• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Crazy Chainsaw said:
I don’t care if you say the Embryo is a PHD Physicists when it at the same stage that you can't tell it from a Chickens Embryo.
Click to expand...
Maybe you can't tell the difference between a human embryo or a chicken embryo but anybody with any knowledge in the matter would have no problem telling the two apart.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Who is trying to stifle debate?
I don’t care if you say the Embryo is a PHD Physicists when it at the same stage that you can't tell it from a Chickens Embryo.
Click to expand...

One major difference is that a chicken embryo develops into a chicken. A human embryo develops into a human. I just want to clear that up for anyone who is confused on the matter. It is a major point.

Of course, some will argue that a human embryo's life is worth less than a truckload of dead rats in a tampon factory. It is that sort of mindset that I personally find disturbing, more so than any debate over abortion law.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Maybe you can't tell the difference between a human embryo or a chicken embryo but anybody with any knowledge in the matter would have no problem telling the two apart.
Click to expand...

Just to poke at this... Not necessarily. All animal embryos look pretty much the same for a while.

During the phylotypic stage, embryos of birds, fish and even humans start to look the same — before they diverge again and become very different looking animals. The similarity was first described by 19th-century embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer, who accidentally mixed up phylotypic-stage embryos of different vertebrate species and was unable to differentiate between them.

“If you were to put a human embryo next to a fish, a toad and a mouse at that stage, the human embryo would look very much like the others,” said lead author Dr Ozren Bogdanovic, from the ARC Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology at UWA. This is despite the time taken to reach the phylotypic stage varying between species, occurring 1–2 days after fertilisation in fish and toads, 9.5 days after conception in mice and four weeks after conception in humans.
Click to expand...
 
Aridas said:
Just to poke at this... Not necessarily. All animal embryos look pretty much the same for a while.
Click to expand...
"Pretty much the same" is not indistinguishable and somebody who knows what they are doing would have no problem telling them apart.

But yes, an untrained eye can be fooled and I suspect that early on in this thread somebody posted a photo of an embryo with just that motive in mind.
 
psionl0 said:
"Pretty much the same" is not indistinguishable and somebody who knows what they are doing would have no problem telling them apart.

But yes, an untrained eye can be fooled and I suspect that early on in this thread somebody posted a photo of an embryo with just that motive in mind.
Click to expand...

Da a human Embryo is usually found within a Human.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
At one time they are both a collection of cells.
Click to expand...

It must be very confusing and stressful, never knowing for sure if the collection of cells sitting next to you on the bus is a chicken or a human.

That's how bird flu spread, you know. People having sex with collections of cells that they thought were other people, but they were actually birds.
 
theprestige said:
It must be very confusing and stressful, never knowing for sure if the collection of cells sitting next to you on the bus is a chicken or a human.

That's how bird flu spread, you know. People having sex with collections of cells that they thought were other people, but they were actually birds.
Click to expand...
Every life form that's not one cell is a collection of cells.
I though Bird Flu was caused by birds mistaking Humans for mates.
 
theprestige said:
It must be very confusing and stressful, never knowing for sure if the collection of cells sitting next to you on the bus is a chicken or a human.

That's how bird flu spread, you know. People having sex with collections of cells that they thought were other people, but they were actually birds.
Click to expand...
And that's why it's called "chicken pox". :D
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
We Don't even know if they want at all.
Click to expand...
Well, it's because they have that imaginary soul, right? From the moment of conception, it is a whole new human being somehow. Because it has been "ensouled".

Bucket of unevidenced crap, of course, but it is the superstitions these people believe.

One might think that if the anti-choice nuts had a solid case to make, then they would make it.But they fail to make all the time.
 
abaddon said:
Well, it's because they have that imaginary soul, right? From the moment of conception, it is a whole new human being somehow. Because it has been "ensouled".

Bucket of unevidenced crap, of course, but it is the superstitions these people believe.

One might think that if the anti-choice nuts had a solid case to make, then they would make it.But they fail to make all the time.
Click to expand...

If the Fetus has a Soul why does it take 2 years after birth,, to learn to walk and talk?
Why wasn't the software pre-installed?
 
abaddon said:
Well, it's because they have that imaginary soul, right? From the moment of conception, it is a whole new human being somehow. Because it has been "ensouled".

Bucket of unevidenced crap, of course, but it is the superstitions these people believe.

One might think that if the anti-choice nuts had a solid case to make, then they would make it.But they fail to make all the time.
Click to expand...
This is the classic false dichotomy that pervades this thread. Either you support unfettered abortion rights or you are a religious nut.

Lots of people support some restrictions - especially in the later stages of pregnancy - for non religious reasons.
 
Warbler said:
I heard about that. Silly and stupid.
Click to expand...
Rather like banning safe and legal terminations then. Of course with the inevitable deaths of women....

Warbler said:
It fails understand the argument against abortion.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. It exposes the noxious hypocrisy about banning safe and legal terminations.


Warbler said:
Some for like me, it isn't controlling women or interfering with their decisions to what they want with their own bodies.
Click to expand...
Bollocks. That's exactly what it's about. You may not want to acknowledge this but it is the result.

banning safe and legal terminations
Its about the fact the the decision to abort also affects the fetus/zygote/embryo. [/QUOTE]
And the presence of the <whatever> effects the life and health of the mother.

So, how much extra risk to the mother's life are you will to force her to endure? 25%? 50%? 100%? 200%? 400%? 800%?
 
abaddon said:
Well, it's because they have that imaginary soul, right? From the moment of conception, it is a whole new human being somehow. Because it has been "ensouled".

Bucket of unevidenced crap, of course, but it is the superstitions these people believe.

One might think that if the anti-choice nuts had a solid case to make, then they would make it.But they fail to make all the time.
Click to expand...

psionl0 said:
This is the classic false dichotomy that pervades this thread. Either you support unfettered abortion rights or you are a religious nut.

Lots of people support some restrictions - especially in the later stages of pregnancy - for non religious reasons.
Click to expand...

And Just what are those non Religious objections to a medical Procedure?
 
Warbler said:
The word abortion is not found in the Constitution. You know that not everyone agrees that the Constitution gives women the right to an abortion. The US Supreme did say that it did in Roe v. Wade, but many disagree with that ruling have being trying to get it reversed.
Click to expand...
Neither are 'aardvark', 'hippopotamus', 'sewer', 'antidisestablishmentarianism' or indeed 'god'.

So what? :rolleyes:

Maybe you should think for yourself, rather than taking your beliefs from a collection of bronze-age nomads' fairytales, or the options of eighteenth century landowners?
 
abaddon said:
Well, it's because they have that imaginary soul, right? From the moment of conception, it is a whole new human being somehow. Because it has been "ensouled".

Bucket of unevidenced crap, of course, but it is the superstitions these people believe.

One might think that if the anti-choice nuts had a solid case to make, then they would make it.But they fail to make all the time.
Click to expand...

psionl0 said:
This is the classic false dichotomy that pervades this thread. Either you support unfettered abortion rights or you are a religious nut.

Lots of people support some restrictions - especially in the later stages of pregnancy - for non religious reasons.
Click to expand...

And Just what are those non Religious objections to a medical Procedure?
 
Susheel said:
Oh I guess there are quite a few...the paranoia about "western medicine", basic fear of needles, scalpel and "being cut up", "radiation can kill"...none of these need a religious basis.
Click to expand...

Life itself does not require a Religious basis, few animals worship Magic or build infrastructure to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom