Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[respect]

Not any more. That's why it's legal for the person who can make medical decisions for them to decide to let them starve them to death, effectively killing them.

They have ceded decision making to someone else since they are unable to so in their condition. I do find it odd that you think this means they are no longer a human.

 

[A'isha]

It doesn't have to, although it meets most of them, to qualify as an organism it must at least potentially meet the criteria at some point in its life cycle. So for example, a fetus cannot reproduce yet but it will be able to at a later point in its life cycle unless a medical condition prevents it from doing so. Likewise, if you lose the ability to reproduce later in your life this won't disqualify you from being considered an organism. Whereas there is no chance that your lung will ever impregnate or being impregnated by another lung, it cannot reproduce.

In other words, a fetus may become a human being, but it isn't a human being.

 

[A'isha]

They have ceded decision making to someone else since they are unable to so in their condition. I do find it odd that you think this means they are no longer a human.

They're still human, but no longer a human being. The thing that makes them a human being, their consciousness and sapience, is gone, which is why it's legal to make the decision to end their lives.

 

[RandFan]

Just out of curiosity, do you think a person in a vegetative state is human but not a human being as well? What about a person who may recover from an injury but is currently not mentally aware? Were they a human being that ceased to be a human being but can become a human being again if they recover?

I've already addressed this. I think of my father as a human being even though he passed away. I think of him as a person. Part of the problem is, as I said before, the vagaries of the human language. And I would add, perceptions. It's like when an atty asks a yes or no question that can't be answered with yes or no.

I think it is arguable that a person in a persistent vegetative state is a human. I think it is arguable that such a person isn't. I think such distinctions absurd. We could go the other direction and ask about identical twins. Prior to splitting it is one organism with many cells. After splitting it is two organisms with half as many cells. Some times the second twin is reabsorbed into the other twin. Is it now two organisms or just one? What about conjoined twins (two heads, one body). One organism or two? Let me ask you this. Would you prefer to be a brain donor or recipient? If your brain were transplanted into another body would your brain and someone else's body be you or someone else? Would it be one organism or two (twice as many chromosomes)?

I don't find such fine points to be helpful. What is clear is that prior to viability that which makes us fundamentally human, our thoughts and feelings, are negligent at best.

 

[RandFan]

It doesn't have to, although it meets most of them, to qualify as an organism it must at least potentially meet the criteria at some point in its life cycle.

Why can't that be said of sperm? Unless the embryo attaches to the uterine wall it cannot ever reproduce.

 

[respect]

In other words, a fetus may become a human being, but it isn't a human being.

No. Likewise, a woman who has gone through menopause does not cease to be a human because she can not reproduce anymore. The characteristics of an organism must be a part of the normal life cycle of the species to qualify, they do not have to be present in individuals at all times.

 

[respect]

They're still human, but no longer a human being. The thing that makes them a human being, their consciousness and sapience, is gone, which is why it's legal to make the decision to end their lives.

It is legal because they are not expected to regain any sort of quality of life and have granted someone else permission to make the choice for them. Alternatively, it is not legal to "pull the plug" on someone who has lost consciousness but will likely regain it, for example, you cannot euthanize someone who is having a seizure, although according to the definition you guys are using, they are not a human while suffering the seizure.

 

[uke2se]

Can we please move this derail to the science forums? We're not interested in Respect's own definition of a human being (which, as we have learned, differs from that of biologists). We are interested in discussing the Texas GOP's war on women.

 

[respect]

I've already addressed this. I think of my father as a human being even though he passed away. I think of him as a person. Part of the problem is, as I said before, the vagaries of the human language. And I would add, perceptions. It's like when an atty asks a yes or no question that can't be answered with yes or no.

I think it is arguable that a person in a persistent vegetative state is a human. I think it is arguable that such a person isn't. I think such distinctions absurd. We could go the other direction and ask about identical twins. Prior to splitting it is one organism with many cells. After splitting it is two organisms with half as many cells. Some times the second twin is reabsorbed into the other twin. Is it now two organisms or just one? What about conjoined twins (two heads, one body). One organism or two? Let me ask you this. Would you prefer to be a brain donor or recipient? If your brain were transplanted into another body would your brain and someone else's body be you or someone else? Would it be one organism or two (twice as many chromosomes)?

I don't find such fine points to be helpful. What is clear is that prior to viability that which makes us fundamentally human, our thoughts and feelings, are negligent at best.

Multiple organisms can use parts of one body. All of the bacteria living in each of us are separate organisms from ourselves. Can we separate the characteristics that define an organism in each? If so, they are different organisms regardless of some sort of symbiotic or parasitic relationship.

 

[A'isha]

No. Likewise, a woman who has gone through menopause does not cease to be a human because she can not reproduce anymore. The characteristics of an organism must be a part of the normal life cycle of the species to qualify, they do not have to be present in individuals at all times.

No, she's still human because she still possesses consciousness and sapience, while a fetus has none of those things.

But reproduction is not the only one of the categories at your link that a fetus does not exactly fit into.

 

[A'isha]

Can we please move this derail to the science forums? We're not interested in Respect's own definition of a human being (which, as we have learned, differs from that of biologists). We are interested in discussing the Texas GOP's war on women.

You're right...I apologize!

 

[Dorian Gray]

You guys need to stop this semantic bull defecation. The answer is simple: If YOU think life begins at X, then conduct YOUR life that way - but let others decide how to live THEIR lives. Pro-choice means that - let everyone decide for themselves what is right on this TOTALLY EQUIVOCAL issue. There are pro-choice supporters who are themselves pro-life. I am one of them, with the three universal exceptions of rape, incest and danger to the mother.

Otherwise, you're pretty much just making a list of what YOU like, then passing or supporting laws that ban everything not on that list, which is, as I indicated before, bull defecation.

What's particularly hilarious is when people use science to support their religious opinions on this one issue, yet eschew science in general.

 

[respect]

Why can't that be said of sperm? Unless the embryo attaches to the uterine wall it cannot ever reproduce.

Lot's of things can happen between the point of conception and reproduction that would stop the organism from reproducing. If a seven year old dies in a car accident they will never reproduce. This is irrelevant. The ability to reproduce is part of the normal human life cycle. Sperm cannot reproduce. Obviously they are very involved in the reproduction of humans, being the male sex cell and all, but that is the reproduction of humans, not sperm. They are a cell that performs a function for the mutlicellular organism, not an organism themselves. Alternatively, the bacteria living in your stomach can reproduce more bacteria just like you can reproduce more humans.

 

[respect]

Can we please move this derail to the science forums? We're not interested in Respect's own definition of a human being (which, as we have learned, differs from that of biologists). We are interested in discussing the Texas GOP's war on women.

Incidentally, "my" definition is the actual definition of the word.

 

[respect]

No, she's still human because she still possesses consciousness and sapience, while a fetus has none of those things.

But reproduction is not the only one of the categories at your link that a fetus does not exactly fit into.

It fits into all of them.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Multiple organisms can use parts of one body. All of the bacteria living in each of us are separate organisms from ourselves. Can we separate the characteristics that define an organism in each? If so, they are different organisms regardless of some sort of symbiotic or parasitic relationship.

First of all, this same thing can be said for different parts within the same cell. Meanwhile, this is totally off the subject of the thread.

Speaking of which, drunk on their passage of the 20 week bill, Texas Republicans now have introduced YET ANOTHER MORE RESTRICTIVE bill.

I'm looking at you, Respect and XJX388.

In THIS bill, they want to "criminalize abortion services after a fetal heartbeat can be detected — which typically occurs around six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they’re pregnant."

Oh, no. They're not changing much of anything. Not changing much at all.

 

[respect]

First of all, this same thing can be said for different parts within the same cell. Meanwhile, this is totally off the subject of the thread.

Speaking of which, drunk on their passage of the 20 week bill, Texas Republicans now have introduced YET ANOTHER MORE RESTRICTIVE bill.

I'm looking at you, Respect and XJX388.

In THIS bill, they want to "criminalize abortion services after a fetal heartbeat can be detected — which typically occurs around six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they’re pregnant."

Oh, no. They're not changing much of anything. Not changing much at all.

The Supreme Court may not be too fond of that.

 

[RandFan]

Multiple organisms can use parts of one body. All of the bacteria living in each of us are separate organisms from ourselves. Can we separate the characteristics that define an organism in each? If so, they are different organisms regardless of some sort of symbiotic or parasitic relationship.

Hang on, slow your roll, my example is of identical twins. Same genetic material. One set of chromosomes. It is nothing like a parasite or some sort of symbiotic parasitic relationship.

Please try again.

Lot's of things can happen between the point of conception and reproduction that would stop the organism from reproducing. If a seven year old dies in a car accident they will never reproduce. This is irrelevant. The ability to reproduce is part of the normal human life cycle. Sperm cannot reproduce. Obviously they are very involved in the reproduction of humans, being the male sex cell and all, but that is the reproduction of humans, not sperm. They are a cell that performs a function for the mutlicellular organism, not an organism themselves. Alternatively, the bacteria living in your stomach can reproduce more bacteria just like you can reproduce more humans.

A blastocyst in the womb cannot reproduce. This is the textbook example of special pleading and ad hoc rationalization.

• Sperm cannot reproduce (unless it fertilizes an egg, then it will be able to reproduce).
• An embryo cannot reproduce (unless it attaches to the uterine wall, then it will be able to reproduce).

Your error is in your equivocation of the word "it". Neither blastocyst or sperm have the physiological means to reproduce. Both will be long gone and replaced by other cells long before "it" reaches sexual maturity.

 

[RandFan]

If a seven year old dies in a car accident they will never reproduce.

BTW: I think this supports my argument far more than it does yours.

From separate sperm and ovum, to conception, to gastrulation, to birth, to puberty.

You are choosing an arbitrary point to decide when something can reproduce long before "it" can reproduce.

 

[respect]

Hang on, slow your roll, my example is of identical twins. Same genetic material. One set of chromosomes. It is nothing like a parasite or some sort of symbiotic parasitic relationship.

Please try again.

A blastocyst in the womb cannot reproduce. This is the textbook example of special pleading and ad hoc rationalization.

• Sperm cannot reproduce (unless it fertilizes an egg, then it will be able to reproduce).
• An embryo cannot reproduce (unless it attaches to the uterine wall, then it will be able to reproduce).

Your error is in your equivocation of the word "it". Neither blastocyst or sperm have the physiological means to reproduce. Both will be long gone and replaced by other cells long before "it" reaches sexual maturity.

Identical twins are separate contiguous living systems, likewise, if you could clone yourself your clone would be a separate organism from you. Conjoined twins have a symbiotic relationship.

Also, a blastocyst is at a stage in its life cycle where it cannot reproduce, this is not the case with sperm, it is serving a function for the multicellular organism that produced it. Likewise, a human baby cannot reproduce. It will be able to later. This is part of the "growth and development" aspect of an organism. Organisms go through different stages of maturity. Your blood cells serve a function for the whole, they are not going to wander off and start a family of blood cells independent of you.

Quite frankly, it is hard to believe that you don't understand that an eight year old human and one of their skin cells can be classified differently in terms of one being and organism and the other not being one, even if you are unaware of the reasoning behind the different classifications.