all means produce it, otherwise you're simply engaging in argumentum ad nauseum.

Well if you can point to examples where eggs have gotten themselves fertilized on the sidewalk, you have yourself an analogy. Deliberately creating a hostile environment for an embryo, however, is not analogous to your plant theory.

Now you're equivocating, and not very well I might add. Is it, or is it not a fact that without nourishment an egg/seed cannot grow and develop? At this point in their biology the same principles apply, and attempting to obfuscate the point does your stance no good.

That is what I said. If a hostile environment is deliberately created so that it can't grow, it is an abortion just as if you set fire to a nursery creating a hostile environment for the child sleeping in a crib. In either case, a deliberate act was perpetrated that resulted in the death of a child.

It's not a child unless or until the egg attaches itself to the uterine wall, period. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your same flawed arguement, the facts are still the facts, and as you have repeatedly failed to demonstrate how a fertilized human egg can grow and develop without nutrition from the mother, I will consider your consistant refusal to address that question directly to be your acknowledgement that your position is in fact simply biologically flawed.

It isn't "my" fact. It is Mosby's Medical Dictionary's fact. It is Steadman Medical Dictionary's fact. It is practically every medical research resource's fact and denial on your part doesn't change it a bit. And my tone gets harsh when I am covering the same ground over and over with a flat earther who denies fact in favor of his faith.

No, the facts you presented from Mosby and others are dependent upon other actions occurring at the same time. Even Mosby's definition requires, as I pointed out, that the egg first be attached to the mother. Without that attachment gestation cannot occur. If anyone is being a "flat earther" or a "denyer" it's you, because you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that your theory has run headlong into severely damaging evidence, and your refusal to acknowledge that evidence in no way changes the fact that you're simply dead wrong on this point.

Your points about starving someone to death is a rather lame non-sequitur. As I have patiently pointed out to you, it takes hours, if not DAYS before the sperm can even reach the egg to fertilize it in the first place, and in cases of rape the victim receives medications and treatment that will 1) prevent the sperm from ever reaching the egg in the first place, and 2) even if it has, to flush her system of ALL contaminants in order to prevent infection that could cripple or kill her. You have consistantly refused to acknowledge this simple truth, and as such have admitted that you cannot logically, or medically, present anything that supports your spurrious and barbaric position.

 

[Bob the Builder]

I am really enjoying watching two men arguing how women should be controlled by law. It kind of reminds me of two male turtles fighting over a female, but she has wandered off and is having sex with another male completely unconcerned about their male posturing and histrionics.

Keep it up boys! The adamantine Pale one against the verbally colorful Mr. Builder.

I take it you support abortion? Fine, then if a woman is to be allowed to kill her child in the first two trimesters, why not in the 50th? Why not in the 100th? HELL, let's just let mothers kill their children any time they want to!

 

[top gun]

I take it you support abortion? Fine, then if a woman is to be allowed to kill her child in the first two trimesters, why not in the 50th? Why not in the 100th? HELL, let's just let mothers kill their children any time they want to!

I'm thinkin' it has something to do with the whole being inside of another persons body and not being able to survive without that persons permission to provide support.

You know a brother or sister is a person and they're even out living on their own and NOT inside someone else's body. Maybe they should create a law where strangers decide when they can mandate them to have to give up bone marrow or a kidney or something.

I mean if the person's life depends on it and you're the only match...

 

[Dr.Who]

And you have just made my point for me, if the egg does not attach to her body, it has not been accepted, and therefore she is not pregnant. Thank you.

There are more than one definition of pregnancy. Legally one is pregnant after implantation. Biologically one is pregnant at fertilization. Here is a link to prove that:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ga...utXjBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

But even if we use the legal definition and the woman is not pregnant the unattached fertilized egg is still a new individual and is alive and is human.

You still fail to acknowledge the fact that UNTIL THE EGG IS ATTACHED, IT CANNOT GROW, THEREFORE IT IS NOT AN "INDIVIDUAL". Now, what that clear enough for you? If you have evidence that an egg can grow in the womans body WITHOUT being attached to her body, by all means produce it, otherwise you're simply engaging in argumentum ad nauseum.

