Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[respect]

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.

I am not choosing any arbitrary point, sexual reproduction develops during the teenage years in the human life cycle. Prior to, and post, the ability to reproduce are different stages of development in the life cycle. You are a human for the entirety of your life cycle. There are no points where you are alive but a different species.

 

[RandFan]

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.

Hang on, presumably I could clone my skin cells. So, skin cells, like a fertilized egg are potential human beings. They could be a separate organism just like an embryo can split in two before gasturation. Just because my blood cells are not going to wander off and start new humans does not mean that they are not potentially new human beings.

I see nothing special about an embryo that makes it any more special than skin cells, blood cells or sperm and ovum. You are just picking an arbitrary point to say when a human begins.

Prior to gasturation is an embryo potentially one life, two, three? The idea of "potential" is just as applicable to sperm as it is to zygote.

Sperm is a cell. The fertilized egg is a cell. One is just a little further along in development than the other. Point of fact, a fertilized egg is much closer to a sperm than it is a functioning human being with thoughts and feelings.

 

[RandFan]

I am not choosing any arbitrary point, sexual reproduction develops during the teenage years in the human life cycle. Prior to, and post, the ability to reproduce are different stages of development in the life cycle. You are a human for the entirety of your life cycle. There are no points where you are alive but a different species.

I was once separate sperm and ovum. When I was I was alive. I was two independent cells. Kinda like when an embryo becomes to separate cells and then combines again. There is no point when the sperm and ovum are a different species. No where in my past were my cells dead before they became alive. Sperm was my first stage toward becoming a human being. Next was conception, then gastrulation, etc., etc..

There is no magical point when day begins. It's a gradient. There is no magical point at which a human begins. It's simply a gradient. Sperm and ovum separately are potential life. Zygote is potential life. Blastocyst is potential life. On and on.

Human cells known as "sperm" are potentially new human beings.

 

[RandFan]

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.

BTW: Ever see a zygote wander off and create a family of zygotes independent of the first zygote?

You are playing with words. Zygotes cannot have sex with other zygotes and have baby zygotes.

Sperm and ovum can join and develop into a human being capable of reproduction just as well as a zygote can develop into a human being capable of reproduction.

 

[respect]

Hang on, presumably I could clone my skin cells. So, skin cells, like a fertilized egg are potential human beings. They could be a separate organism just like an embryo can split in two before gasturation. Just because my blood cells are not going to wander off and start new humans does not mean that they are not potentially new human beings.

I see nothing special about an embryo that makes it any more special than skin cells, blood cells or sperm and ovum. You are just picking an arbitrary point to say when a human begins.

Prior to gasturation is an embryo potentially one life, two, three? The idea of "potential" is just as applicable to sperm as it is to zygote.

Sperm is a cell. The fertilized egg is a cell. One is just a little further along in development than the other. Point of fact, a fertilized egg is much closer to a sperm than it is a functioning human being with thoughts and feelings.

The peculiar part of this is that I am not picking any arbitrary points, you are bringing in arbitrary distinctions and doing all of the special pleading. I am simply defining the organism by its species for the entirety of its life cycle, you are special pleading for nonexistent additional qualifications.

You do, unintentionally, bring up an interesting topic although it isn't relevant to the one under discussion. As science and technology advance, the fringes of life and organisms may expand. Additionally, it is possible that we someday find alien life that does not fall under our current definitions. Farther, artificial "life" cannot grow and develop in the sense that biological organisms do but if we ever develop robots with thoughts and feelings we may have to look at changing some of our definitions. Whether or not viruses should be considered alive has long been debated. Note though, potential is not the same undergoing a life cycle. So, potential cloning material is akin to sperm and eggs that aren't joined, the potential may be there for them to play their part in creating a new organism but they aren't being used for it. There is some debate about whether or not zygotes qualify as organisms, but not after more development from there where they clearly meet all criteria. A fetus is in one of the earliest stages of the organism's life cycle. Sperm and eggs are not, they simply carry the necessary material to start the life cycle.

Again, this does not mean a fetus deserves any rights at all, but it is a living organism, it is not a sub-part of an organism like one of your cells or organs. Arguing about this is quite silly.

 

[respect]

I was once separate sperm and ovum. When I was I was alive. I was two independent cells. Kinda like when an embryo becomes to separate cells and then combines again. There is no point when the sperm and ovum are a different species. No where in my past were my cells dead before they became alive. Sperm was my first stage toward becoming a human being. Next was conception, then gastrulation, etc., etc..

There is no magical point when day begins. It's a gradient. There is no magical point at which a human begins. It's simply a gradient. Sperm and ovum separately are potential life. Zygote is potential life. Blastocyst is potential life. On and on.

Human cells known as "sperm" are potentially new human beings.

You were never a separate sperm and egg, there was no you then. Your dad had a sperm and your mom had an egg. Your life cycle had not started when they were separated. Likewise, the material that you are made of now was once created in the core of a star, that does not mean you are a star. The matter you are made out of existed before you did and it will after you die.

And yes, life is continuous collectively, however, we can still identify the life cycle's of individual organisms. We will all die some day, life won't end then, but the life of the organism that is each of us will. Death is the end of the individual's life cycle.

 

[respect]

BTW: Ever see a zygote wander off and create a family of zygotes independent of the first zygote?

You are playing with words. Zygotes cannot have sex with other zygotes and have baby zygotes.

Sperm and ovum can join and develop into a human being capable of reproduction just as well as a zygote can develop into a human being capable of reproduction.

No, zygotes cannot parent more zygotes. The term zygote describes a stage of development, not a species. Blood cells are not a stage of development in an organism's life cycle.

It is hard to believe that you cannot understand the difference.

 

[RandFan]

The peculiar part of this is that I am not picking any arbitrary points, you are bringing in arbitrary distinctions and doing all of the special pleading.

What special pleading have I offered? You have made a claim about when a human begins. When challenged on it you keep bringing in "special circumstances". You think there is something special about conception when there is nothing whatsoever special about it. You could have picked any moment of development for your special pleading. Most people realize how absurd it would be to protect sperm so they fall back to conception with no basis for why.

 

[RandFan]

You were never a separate sperm and egg, there was no you then. Your dad had a sperm and your mom had an egg. Your life cycle had not started when they were separated.

You can argue that but you can also argue that is exactly when my life cycle began. The DNA that was contained in the sperm and ovum are the very same DNA that I'm composed of now. It was the same as the zygote which is is long since gone.

And yes, life is continuous collectively, however, we can still identify the life cycle's of individual organisms.

Which started with unique sperm and ovum. There is nothing that is false about that. All of us started as sperm and ovum. That's a fact. They are just microscope cells. Each stage is crucial to our existence. You want to give some magic to conception. As I've stated, developmental biologists do not refer to a zygote as a human (noun). They refer to it as human (adjective).

PZ Myers, a developmental biologist has made quite clear that a fertilized egg is not a human.

The anti-choice advocates are always citing a handful of embryologists in order to claim that scientists say human life begins at fertilization. The one fellow who is always getting cited in these claims is Keith L. Moore, a very familiar name in embryology circles, because he wrote several introductory texts on human embryology. I thought I would quote what Moore and Persaud actually wrote in the 4th edition of Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects

in 1993 (this text has been around since 1974, so it really has trained a generation in medical embryology, and there is also a 2012 edition, which I don’t own…it’s a bit on the elementary side for my interests).


The section on the first week of human development begins:

Human development begins at conception or fertilization when a male gamete or sperm fuses with a female gamete or ovum to form a zygote (Br. zygotos, yoked together). This highly specialized, totipotent cell is the primordium of a new human being. By birth the zygote has given rise to millions of cells [that's an underestimate --pzm]. Although large, the zygote is just visible to the unaided eye. It contains chromosomes and genes (units of genetic information) derived from the mother and father.

Odd…it doesn’t say we have a human being at fertilization, but instead says we have a totipotent cell that is a primordium that will become a human being.

That is 2 experts. Your position is not shared by the consensus of scientists. You want me to adopt your arbitrary designation. That's like asking me to reject the scientific consensus on evolution.

You are not going to get anywhere by ignoring science. And don't say you are not ignoring science. You haven't produced one iota of evidence for what science says on the matter.

 

[RandFan]

No, zygotes cannot parent more zygotes. The term zygote describes a stage of development, not a species. Blood cells are not a stage of development in an organism's life cycle.

It is hard to believe that you cannot understand the difference.

It's hard to believe that you cannot understand my argument.

A zygote is not a species nor is it simply a stage of development. A blastocyst is not a species nor is it only a stage of development. They are human cells. Human blood is made of human cells. Human skin is made up of human cells.

Human sperm are human cells.

Yes, I get that you are trying to gain rhetorical advantage through equivocating your words. But your error is that developmental stages are not simply stages. A blastocyst and zygote are specific things like sperm and ovum are specific things.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I never said no new barriers, I said that not much would change. Rural Texans will still have to travel for abortion, while the people in population centers will have limited access. A slight change from today.

The reduction in clinics will reduce access for many poorer women. This will also reduce access for routine medical screenings and the many other medical needs women get from these clinics. The intention of these laws is to ban abortion by chipping away at access.

Again, why do conservatives have to lie about these facts?

 

[thaiboxerken]

No, zygotes cannot parent more zygotes. The term zygote describes a stage of development, not a species. Blood cells are not a stage of development in an organism's life cycle.

It is hard to believe that you cannot understand the difference.

If you order chicken at a restaurant, would you be upset if they served you a chicken embrio? If so, why?

 

[thaiboxerken]

What really is messed up about the GOP passing all of these anti-abortion measures in the states that they have control is:

1. How they got control (gerrymandering)
2. How they are passing these laws. (trying to sneak them through)

This tells me that they understand that they have the minority opinion on this issue but still want to impose their morality (mostly based on religion) on others.

Tell all of your friends. A vote for the GOP is a vote to ban abortion. They don't campaign on it, but it's all they've concentrated on wherever they have power.

 

[RandFan]

If you order chicken at a restaurant, would you be upset if they served you a chicken embrio? If so, why?

If it is fertilized, according to respect, a chicken egg is a chicken.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If it is fertilized, according to respect, a chicken egg is a chicken.

Yep, there is no distinction between a chicken zygote, embrio or adult chicken.
Somehow, I think some special pleading will be introduced by respect.

 

[xjx388]

Ok, RandFan, let's accept that sperm, ovum, zygote, blastocyte -all stages up to a fetus -are not human beings. Indeed, we can grant this because abortion, even in Texas, is still legal in the embryonic stages.

Now, according to developmental biologists, when does the fetus become a human being? And then, what is the scientifically observed process or signal that converts the fetus from mere human tissue (akin to a skin cell) into a human being?

 

[RandFan]

Now, according to developmental biologists, when does the fetus become a human being?

When does night become day? Loki's paradox. Development from sperm to a human is a cline (gradient). There is no magic moment. The scientific community does not hold that there is a magic moment.

And then, what is the scientifically observed process or signal that converts the fetus from mere human tissue (akin to a skin cell) into a human being?

You never answered my question. Given the choice of being a brain donor or a recipient which would you rather be?

IMO: In the very least their needs to be the fundamental basis for our humanity. The ability to think, feel, self awareness. Unless you would be willing to throw your brain away and get a new brain then you understand this intuitively.

Your body is the least important aspect of you. What makes you "a human" are your memories and your ability to think and feel. What makes two identical twins different? Different life's experiences. Different memories.

What is the process?

Temple Grandin explains it perfectly in her thesis Animals Are Not Things.

The cow has legal protections that a screwdriver does not have. These legal protections only apply to live animals that have a well developed nervous system.

What process? The development of a nervous system. Until then the tissue cannot suffer. It cannot hope for the future. It cannot appreciate its existence in any sense.

That's the process.

 

[xjx388]

When does night become day? Loki's paradox. Development from sperm to a human is a cline (gradient). There is no magic moment. The scientific community does not hold that there is a magic moment.

Well, day becomes night when the sun dips below the horizon.

The scientific community is not interested in drawing a line at the point at which a being becomes fully human. Science simply observes and describes. Developmental biologists understand that human development continues throughout the lifespan from zygote through puberty through the reproductive years until death. You won't find labels from them because there is no point ever when the organism stops being human. They may have opinions, like you and I, but their opinion holds no more weight because that opinion is philosophical in nature.

You never answered my question. Given the choice of being a brain donor or a recipient which would you rather be?

A donor, obviously. But let's switch it up a little. Let's say two former fetuses have their brains surreptitiously switched immediately after birth. The parents will never know, since the newborns had no memories up to that point. So, does this make the newborns less of a human being than myself, the brain donor?

IMO: In the very least their needs to be the fundamental basis for our humanity. The ability to think, feel, self awareness. Unless you would be willing to throw your brain away and get a new brain then you understand this intuitively.

OK. There's no doubt that fetuses have brain activity in the womb. They react to maternal emotions. They react to external stimuli. They make facial expressions. So they are thinking and feeling in the womb, maybe not like you and I, but definitively nonetheless.

As for self-awareness, neonates are not self-aware. Self-awareness doesn't fully develop until age 4 or 5. So, is a 2 year old not a full human being?

More germane to the topic at hand, at what point in the continuum of development is a human being worthy of protection by society? This is not something we get to decide individually. What if a woman decides that her two-month old is too much of a burden and she suffocates it? Obviously, at some point, we have to decide as a society at what point we will protect that human.

In the present case, Texas has drawn the line at 20 weeks. The rationale is that the fetus can feel pain at this point. Of course, this is a controversial claim. However, there is no doubt that at 20 weeks, fetal neural development is well underway; in fact, by embryonic day 108 (approximately 17 weeks), cortical neurogenesis is complete. Brain development is rapid after this point. So while there really isn't any empirical evidence that the fetus feels pain, it remains eminently possible due to the advanced development of the nervous system at this point. I think 20 weeks is a reasonable estimate for a different reason: It's on the cusp of viability, which is SCOTUS' legal line. We'll see if it holds up.

Your body is the least important aspect of you. What makes you "a human" are your memories and your ability to think and feel. What makes two identical twins different? Different life's experiences. Different memories.

This implies, then, that very young infants are not individuals. Yet, I'm quite sure you don't advocate that they can be killed.

What is the process?

Temple Grandin explains it perfectly in her thesis Animals Are Not Things.

What process? The development of a nervous system. Until then the tissue cannot suffer. It cannot hope for the future. It cannot appreciate its existence in any sense.

That's the process.

As I pointed out earlier, the nervous system is highly developed by week 17. The paper I linked to points out that by week 26, the sensory and motor pathways are completely formed. It also points out that neural development continues postnatally. Also, infants can't hope for the future or appreciate their existences, as the other paper on the development of self-awareness I linked to explains. So are infants not human beings?

 

[A'isha]

Well, day becomes night when the sun dips below the horizon.

So these are photos of the nighttime sky to you, then?

OK. There's no doubt that fetuses have brain activity in the womb.

"We present the results of resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging performed in 25 healthy human fetuses in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy (24 to 38 weeks of gestation)."

How does this support your arguments when it comes to the Texas bill moving the cutoff date for abortions from 24 weeks to 20 weeks?

They react to maternal emotions.

Fetal arm movements, but not leg or trunk movements, change in response to the mother's emotions (and only in fetuses between 28 and 36 weeks, according to the study). And, as the study notes, this is nothing to do with the fetus itself feeling any kind of emotions, but reacting in response to the physiological changes of the mother's body in response to her own emotional states.

How does this support your arguments when it comes to the Texas bill moving the cutoff date for abortions from 24 weeks to 20 weeks?

They react to external stimuli.

Again, the study focuses on fetuses with a gestational age of 28 to 41 weeks for acoustical stimulation, and during labor for cutaneous stimulation.

How does this support your arguments when it comes to the Texas bill moving the cutoff date for abortions from 24 weeks to 20 weeks?

They make facial expressions.

"Reissland pointed out that these facial movements don't mean the fetuses were experiencing emotion. 'We can see the expressions which we can recognize; we can't say whether the fetus has emotion,' she said. 'They [don't] have yet the cognition necessary to have the emotions.' [Smiles Are Innate, Not Learned]".

So fetuses having facial expressions doesn't mean what you apparently think it means.

So they are thinking and feeling in the womb, maybe not like you and I, but definitively nonetheless.

None of the above links suggest in any way that fetuses are thinking and feeling in the womb.

As for self-awareness, neonates are not self-aware. Self-awareness doesn't fully develop until age 4 or 5. So, is a 2 year old not a full human being?

A 2 year old is also not reliant on its mothers physiology for survival. That's why comparing a child that has been born to a fetus still in the womb is illegitimate for the purposes of the abortion debate.

In the present case, Texas has drawn the line at 20 weeks. The rationale is that the fetus can feel pain at this point. Of course, this is a controversial claim. However, there is no doubt that at 20 weeks, fetal neural development is well underway; in fact, by embryonic day 108 (approximately 17 weeks), cortical neurogenesis is complete. Brain development is rapid after this point. So while there really isn't any empirical evidence that the fetus feels pain, it remains eminently possible due to the advanced development of the nervous system at this point. I think 20 weeks is a reasonable estimate for a different reason: It's on the cusp of viability, which is SCOTUS' legal line. We'll see if it holds up.

24 weeks is the cusp of viability. 20 weeks is before SCOTUS' legal line, and so runs afoul of their ruling that states cannot ban abortion before viability. NPR had a segment about this very thing this morning.

 

[Dcdrac]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/22/proud-daughter-anti-abortion-placard