Abortion Protesters Who Get Abortions

[Fiona]

A whole new meaning for pareidoelia....

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Am I the only one in this thread who has ever taken a botany class, and in the course of it, have dissected a seed and seen with my own eyes the miniature plant contained therein?

What you're calling a "miniature plant" is in fact, in botanical terminology, an embryo. An embryo is not a tree.

 

[Phage0070]

Canis familiaris, then? Ursus arctos horribilis? Or maybe even giving it mammalian status would be too much: paramecium bursaria, perhaps?

Is sperm a human? Why or why not?

Is an egg from a human woman a human? Why or why not?

Is a finger, separate from the rest of the body, a human? Why or why not?

Is a fertilized egg, without a womb, a human? Why or why not?

I say none of those are humans because they cannot live under their own power. In the same way that you cannot force me to act as a blood filter for someone with kidney failure, you cannot force a woman to carry a fetus to term.

 

[theprestige]

I'm done trying to argue with an obvious mind reader. Thank you for working so diligently (and pedantically) to not get the point of what I was saying that you were willing to create a labyrinth of nonsense to avoid it. How ironic that you bring up conspiracy theorist method, since you follow their model of ridiculous expectations and lack of nuance to hold tight to your conclusions.

No mind reading is necessary.

Tiller's claim refers to women who picket him, get abortions from him, and then go back to picketing him.

Your essay refers to women who believe abortions are wrong, who then go and get abortions.

You brought up the essay as support for Tiller's claim. I don't need to be a mind-reader to figure out that therefore you intend for the essay to support Tiller's claim.

The only problem is, there are specific nuances to Tiller's claim--the picketers, the getting an abortion from the clinic they're picketing, the returning to picket that same clinic--which your essay doesn't address. Those are the nuances that I'm skeptical about. And since those are the nuances that the essay doesn't address, I don't see how the essay supports Tiller's claim.

That's the straightest line I can draw. I hope you will be able to follow it, and either show where in your essay I missed its support for the nuances of Tiller's claim, or else agree that the essay does not actually corroborate those nuances.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What you're calling a "miniature plant" is in fact, in botanical terminology, an embryo. An embryo is not a tree.

Only in the same sense that a human embryo is not a toddler, and a toddler is not an adolescent, and an adolescent isn't (quite) an adult. But it's the same organism, the same species, in different stages of its life.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I say none of those are humans because they cannot live under their own power.

By that definition, one isn't a human until one is old enough to move out, get a job, and support one's self. Until one reaches that point, one is dependent on others (usually one's parents) for one's own survival.

 

[Morrigan]

You don't have a very firm grasp on what "survival" means.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Next time you're eating peanuts, take the time to separate the two halves of a peanut kernel, and take a careful look. Near one end of one of these halves, you will see something that is very clearly a very small plant. It's got a stem, and it's got leaves. That's a peanut plant.

Here's a picture of one, taken just moments ago through my microscope. This one's dead, of course, having been roasted and salted and prepared for use as food rather than allowed to continue its existence as a living thing, but it's still very recognizable as having once been a living plant. (Well, it was. Just after taking this picture, I ate it, so now it's been chewed up and is dissolving in my stomach.)

No. *sigh* it contains a PATTERN for a tree.

The object in the picture above is not a “PATTERN” for a peanut plant. It *IS* a peanut plant. Or at least it was until it was roasted and salted and eaten.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/images/4872

Hmm.. this cross section of an acorn certainly doesn't appear to contain a miniature tree in there.

This section of my apartment doesn't appear to contain any people. I guess this proves that nobody lives in this apartment.

 

[Sun Countess]

Only in the same sense that a human embryo is not a toddler, and a toddler is not an adolescent, and an adolescent isn't (quite) an adult. But it's the same organism, the same species, in different stages of its life.

Are there giantesses walking the earth providing their very large wombs for humans to live in during all stages of their lives? How have I not noticed them before?

Hmmm, maybe it's because one of those things is not like the others.

Perhaps my uterus provides me with some special ability to spot the difference.

 

[Sun Countess]

The object in the picture above is not a “PATTERN” for a peanut plant. It *IS* a peanut plant. Or at least it was until it was roasted and salted and eaten.

So if I go to my local nursery and ask for some peanut plants, I should be happy if the guy tosses me a bag of unroasted peanuts?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Only in the same sense that a human embryo is not a toddler, and a toddler is not an adolescent, and an adolescent isn't (quite) an adult. But it's the same organism, the same species, in different stages of its life.

Not it's not. Why not go the other direction? Would you consider a blastocyst to be an organism? How about a zygote?

What about haploid cells? Are they humans? Is it murder every time you kill a human cell? (Note the difference in usage between "human" as an adjective and "human" as a noun.)

ETA: Your post reminds me of my favorite parody of the "It's a child not a choice" bumper sticker: "It's an adolescent not a choice" or "It's a senior citizen not a choice". They make as much sense.

The object in the picture above is not a “PATTERN” for a peanut plant. It *IS* a peanut plant. Or at least it was until it was roasted and salted and eaten.