The process of mitosis or cleavage (which is growth) begins immediately after conception and occurs during transport down the fallopian tube before it reaches the uterine cavity.

Again here is my link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ga...utXjBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

It's not a child unless or until the egg attaches itself to the uterine wall, period. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your same flawed arguement, the facts are still the facts, and as you have repeatedly failed to demonstrate how a fertilized human egg can grow and develop without nutrition from the mother, I will consider your consistant refusal to address that question directly to be your acknowledgement that your position is in fact simply biologically flawed.

If childhood is defined by age it is not a child whether it is attached or not - it is not old enough just like it is not old enough to be called an adult.

But it is still an individual and still human and still alive.

 

[top gun]

Originally Posted by Bob the Builder
And you have just made my point for me, if the egg does not attach to her body, it has not been accepted, and therefore she is not pregnant. Thank you.

Wouldn't make any difference. The core rhetoric that the Anti-Choice crowd makes is it's killing LIFE... not implanted life. To be consistent they would go after banning the common Birth Control Pill.

EDIT: My bad, I can see from the above post they have already have ran with that rhetoric. That's how ridiculous this subject gets.

 

[Bob the Builder]

There are more than one definition of pregnancy. Legally one is pregnant after implantation. Biologically one is pregnant at fertilization. Here is a link to prove that:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ga...utXjBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

But even if we use the legal definition and the woman is not pregnant the unattached fertilized egg is still a new individual and is alive and is human.


The process of mitosis or cleavage (which is growth) begins immediately after conception and occurs during transport down the fallopian tube before it reaches the uterine cavity.

Again here is my link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ga...utXjBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1


If childhood is defined by age it is not a child whether it is attached or not - it is not old enough just like it is not old enough to be called an adult.

But it is still an individual and still human and still alive.

Dr, Who, I'm well aware of the basic biology, the question I was addressing was specifically related to cases of rape, so I'll reiterate in case you missed it. In cases of rape where the victim goes/is taken to the hospital certain procedures are performed to care for the patient, one of which is the administration of medications and/or procedures to prevent pregnancy and if necessary to clean out the utereus to remove any foreign matter. I was merely addressing the issue of "abortion related to rape" and trying to point out the fact that given the time necessary for the sperm to even reach the egg, much less to join with it is generally so far outside the window as far as the aforementioned medical care as to be moot since it can take hours, or even days before the sperm can locate and join with the egg.

Pale completely blew by these facts and continued on in his rant about "the child being killed for the sins of the father" when I had already specified that the possibility of the egg and sperm having actually integrated are so remote as to be a non-issue. I also specifically noted that in the extremely rare cases where a woman is raped, fails to seek medical care, and subsequently discovers that she was impregnated as a result of the rape is an entirely different issue, and should be addressed separately.

As far as the issue of when "life" begins, I have already clearly stated that unless or until the egg attaches itself to the uterine wall and begins drawing nourishment from the mother, it cannot be considered to be a "human", unless of course you consider cancer cells to be "human" too.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I take it you support abortion? Fine, then if a woman is to be allowed to kill her child in the first two trimesters, why not in the 50th? Why not in the 100th? HELL, let's just let mothers kill their children any time they want to!

Once again you suffer from premature assumption. What I don't understand is a man like yourself who is all in favor of retroactive birth control being upset about abortion.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

none.

You may not be the best person to try to make a case with Christian dogma, eh?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

In typical fashion, you fail to even grasp the nature of the argument. If we were arguing over whether husbands have the right to kill cheating wives, would you think that we were arguing over how the husbands of cheating wives should be controlled by the law?

I note that you failed to answer any of the questions I asked you with regard to making certain activities against the law. Must have hit close to home.

Actually I expanded your question to see if you were in favor of ALL the death sentences mandated by the Mosaic Law or if you were just another cherry-picking Bible-beater who wants to kill only gays.

You and Mr. Builder are interested in law to support your beliefs. So the discussion of law is germane.