No it's not. It is a peanut embryo.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The object in the picture above is not a “PATTERN” for a peanut plant. It *IS* a peanut plant. Or at least it was until it was roasted and salted and eaten.

That doesn't look like a plant to me. In fact, if it was pink, I'd think it was pornographic. You seem to have a strange ability to see things that aren't there.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Could a moderator please split the recent posts into a new thread called "If I eat a peanut, have I killed a tree?"?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I wonder, if eating a peanut is killing a tree, why aren't environmentalists all up in arms about this?

 

[Cactus Wren]

When I was about nine years old, and you are all crazy if you think I'm going to give you any idea of how long ago that was, I read a story in a children's magazine about a sailor in a strange port, who walked into an eating-house looking for some supper. The mistress of the place served him a dish of eggs, that being all she had in the house; but before he could pay for them one of his shipmates ran in and told him the ship was about to sail. The sailor dashed out the door, promising to return and pay for his meal.

And, indeed, four years later he returned and asked for his bill. The mistress of the place presented him with a bill for twenty thousand gold crowns: the value of the poultry farm she would have had by then, if instead of cooking the eggs she had hatched them out.

The sailor, outraged, insisted that since he had only eaten eggs, he should only pay for eggs.

Who was right, Mr. Blaylock?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

When I was about nine years old, and you are all crazy if you think I'm going to give you any idea of how long ago that was, I read a story in a children's magazine about a sailor in a strange port, who walked into an eating-house looking for some supper. The mistress of the place served him a dish of eggs, that being all she had in the house; but before he could pay for them one of his shipmates ran in and told him the ship was about to sail. The sailor dashed out the door, promising to return and pay for his meal.

And, indeed, four years later he returned and asked for his bill. The mistress of the place presented him with a bill for twenty thousand gold crowns: the value of the poultry farm she would have had by then, if instead of cooking the eggs she had hatched them out.

The sailor, outraged, insisted that since he had only eaten eggs, he should only pay for eggs.

Who was right, Mr. Blaylock?

I don't see that it's relevant to the discussion, but obviously, the sailor was correct.

To say that had the woman hatched out the eggs, she would have had a valuable poultry farm in four years, is speculative, as is any guess as to how valuable that farm would be. We can't even assume that any of those eggs were fertilized. In any event, the woman chose to prepare and sell the eggs as food, and not on any speculative value of the chickens that they might contain, or the chickens that might have descended from those and so on, over the course of four years. If the eggs were fertile, and if the woman had intended to hatch them out and use them as the basis for a chicken farm, then she shouldn't have sold them as eggs.


So, how was the story resolved?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Only in the same sense that a human embryo is not a toddler, and a toddler is not an adolescent, and an adolescent isn't (quite) an adult. But it's the same organism, the same species, in different stages of its life.

Not it's not. Why not go the other direction? Would you consider a blastocyst to be an organism? How about a zygote?

What about haploid cells? Are they humans? Is it murder every time you kill a human cell? (Note the difference in usage between "human" as an adjective and "human" as a noun.)

You've got to draw a line somewhere. I assert that this line needs to be drawn at a place where something has come into existence that is clearly, indisputably, different in a meaningful way than what existed before — a point where something now exists that wasn't there a moment ago. I assert, further, than in the entire human life cycle, there are only two points where this occurs.

One of these points is meiosis, the process by which gametes (eggs and sperm) are formed. Here, the parent's DNA is divided up into haploid cells, each containing a subset of the parent's DNA. In some primitive organisms (Chlamydomonas, for example) the resulting haploid cells are indeed, a complete form of the organism. But humans are not Chlamydomonas, and there are obvious practical problems with trying to define a human gamete as a human being.


The other point in the human life cycle that produces something that is clearly different than what existed before is syngamy, where the DNA of two gametes are combined to form a new, unique genetic pattern, that defines the product of this union as a new organism, distinct from its parents. This, I say, is the moment that a new human being comes into existence. This is the moment after which, to deliberately cause its death — absent some drastic circumstances under which homicide is otherwise justifiable — is a murderous act which ought to be recognized and treated as such. Any difference between the newly-formed zygote, and an embryo, between an embryo and a fetus, between a fetus and an infant, between an infant and a toddler, between a toddler and an adolescent, between an adolescent and an adult; are all only a matter of growth and development, and not of anything new suddenly coming into existence that didn't previously exist. From zygote to adult, it is the very same organism, at different stages of its life and development.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I say none of those are humans because they cannot live under their own power.

By that definition, one isn't a human until one is old enough to move out, get a job, and support one's self. Until one reaches that point, one is dependent on others (usually one's parents) for one's own survival.

You don't have a very firm grasp on what "survival" means.

What would happen if you left a newborn infant to fend for himself, with nobody to care for him? Would he survive? What about a two-year-old? At what point does a child gain the ability to meet its own basic needs, without depending on older people to care for him? By any rational interpretation of the definition that Phage0070 gave, the child doesn't become a human being until that point is reached.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I assert that your zygote line is silly. It is not a being until it is actually an independent life-form. And your semantic game about dependence doesn't fool anyone. You're asserting indirect dependence when we're talking about direct dependence.